Here we are supposed to comment on the concepts of Externalities and Tragedy of the Commons.

Externalities is a term in economics that refers to factors of a transaction that are impacts on parties not directly involved in the transaction. When that happens, the price of that transaction does not reflect the full costs or benefits of the product or service being transacted. These spillover effects can be both positive and negative.

Since this is an environmental class, I will try to focus an externality that have to do with that. Pollution is an example of an externality. A coal burning electric plant in Minnesota can pump carbon into the air that pollutes the neighboring towns and the surrounding environment. The carbon emissions from this plant also rise and spread out in the atmosphere --hanging there for fifty years. These carbon emissions can even affect a village in Africa or the condition of the polar icecaps.

The difficulty of externalities is that their effects and costs are difficult to accurately determine. Often we don't understand the side effects until we are too reliant on the product or even before it's too late. In our economically driven society, we want to quantify things and put a price tag on them. Suing a power plant for damages done, or taxing them for their use is often a popular solution to the problem. Yet, money isn't going to fix the mess. Plus, this may not be entirely fair. We were all in support of power plants. Wlectric lights, air conditioning, electric appliances, etc. are all conveniences we clamored for and now rely upon. But now that we understand much of the damage these power plants are doing to the environment, we want to disassociate ourselves and lay the blame entirely on them. We want them to carry the burden of higher taxes and clean-up. Meanwhile, these plants are scrambling to provide enough fuel to keep up with demand when the weather turns cold and we crank up the heat. How convenient.

There is also the difficulty in determining what that price tag might be. We may not understand the damage a new technology or practice may create until a hundred years down the road. We can't predict it. On the other hand, we tend to bow to the almighty dollar first and believe ourselves invincible in the face of exciting new discoveries. As Drs. Stoff and Pellegrino explained in their book "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: The Hidden Epidemic", humans are developing technology faster than they can ever hope to understand it. We have more power than ever before, but we have not yet mastered its potential. We're creating more than we know how to handle. It might be time to slow down and deal with what we've got.

Which brings me to the "tragedy of the commons". This is a phrase coined by scientist Garrett Hardin in 1968. He uses the example of farmers in Europe grazing animals on a common field. He believes that a farmer would happily add another animal to his herd to graze on that common because of the benefits to his business. He could make more from the sale of that extra cow or sheep. However, this additional animal could tip the scales and deplete the grazing potential of the land for all farmers. He could ruin himself and everyone. The same goes for fishing. One greedy fishery could deplete the sources for everyone. Again, we are looking at the economics of the situation. The money speaks louder than common sense. And greed makes many want to keep everything for themselves. Can you believe Hardin had critics of his ideas? Yeesh. The tragedy of the commoms is commonsense.

As we begin reaching peak capacity on many of our natural resources, it's important to look at Hardin's work again. He attempts to offer solutions to the problem. I don't necessarily agree with his privatizing things. We already have enough dispute over land and water rights --wars are fought for that. Yet, we do have to realize that there is a finite amount of resources, and we must cut back to allow those that can recuperate a chance to recover.