(eBook PDF) Economics and the

Environment, 7th Edition

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/ebook-pdf-economics-and-the-environment-7th-e
dition/
vi CONTENTS

Chapter 4 The Efficiency Standard 48

4.0 Introduction 48
4.1 Efficiency Defined 48
4.2 Efficient Pollution Levels 51
4.3 Marginals and Totals 55
4.4 The Coase Theorem Introduced 57
4.5 Air Pollution Control in Baltimore: Calculating the
Efficient Standard 58
4.6 The Ethical Basis of the Efficiency Standard 59
4.7 Real-World Benefit-Cost 60
4.8 Summary 64
Chapter 5 Measuring the Benefits of Environmental Protection 74
5.0 Introduction 74
5.1 Use, Option, and Existence Value: Types of Nonmarket
Benefits 75
5.2 Consumer Surplus, WTP, and WTA: Measuring Benefits 76
5.3 Risk: Assessment and Perception 79
5.4 Measuring Benefits I: Contingent Valuation 82
5.5 Measuring Benefits II: Travel Cost 86
5.6 Measuring Benefits III: Hedonic Regression 87
5.7 The Value of Human Life 88
5.8 Summary 91
Appendix 5A: WTA and WTP Redux 97
5A.1: An Indifference Curve Analysis 97
5A.2: Prospect Theory or Substitutability? 99
Chapter 6 Measuring the Costs of Environmental Protection 101
6.0 Introduction 101
6.1 Engineering Costs 102
6.2 Productivity Impacts of Regulation 104
6.3 Employment Impacts of Regulation 107
6.4 General Equilibrium Effects and the Double Dividend 113
6.5 A Final Look at Benefit-Cost Analysis 114
6.6 Summary 117
Chapter 7 The Safety Standard 124
7.0 Introduction 124
7.1 Defining the Right to Safety 125
7.2 The Safety Standard: Inefficient 127
7.3 The Safety Standard: Not Cost-Effective 129
7.4 The Safety Standard: Regressive? 130
 CONTENTS vii

7.5 Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities: Safety versus Efficiency 133

7.6 Summary 136
Chapter 8 The Sustainability Standard 141
8.0 Introduction 141
8.1 Sustainability: Neoclassical and Ecological Approaches 142
8.2 Future Benefits, Costs, and Discounting 146
8.3 An Example of Discounting: Lightbulbs 148
8.4 Savings, Investment, and Market Interest Rates 150
8.5 The Social Discount Rate and Dynamic Efficiency 151
8.6 Discounting Climate Change 154
8.7 Ecological Economics, Strong Sustainability, and the Precautionary
Principle 155
8.8 Strong Sustainability in Practice: Endangered Species, EIS,
and Reach 157
8.9 Summary 159
Chapter 9 Measuring Sustainability 166
9.0 Introduction 166
9.1 Malthus and Ecological Economics 167
9.2 Modern Debates: Limits to Growth and Planetary
Boundaries 170
9.3 Measuring Strong Sustainability: Impacts and Footprints 173
9.4 Measuring Weak Sustainability: Net National Welfare and Inclusive
Wealth 177
9.5 Natural Capital Depreciation 182
9.6 Are We Achieving Sustainability? 185
9.7 Discounting, Sustainability, and Investing for the Future 190
9.8 The Ecological-Neoclassical Debate in Context 192
9.9 Summary 193
Chapter 10 Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services 201
10.0 Introduction 201
10.1 Nonrenewable Resources and the Hotelling Model 203
10.2 Testing the Nonrenewable Resource Model 209
10.3 ‘‘Peak Oil’’ 210
10.4 Renewable Resources 214
10.5 Renewable Resource Policy: Fisheries and Endangered
Species 220
10.6 Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital 224
10.7 Summary 227
Chapter 11 Is More Really Better? Consumption and Welfare 235
11.0 Introduction 235
11.1 Money and Happiness 236
viii CONTENTS

11.2 Social Norms and the Rat Race 237

11.3 Positional Goods and Consumption Externalities 241
11.4 Welfare with Social Consumption 243
11.5 Controlling the Impact of Consumption 245
11.6 Summary 248

PART II: IS GOVERNMENT UP TO THE JOB? 253

Chapter 12 The Political Economy of Environmental Regulation 255

12.0 Introduction 255
12.1 The Process of Environmental Regulation 256
12.2 Regulation under Imperfect Information 258
12.3 Bureaucratic Discretion and Political Influence 260
12.4 Who Wins the Influence Game? 262
12.5 Political Reform of Regulation 265
12.6 Better Information, More Democracy 267
12.7 Summary 269
Chapter 13 An Overview of Environmental Legislation 274
13.0 Introduction 274
13.1 Cleaning the Air 275
13.2 Fishable and Swimmable Waters 280
13.3 Hazardous Waste Disposal on Land 282
13.4 Chemicals and Pesticides 285
13.5 Endangered Species Protection 288
13.6 Summary 290
Chapter 14 The Regulatory Record: Achievements and Obstacles 294
14.0 Introduction 294
14.1 Accomplishments of Environmental Regulation 295
14.2 Monitoring and Enforcement: Political Constraints 299
14.3 The Appeal of Incentive-Based Regulation 302
14.4 Beyond Regulation? Promoting Clean Technology 304
14.5 Summary 307

