Water rights in California are not at all market based, because of historical reasons and a previously mistaken notion of property/mineral rights.
yes, and i'd argue that is certainly the case here.
but the two are closely related.
http://ipeatunc.blogspot.com/2011/08/negative-externalities-...
i think the above is a bit over the top for my taste:
> Secondly, is it really clear that people in Bangladesh (say) have a rights claim to an climate environment that is not two or three degrees warmer than it is right now? How did they acquire this right?
... because yes, I'd say they do have that right, but the point about the expectations being tied to some kind of property rights [physical or fundamental] as a differentiating factor seems to be a strong one.
here they describe the tragedy of the commons as a specific sub category of negative externality (in direct contradiction to the preceding link):
But is there such an externality in the use of water? Is there some side effect that doesn't involve the use of water itself? Isn't the tragedy, the depletion of the supply, the problem? That isn't external.
> You can argue that some ongoing tragedy of the commons also has externalities.
sure, two of the preceding opinions [wikipedia, mit], argue that the tragedy of the commons is a specific type of negative externality, rather than the other way around. one [north carolina] gravitates more towards your interpretation.
the fundamental issue remains though: our conception of time and consequence is woefully limited in scope.
An important point, actually, if I understand correctly. Thanks.
Wikipedia says an externality "imposes a negative effect on an unrelated third party". For example, pollution from a coal-fired power plant that pollutes the air of people living somewhere else.