SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Date:
Tue Jul 24 10:09:38 2007
Message-ID:
<p0624081ec2cbaf1b38e7@[130.104.187.109]>
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Axel Gosseries)
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (24 lines)
Dear colleagues,

in 1883, Sidgwick wrote:

? So, again, if it is economically advantageous 
to a nation to keep up forests, on account of 
their beneficial effects in moderating and 
equalising rainfall, the advantage is one which 
private enterprise has no tendency to provide ; 
since no one could appropriate and sell 
improvements to climate ? Henry Sidgwick, The 
Principles of Political Economy
p. 406, 3d. ed 1901, 1st Ed 1883

I was wondering what the main reason would be why 
Sidgwick did not see that improvements to climate 
could actually be sold (through a tradable quotas 
scheme). Any suggestions?

Many thanks in advance,
Yours sincerely,

Axel Gosseries

ATOM RSS1 RSS2