PART III: HOW CAN WE DO BETTER? 312

Chapter 15 Incentive-Based Regulation: Theory 313

15.0 Introduction 313
15.1 The Cost-Effectiveness Rule 314
15.2 IB Regulation and Cost-Effectiveness 318
15.3 IB Regulation and Technological Progress 321
 CONTENTS ix

15.4 Potential Problems with IB Regulation 323

15.5 Summary 330
Appendix 15A: Imperfect Regulation in an Uncertain
World 334
15A.0: Minimizing the Costs of Being Wrong 334
15A.1: An Application to Greenhouse Gas Emissions 337
15A.2: Summary 339
Appendix 15B: Incentive-Compatible Regulation 340
15B.0: Incentives to Lie 340
15B.1: Incentives to Tell the Truth 342
15B.2: Summary 344
Chapter 16 Incentive-Based Regulation: Practice 346
16.0 Introduction 346
16.1 Lead and Chlorofluorocarbons 347
16.2 Trading Urban Air Pollutants 348
16.3 Marketable Permits and Acid Rain 352
16.4 Carbon Trading in the Northeast and California 356
16.5 Two Failed U.S. Efforts: Mercury and Carbon 359
16.6 The European Emissions Trading System 362
16.7 Pollution Taxes and Their Relatives 364
16.8 Summary 368
Chapter 17 Promoting Clean Technology: Theory 374
17.0 Introduction 374
17.1 Path Dependence and Clean Technology 375
17.2 Clean Technology Defined 377
17.3 If You’re So Smart, Why Aren’t You Rich? 380
17.4 Picking the Winning Path 384
17.5 Promoting Early-Stage Clean Technologies 385
17.6 Promoting Late-Stage Clean Technologies 388
17.7 Clean Technology: Two Case Studies 392
17.8 Summary 397
Chapter 18 Energy Policy and the Future 403
18.0 Introduction 403
18.1 Technology Options: Electricity and Heat 404
18.2 Policy Options: Electricity and Heat 411
18.3 Technology Options: Transport 417
18.4 Policy Options: Transport 422
18.5 Slowing Global Warming at a Profit? 426
18.6 Summary 428
x CONTENTS

PART IV: HOW CAN WE SOLVE GLOBAL CHALLENGES? 433

Chapter 19 Poverty, Population, and the Environment 435

19.0 Introduction 435
19.1 Poverty and the Environment 437
19.2 The Population Picture in Perspective 441
19.3 An Economic Approach to Family Size 443
19.4 Controlling Population Growth 445
19.5 Consumption and the Global Environment 450
19.6 Envisioning a Sustainable Future 453
19.7 Summary 456
Chapter 20 Environmental Policy in Poor Countries 460
20.0 Introduction 460
20.1 The Political Economy of Sustainable Development 461
20.2 Ending Environmentally Damaging Subsidies 463
20.3 Establishing and Enforcing Property Rights 465
20.4 Regulatory Approaches 468
20.5 Sustainable Technology: Development and Transfer 473
20.6 Resource Conservation and Debt Relief 476
20.7 Trade and the Environment 481
20.8 Summary 486
Chapter 21 The Economics of Global Agreements 492
21.0 Introduction 492
21.1 Agreements as Public Goods 493
21.2 Monitoring and Enforcement 494
21.3 The Ozone Layer and Biodiversity 496
21.4 Stopping Global Warming: Theory 501
21.5 Stopping Global Warming: Reality 505
21.6 Summary 507
Selected Web Sites 512
Author Index 515
Subject Index 519
PREFACE

This seventh edition of Economics and the Environment welcomes Dr. Stephen Polasky
as a co-author, who brings to the text a reworked and stronger focus on natural resource
economics and ecosystem services. This book was first published in 1992, as the Rio
Earth Summit was concluding. Global warming had been brought to national and global
attention only four years prior by James Hansen’s famous congressional testimony.
The first President Bush would soon sign the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change. At the time, CO2 in the atmosphere stood at 356 parts per million.
Twenty one years later, CO2 levels are at 400 parts per million and climbing.
Climate change remains front and center, now understood less as an environmental
problem than as a challenge to civilization. As in the first edition, global warming
remains the topic that launches the book, and provides the framing example for a
comprehensive look at environmental economics. With Steve’s help, the book now
provides a stronger resource and ecosystem processes lens for exploring climate change
and other critical environmental issues.
The book retains the three interrelated advantages of its earlier incarnations: broad
content; pedagogical clarity; and timely, well integrated examples. There are a few
significant additions to content, several new end-of-chapter problems and exercises,
and updated examples and information throughout.
A complete set of ancillary materials is available for adopters of Economics and
the Environment. These resources can be found on the book’s companion site at:
www.wiley.com/college/goodstein.
● An Instructor’s Manual containing suggestions for teaching from this book,
sample exams, and chapter practice questions.
● PowerPoint Presentations for course lectures. In addition, electronic files for
all the figures in the text are available in an Image Gallery.
Major changes to this edition include:

● The formerly separate chapters on Neoclassical and Ecological Economics

have been reworked into two new chapters: The Sustainability Standard
(Chapter 8) and Measuring Sustainability (Chapter 9). The discussion of the
xi
xii PREFACE

two perspectives is recentered around weak and strong sustainability. And in

this edition, chapters on Measuring the Benefits of Environmental Protection
(Chapter 6) and Measuring the Costs of Environmental Protection (Chapter 7)
now precede the sustainability discussion.
● An all new chapter on Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services (Chapter 10)
covers optimal non-renewable resource extraction; predictions about price
paths; optimal renewable harvesting strategies; and the new economics
involved in estimating the value of jointly produced ecosystem services.
● The discounting discussion has been reframed around the Ramsey equation,
and it is made clear that discounting at a positive rate only makes sense if weak
sustainability is assumed.
● The former chapter on benefit-cost analysis has been shortened and now
appears as the concluding section to the chapter on the efficiency standard
(Chapter 4).
● The former chapter on enforcement has also been shortened, and the material
is included in the chapter covering the accomplishments and challenges of
regulation (Chapter 14).
● Updated and in-depth discussions of California’s new CO2 emission trading
and the EU ETS are provided.
● The Obama Administration’s far-reaching impact on regulation and enforce-
ment is discussed.
In terms of content, the book provides a rigorous and comprehensive presentation
of the “standard analysis,” including the property-rights basis of environmental prob-
lems, efficient pollution control, benefit-estimation procedures, and incentive-based
regulation. However, Economics and the Environment also incorporates broader topics
as separate chapters, notably, the ethical foundations of environmental economics, a
focus on ecological economics and strong sustainability, a safety-based approach to
controlling pollution, the ecological economic critique of economic growth, the poten-
tial for government failure, the promotion of “clean technology,” and opportunities
for sustainable development in poor countries.
The second major advantage of the book is pedagogical clarity. In contrast to other
texts that work from a “topics” perspective—water, oil, forests, fish—Economics and
the Environment is centered around four clearly focused questions:
1. How much pollution (or resource degradation) is too much?
2. Is government up to the job?
3. How can we do better?
4. How can we resolve global issues?
These questions are all introduced through a detailed case study of the “big” issue
of the century—global warming. The first section of Economics and the Environment
then proceeds to explore the explicitly normative question, “How much pollution is
too much?” The tools of welfare economics and benefit–cost analysis are used to
explore three possible answers. The first is the efficient pollution level. Here students
are introduced to the fundamentals of benefit and cost estimation, and benefit-cost
analysis. The second pollution standard is a safety standard, including questions of
 PREFACE xiii

