IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i7p3909-d779902.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Lockean Proviso and Orbital Sustainability—An Anthropological View

Author

Listed:
  • Lucian Mocrei-Rebrean

    (Department of Humanities and Social-Political Sciences, Stefan cel Mare University, 720229 Suceava, Romania)

Abstract

Over the last decades, we have witnessed the gradual commercialization of the Earth orbit. The exponential development of private space activities makes this distant natural field, with the overcoming of technological difficulties, more and more hospitable to free initiative and entrepreneurship. However, the orbital space is considered global commons. Through the imaginary case method, we intend to ponder on possible ways to legally regulate the exploitation of the orbital space, namely the application of Pigouvian taxes, on the sustainability of the orbital environment, through ethical considerations originating from the application of the Lockean proviso. Although they are designed to cover the damage caused by that particular polluting activity, which is difficult to estimate and, in our case, almost impossible to quantify in the long run, the Pigouvian taxes are the result of a proactive logic. The tension between civilization and nature turns the world outside the Earth into a wilderness destined for humanization, another area of exercise of the liberal self. Non-legal reasons for the sustainability of the orbital environment may arise from observing the Lockean principle of fair ownership. Between the prohibition of an unreasonable destruction of nature’s goods and the equitable access to extra-terrestrial resources, the human desire for appropriation updates the proviso destined for the colonization of America in the twenty-first century. Given that there are currently no plans to clean the technological waste in orbit, adopting the conservation of the orbital environment as an ethical principle could help to formulate a more environmentally responsible liberalism, as part of a long-term agenda of exploitation in the vicinity of our planet.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucian Mocrei-Rebrean, 2022. "The Lockean Proviso and Orbital Sustainability—An Anthropological View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-13, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:3909-:d:779902
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/3909/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/7/3909/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harmeling, Susan, 2011. "Contingency as an entrepreneurial resource: How private obsession fulfills public need," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 293-305, May.
    2. Rita Yi Man Li & Yi Lut Li & M. James C. Crabbe & Otilia Manta & Muhammad Shoaib, 2021. "The Impact of Sustainability Awareness and Moral Values on Environmental Laws," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-26, May.
    3. H. Spencer Banzhaf, 2009. "Objective or Multi-Objective? Two Historically Competing Visions for Benefit-Cost Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(1), pages 3-23.
    4. Marc D. Davidson, 2012. "Intergenerational Justice: How Reasonable Man Discounts Climate Damage," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-17, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stuart D. Allen & Stephen K. Layson & Albert N. Link, 2013. "Public gains from entrepreneurial research: Inferences about the economic value of public support of the Small Business Innovation Research program," Chapters, in: Public Support of Innovation in Entrepreneurial Firms, chapter 6, pages 105-112, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Roger Backhouse & Beatrice Cherrier, 2014. "Becoming Applied: The Transformation of Economics after 1970," Discussion Papers 14-11, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
    3. Mouez Fodha, 2015. "Nuclear waste storage and environmental intergenerational externalities," International Journal of Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 18(1/2), pages 94-114.
    4. H. Spencer Banzhaf, 2014. "Retrospectives: The Cold-War Origins of the Value of Statistical Life," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(4), pages 213-226, Fall.
    5. Jaeger, William K. & Egelkraut, Thorsten M., 2011. "Biofuel economics in a setting of multiple objectives and unintended consequences," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4320-4333.
    6. Carolus, Johannes Friedrich & Hanley, Nick & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Pedersen, Søren Marcus, 2018. "A Bottom-up Approach to Environmental Cost-Benefit Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 282-295.
    7. Antoni Olive-Tomas & Susan S. Harmeling, 2020. "The rise of art movements: an effectual process model of Picasso’s and Braque’s give-and-take during the creation of Cubism (1908–1914)," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 819-842, March.
    8. Aldred, Jonathan, 2013. "Justifying precautionary policies: Incommensurability and uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 132-140.
    9. Banzhaf, H. Spencer, 2016. "Constructing markets: environmental economics and the contingent valuation controversy," MPRA Paper 78814, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Lingmei Han & Jianqiang You & Jiening Meng, 2023. "Environmental Value Assessment of Plastic Pollution Control: A Study Based on Evidence from a Survey in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-16, June.
    11. Gregory Garner & Patrick Reed & Klaus Keller, 2016. "Climate risk management requires explicit representation of societal trade-offs," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 134(4), pages 713-723, February.
    12. Syamsiyatul Muzayyanah & Cheng-Yih Hong & Rishan Adha & Su-Fen Yang, 2023. "The Non-Linear Relationship between Air Pollution, Labor Insurance and Productivity: Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-20, June.
    13. Katrin M. Smolka & Ingrid Verheul & Katrin Burmeister–Lamp & Pursey P.M.A.R. Heugens, 2018. "Get it Together! Synergistic Effects of Causal and Effectual Decision–Making Logics on Venture Performance," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 42(4), pages 571-604, July.
    14. Saras Sarasvathy & K. Kumar & Jeffrey G. York & Suresh Bhagavatula, 2014. "An Effectual Approach to International Entrepreneurship: Overlaps, Challenges, and Provocative Possibilities," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(1), pages 71-93, January.
    15. Beatrice Cherrier & Jean-Baptiste Fleury, 2017. "Economists’ interest in collective decision after World War II: a history," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 23-44, July.
    16. Berta, Nathalie, 2020. "Efficiency without Optimality: A Pragmatic Compromise for Environmental Policies in the Late 1960s," OSF Preprints wp2xf, Center for Open Science.
    17. Reed Nelson & Edmilson Lima, 2020. "Effectuations, social bricolage and causation in the response to a natural disaster," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 721-750, March.
    18. Gregory Garner & Patrick Reed & Klaus Keller, 2016. "Climate risk management requires explicit representation of societal trade-offs," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 134(4), pages 713-723, February.
    19. Weber, Shlomo & Castaneda Dower, Paul & Markevich, Andrei, 2018. "The Value of a Statistical Life in a Dictatorship: Evidence from Stalin," CEPR Discussion Papers 12814, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Dale Whittington & Richard T. Carson & Thomas Sterner, 2023. "Policy Note: Benefit Cost Analysis of Water Investments in the Anthropocene," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(03), pages 1-23, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:7:p:3909-:d:779902. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.