Archive for the ‘Ambiente’ Category

Uma das críticas como à eficiência do mercado é o facto de haver externalidades. O mercado não inclui todos os benefícios e malefícios nas transações. Existem side-effects como os problemas ambientais. Neste sentido, o mercado não pode ser uma boa resposta ao ambiente. Esta teoria é falsificada por Coese. Coese sugere o seguinte. Suponhamos que existe um lago onde todos podem pescar livremente. Como não existe nenhum interesse monetário para conservar a natureza, cada um pesca sem pensar que no ano que vem não haverá recursos. Ora, tendo isto em conta, a proposta de Coese consiste em privatizar o lago. Se o lago for privatizado, o gestor terá en consideracao o facto de que no ano seguinte tem de ter peixes no lago para poder ter clientes. Logo, a natureza é preservada pelo auto-interesse do proprietário.


Read Full Post »

Dou aqui uma lista dos livros e artigos que, a meu ver, são os melhores acerca de Lei Natural em Filosofia Política (dentro da tradição analítica).

Natural Law and Natural Rights, John Finnis

Natural Law and Justice, Lloyd Weinreb

Natural Law Theory: Contemporary Essays, Robert George

A Critique to the New Natural Law Theory, Russel Hittinger

How Persuasive is Natural Law Theory?, K. Greenwalt

Natural Law and Contemporary Moral Thought, Steven Smith

Natural Law: An Introduction and Re-examination, Kainz

Introduction to Jurisprudence (especialmente o terceiro capítulo), Freeman

The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of law and legal theory, Golding e Emunson

The Oxford Handbookd to Jurisprudence and philosophy of Law, Shapiro e Coleman

Read Full Post »

“Consenso em Ciência” por João Miranda no Diário de Notícias, 6-12-2008.

Read Full Post »


Read Full Post »


“For many environmentalists, the world seems to be getting worse (…)

But a quick look at the facts shows a different picture. First, energy and other natural resources have become more abundant, not less so, since the book The limits of growth was published in 1972 by a group of scientists. Second, more food is now produced per head of the world’s population than at any time in history. Fewer people are starving. Third, although species are indeed become extinct, only about 0.7% of them are expected to disappear in the next 50 years, not 25-50% as has so often been predicted


Yet opinion polls suggest that many people nurture the belief that environmental standards are declining and four factors seem to cause this disjuncton between perception and reality.


Secondly, environmental groups need to be noticed by the mass media. They also need to keep the money rolling in. Understandably, perhaps, they sometimes overstate their arguments. In 1997, for example, the World Wide Fund for Nature issued a press release entitled “Two thirds of the world’s forests lost forever. The truth turns out to be nearer 20%.

Though these groups are run overwhelmingly by selfness folk, they neverheless share many of the characteristics of other lobby groups. That would matter less if people applied the same degree of scepticism to environmental lobbying as they do to lobby groups in other fields. A trade organisation arguing for, say, weaker pollution controls is instantly seen as self-interested. Yet a green organisation opposing such a weakening is seen as altruistic, even if an impartial view of the controls in question might suggest they are doing more harm than good.


The fourth factor is poor individual perception. People worry that the endless rise in the amount of stuff everyone throws away will cause the world to run out of places to dispose of waste. Yet, even if Amrica’s trash ouput continues to rise as it has done in the past, and even of the American population doubles by 2100, all the rubbish America produces through the entire 21st century will still take up only one-12,000th of the area of the entire United States.

So what of global warming?


it will be far more expensive to cut carbondioxide emissions radically than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures. A model (…)shows that how an expected temperature increase of 2.1 degrees in 2100 would only be diminished to an increase of 1.9 (…)”, Bjorn Lomborg, The Economist, Agosto de 2001

Read Full Post »

A ler

Prova de fé por João Miranda.

Read Full Post »

Luís Lavoura tem um bom texto sobre a agenda enigmática dos defensores dos animais aqui.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »