Rating: 
Summary: Don't waste your time and/or money
Review: As an economics student, this book makes NO sense whatsoever. His ideas are SO far fetched it almost looks as though it is a sci-fi book. Whoever gave it 5 stars must not know how capitalism really works, and how gov't works. It was so off base that I don't even know where to begin. As soon as you read the into and the first chapter you'll notice that the author's propositions are whimsical at best. One thing is caring about our environment (I do), but to create this NGO (Non-Gov't org) to collect environemntal taxation is one of the most nonsensical ideas I've ever heard! Just do yourself a favor and don't buy this book, that is, unless you really want to make the author rich and make yourself miserable.
Rating: 
Summary: A populist, and realist, just transition proposal!
Review: I hate to disagree with the experts at the esteemed Publisher's Weekly, but Who Owns the Sky is an important book. It puts forward a very interesting transition proposal -- a Sky Trust -- based on the notion of per-capita rights to the earth's resources. Further, the Sky Trust may promise a way to manage the US's carbon emissions in a reasonably equitable manner, while at the same time providing enough money for a substantive "just transition" fund to help greenhouse losers like the coal miners.In other words, there is some actual new thinking here, which the weary experts at PW seem too expert to recognise The idea, in a nutshell, is that instead of grandfathering "the sky" away to, say, the corporations that already, in effect, squat it, emission permits would be auctioned, with the revenues going into a trust. Then, each year, 25% of the money would go to the transition fund, and each citizen would get a check (about $644 a year, in 2010, if carbon emission permits are $25 a ton) much as the citizens of Alaska get checks from the Alaska Permanent Trust, which is funded by mining and drilling royalties. One point to remember, here, is that mining and drilling are *very* popular in Alaska. There are problems, which I, being to the left of Barnes, am indeed bothered by. The "citizen" bit, for instance. And in my view Barnes takes too narrow of view of the transition problem, and is certainly wrong in thinking that a transition fund could or should be soon phased out. And there are a few others too, but I won't bother you with them just now. The important thing is that this is an important proposal, and that it has some political traction, which is particularly amazing given that it prominantly features the notion of per capita rights. It deserves, along with a few other currently emerging and more traditionally "progressive" ideas for just transition plans, be taken very seriously. Of course that would require us to be able to recognize an new idea when we see it. Don't look to Publisher's Weekly for help here.
Rating:
Summary: A populist, and realist, just transition proposal!
Review: I hate to disagree with the experts at the esteemed Publisher's Weekly, but Who Owns the Sky is an important book. It puts forward a very interesting transition proposal -- a Sky Trust -- based on the notion of per-capita rights to the earth's resources. Further, the Sky Trust may promise a way to manage the US's carbon emissions in a reasonably equitable manner, while at the same time providing enough money for a substantive "just transition" fund to help greenhouse losers like the coal miners. In other words, there is some actual new thinking here, which the weary experts at PW seem too expert to recognise The idea, in a nutshell, is that instead of grandfathering "the sky" away to, say, the corporations that already, in effect, squat it, emission permits would be auctioned, with the revenues going into a trust. Then, each year, 25% of the money would go to the transition fund, and each citizen would get a check (about $644 a year, in 2010, if carbon emission permits are $25 a ton) much as the citizens of Alaska get checks from the Alaska Permanent Trust, which is funded by mining and drilling royalties. One point to remember, here, is that mining and drilling are *very* popular in Alaska. There are problems, which I, being to the left of Barnes, am indeed bothered by. The "citizen" bit, for instance. And in my view Barnes takes too narrow of view of the transition problem, and is certainly wrong in thinking that a transition fund could or should be soon phased out. And there are a few others too, but I won't bother you with them just now. The important thing is that this is an important proposal, and that it has some political traction, which is particularly amazing given that it prominantly features the notion of per capita rights. It deserves, along with a few other currently emerging and more traditionally "progressive" ideas for just transition plans, be taken very seriously. Of course that would require us to be able to recognize an new idea when we see it. Don't look to Publisher's Weekly for help here.
Rating:
Summary: Corporations Own the Sky?
Review: In the book, Who Owns the Sky?, Peter Barnes makes a compelling and interesting theoretical argument of the need to address a systematic problem, which is how to allocate common resources and issue them a value in a manner congruent to capitalism. Barnes's revelation examines the idea of the putting a price on our common assets (natural resources) through our capitalistic market ideals. The market, therefore, would set prices on natural resources that the common people of our country have inherited through mutual ownership, and use the ideas of the market to charge for the use and exploitation of the resources. This idea of placing ownership of natural resources into a common trust is Barnes's most dynamic point or theory. His theory basically would charge anyone (mainly corporations) exploiting the resources and give the money back to the people in dividends. The companies that are environmentally sound would also be given subsidies for taking the effort reduce resource use or degradation.
A trust is a legally supported concept of an entity designed to hold and manage assets or in this case natural resources for the well being of the people, the beneficiaries. Barnes uses this democratic idea in a modern way where resources and their value can be assimilated into capitalism without throwing off the market. His catastrophic finding is that people will benefit from dividends and more importantly the wealth and health of environment will become sustainable through the market. This theoretical scheme seems like a solution that would the allow the environment and capitalism to mutually coexist in some form of harmony, which almost seems like an oxymoron.
This book was an excellent road map for a feasible change in democracy for the better. Capitalism would be able to continue thriving, the environment could begin thriving, and the people of this democracy would actually get rewarded in a fair way for the abstinence in resource use and abuse. However, my optimism in Barnes's theory is minute because of the corporation's ability to act as such a catalyst in the government's decision making. Corporations have so much money that I find it hard to believe Barnes's theory is highly plausible. The corporations will use every mechanism in the book including, lobbying, donations to high government officials, and mass communication to disable the theory of a general trust that would take money from the rich and give to the poor.
The last argument against Barnes's theory of a general trust is the idea of capitalism in itself. Big government involvement is a taboo issue where less is more. The idea of a trust is seen as a socialist idea where the government intervenes with the innocent corporations in attempt to play good cop, bad cop.
Who Owns the Sky?, is an incredible book with magnificent ideas, but the answer to the question of who owns the sky is simple. As of right now the corporations do and to change that would take more than a theory that benefits the people as a whole, but rather a theory that somehow benefits the driving force of the market, the corporations.
Rating: 
Summary: A Way Out For George Bush ?
Review: Review of ‘Who Owns The Sky’ by Peter Barnes pub Island Press 2001 Chris Rose This is a great little book that should be read by any environmentalist who really wants to save the atmosphere. Original and iconoclastic, its main fault is that it is so packed with big and new ideas so that it is in danger of being overlooked as too complicated. Really it should be called ‘Let’s Own The Sky’ as it’s a rationale and rallying cry to take the common asset of the sky into common (as distinct from state) ownership. Barnes suggests a way to get Americans (or anyone) to take a stake in the sky as a waste disposal resource, and then charge for polluting it. Americans want to protect the climate says Barnes, but only if they can do so without any economic pain. Done right, via a ‘sky trust,’ Barnes says, would be a money-earner for most. Result – incentives to pollute less. In the Barnes plan a Sky Trust would be funded by emission permits sold to energy companies at the top of the ‘carbon chain.’ The revenues would be paid out to citizens in equal dividends, like the Alaska Permanent Fund does with that State’s oil revenues. Barnes is an entrepreneur with impeccable capitalist if Californian credentials. He has proposed a cap-and-trade system which charges polluters rather than handing out emission rights for nothing. As such it might appeal to less-government libertarians and egalitarian environmentalists alike. ...and you can get a notional non-transfer-able share of America’s sky. Barnes has a blueprint but is it a Bushprint ? Where else though is George Bush to go if he is to regain any credibility on the climate, after rashly rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, the climate treaty accepted by every other nation ? America needs some fresh thinking and this might be it.
Rating:
Summary: A Way Out For George Bush ?
Review: Review of ‘Who Owns The Sky’ by Peter Barnes pub Island Press 2001 Chris Rose This is a great little book that should be read by any environmentalist who really wants to save the atmosphere. Original and iconoclastic, its main fault is that it is so packed with big and new ideas so that it is in danger of being overlooked as too complicated. Really it should be called ‘Let’s Own The Sky’ as it’s a rationale and rallying cry to take the common asset of the sky into common (as distinct from state) ownership. Barnes suggests a way to get Americans (or anyone) to take a stake in the sky as a waste disposal resource, and then charge for polluting it. Americans want to protect the climate says Barnes, but only if they can do so without any economic pain. Done right, via a ‘sky trust,’ Barnes says, would be a money-earner for most. Result – incentives to pollute less. In the Barnes plan a Sky Trust would be funded by emission permits sold to energy companies at the top of the ‘carbon chain.’ The revenues would be paid out to citizens in equal dividends, like the Alaska Permanent Fund does with that State’s oil revenues. Barnes is an entrepreneur with impeccable capitalist if Californian credentials. He has proposed a cap-and-trade system which charges polluters rather than handing out emission rights for nothing. As such it might appeal to less-government libertarians and egalitarian environmentalists alike. ...and you can get a notional non-transfer-able share of America’s sky. Barnes has a blueprint but is it a Bushprint ? Where else though is George Bush to go if he is to regain any credibility on the climate, after rashly rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, the climate treaty accepted by every other nation ? America needs some fresh thinking and this might be it.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant--and accessible!
Review: Unless you've been living on another planet, you're probably aware that pollution is threatening this one. If you're confused about what to do about it, or despairing that any solution is possible, read this book and stop weeping! Barnes offers an appropriately radical proposal to solve an extremely urgent problem--written in accessible, flowing, compelling prose. A must-read for inhabitants of planet earth.
Rating:
Summary: Visionary book
Review: Who Owns the Sky is an excellent, very thought-provoking book. It raises deep enviromental issues, explains some complicated concepts quite elegantly, and then proposes a solution nothing short of brilliant. The book is very well written and beautifully reasoned. I particularly like the fact that it crosses all political lines. It's neither liberal nor conservative. Rather, it goes beyond both. Very 21st century. It's a whole new vision. Barnes is a visionary.
Rating:
Summary: Visionary book
Review: Who Owns the Sky is an excellent, very thought-provoking book. It raises deep enviromental issues, explains some complicated concepts quite elegantly, and then proposes a solution nothing short of brilliant. The book is very well written and beautifully reasoned. I particularly like the fact that it crosses all political lines. It's neither liberal nor conservative. Rather, it goes beyond both. Very 21st century. It's a whole new vision. Barnes is a visionary.
Rating:
Summary: Creative ways of making clean air a sustainable business
Review: Who Owns the Sky presented a very ambitious plan for conserving the atmosphere. In this book Peter Barnes looked at earth's atmosphere as a valuable commodity that everyone owns. In many ways this argument made sense. Everyone uses air, so everyone should consider it important. Barnes explained many reasons why too much carbon secretion is disturbing the climate, not to mention the life on earth. If we need clean air to maintain quality life then the people polluting the air should pay for their damage. Writing in a time dominated by capitalism, it was not far fetched to associate ecological toll on a natural resource to a monetary tax being placed on polluters. All humans and other life needs air therefore there is already a natural sense that one should protect something that is vital to life. Barnes used the association of air as common property to all to be guarded with expensive fines for those who threaten that property. This will convince non-conservationists that the atmosphere is a resource that is valuable.
What is the Sky Trust? The Sky Trust is Barnes' economic investment system that sells rights to polluters and distributes the revenue to all citizens equally. This is one kind of cap-and-trade system that will best relate the energy companies responsible for pollution with the government and its citizens. Shareholders are all equal. All citizens are shareholders. Shares are not transferable. The Sky Trust will be a transparent pseudo mutual fund in which all shareholders will see where every dollar goes. The Sky Trust will affect consumers according to how much impact they have on the atmosphere. This will be measured in the amount of energy a consumer gets from carbon burning sources. The tax paid by the energy companies to the Sky Trust will be transferred to the consumer. This means the people driving SUV's will have to pay more because they need to buy more fuel to run their vehicle.
There are some serious questions that some people have about how the Sky Trust would work. My first one just happens to be the title of this book. Who is to say that the citizens of the United States own the sky? Sky is property of commons, in order to ration does some kind of ownership needs to take place? Why now? What is an accurate economic value to some huge space of gas? What will the effects be on the U.S. and Global economy? When the extra cost of the Sky Trust tax is passed onto the consumer who will be left out and what businesses will die? Entering all the extra charges onto every good and service might collapse the economy.
Barnes does have a working example of his plan, in the Alaskan Permanent fund. This program showed me that there could be good effects to government-organized sale of natural resources. The idea to create an investment portfolio that will outlive the natural resource, while at the same time getting the most money for a scarce resource to discourage overuse is very positive. The positive effects of the Alaskan Permanent Fund also apply to the Sky Trust. If Sky Trust money is entitled to the citizens of the U.S. then they can decide how they want to spend this extra money. Families will benefit from the tax advantages and an opportunity to start a savings because it will provide opportunities that would not be possible before. Parents that are trying to save for their children's college education will be able to give their next generation more of a chance for social and economic advancement than they had. Entrepreneurs will be able to have the capital it takes to get a small business off the ground.
I really like the idea that Barnes advances that sustainable business is possible. He talked about changing the DNA of business to be more socially conscious. Business should view giving back to the community as crucial to the business cycle. It is simple for businesses to make small philanthropic contributions but it is quite another thing to factor in the effects to the community and the environment on level terms with the dollars and cents of the bottom line. I like the ideas in Who Owns the Sky, but I question the feasibility. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in ways of changing the institutions of society to preserve the world's riches while creating social harmony
|