environmental justice, which in fact continue to drive much environmental policy. The
advantages and drawbacks of safety as a goal are analyzed. Efficiency and safety are
also contrasted in the context of the economic growth debate; students particularly
enjoy Chapter 11, ‘Is More Really Better?’
The third standard is sustainability, defined as an intergenerational equity con-
straint. In two new chapters, we explore weak (Neoclassical) and strong (Ecological)
sustainability, and in the process consider natural capital measurement techniques,
the logic of discounting, the importance of investing resource rents productively,
substitution possibilities between manufactured and natural capital, the precautionary
principle, and questions of long-run resource scarcity. Also new to the text this edition is
a separate chapter focusing on “Resource Economics” (renewable and non-renewable
resource management), the Peak Oil debate, and recent attempts by economists to
model and value ecosystem services through ecological production functions.
Tying together this first, normative section of the book is a vital discussion that
is missing from other texts: the utilitarian ethical basis for the normative analysis and
its relation to an “environmental ethic.” Many students come into an environmental
economics course thinking that saving polar bears is important, without knowing
exactly why they think so. The explicit welfare-based analysis in chapter 2 asks students
to confront the assumptions underlying their own and others’ worldviews.
The text fills a second major void through the second big question, “Is Government
Up to the Job?” (Section 3) Most existing texts simply note that “government failure”
is a potential problem when correcting for market externalities. In Economics and the
Environment, the question of government’s ability to effectively regulate pollution
is carefully examined. The section begins with a discussion of the two primary
obstacles to effective government action: imperfect information and the opportunity
for political influence over government policy. It then provides a succinct review of
existing legislation and accomplishments on air, water, solid and hazardous waste, toxic
pollution, and endangered species. Part II ends with a discussion of the often neglected
subject of monitoring and enforcement.
The third section of the book, “How Can We Do Better?” tackles the more positive
aspects of pollution regulation. Two chapters are devoted to the theory and practical
application of incentive-based regulation—marketable permits and Pigovian taxes.
Real world analysis focuses on the technical challenges faced by permit systems (price
volatility, hot spots) and the political obstacles to taxes. Appendices explore instrument
choice under uncertainty, and incentive-compatible regulation. From here, the book
examines an argument that attributes the root source of pollution to market failure in
technological development rather than in the arena of property rights. We consider
the view that the market often fails to generate incentives for investment in clean
technology, as well as the feasibility of proposed solutions to this problem. In-depth
discussion focuses on areas such as energy policy, pollution prevention, alternative
agriculture, recycling, life-cycle analysis, and “green” labeling.
The final question that Economics and the Environment explores is: “How Can
We Solve Global Issues?” Part IV focuses on global pollution and resource issues,
and is centered around a definition and discussion of sustainable development. Topics
covered include the preservation of natural capital; the economics of population control;
rising per-capita consumption pressures; the relationship between poverty, sustainable
xiv PREFACE

development, and environmental protection in poor countries; international trade and

the environment; and global pollution control agreements.
In sum, Economics and the Environment appeals to three groups of instructors.
The first are economists who are simply looking for a clear and concise presentation
of environmental and resource economics. The four-question format developed in
the text provides a simpler and more useful pedagogical handle than is available in
the “topics” approach followed by other authors. In addition, the book provides a
wealth of examples as well as an explicit consideration of the government’s role in
environmental policy not available in competing works. Finally, the appendices cover
advanced theoretical topics, ensuring that there is enough in-depth material to fill out
a one-semester course.
The book will appeal also to those with an interest in expanding the scope
of environmental and resource economics. Economics and the Environment moves
beyond the standard analysis in five important areas. It provides a rigorous normative
analysis of environmental goals; an in-depth evaluation of ecological economics and
strong sustainability; serious attention to the potential for government failure in
pollution control; substantial discussion of dynamic issues of path dependence and
technological change; and a sophisticated presentation of sustainable development in
poor countries. The book seeks to incorporate into a well-developed economic analysis
ideas that have emerged in the environmental and ecological sciences over the past
few decades.
Given this orientation, instructors in environmental studies courses will also find
this text to be unusually user friendly. Chapters on measuring the value of nonmarket
goods, cost-benefit analysis, markets for pollution rights, incentives for investment in
appropriate technology, the governmental role in pollution control, population and
consumption pressures, global bargaining, and conservation in poor countries provide
accessible material for environmental studies courses with a social-science focus.
Ultimately, the test of any textbook comes in the classroom. Economics and the
Environment was written for students. It addresses important questions raised in their
lives and introduces them to the economist’s view of some solutions.
A synthetic work such as this depends on the contributions of the hundreds of
economists and environmental scholars working in the field. Some of their names
appear in the list of authors cited at the end of this book; many important contributors
were omitted because of the scarce resource of space. In addition, over the last
twenty years, dozens of colleagues and anonymous reviewers have provided important
comments and feedback. Many of their suggestions have found their way into the
final version of this book. We are grateful to all who have contributed, and made
this a more useful text. Final thanks to our editors Courtney Luzzi, Joel Hollenbeck,
Production Editor Yee Lyn Song at John Wiley & Sons and Project Manager Lavanya
Murlidhar at Laserwords Pvt Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
 1
C H A P T E R

FOUR ECONOMIC QUESTIONS

ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

1.0 Introduction
One of us recently had some surprise visitors to his environmental and natural resource
economics class. It was alumni week at the college, and four members of the class of
1950, back for their 60th reunion, joined our discussion. We were talking about sustain-
ability, and suddenly the day’s lecture became very real. How has life really changed
since these visitors left college in 1950? Have six decades of intervening economic
growth—with per capita gross domestic product (GDP) more than tripling—made life
better? Or have the costs of growth made things worse? Is economic growth sustainable?
And over the coming decades, will your generation’s quality of life rise or fall?
So imagine now: You are that older woman or man, heading to the classroom
this week for your 60th class reunion. You are 80-something, and for you, it will be
sometime in the 2070s. As you listen to the young professor at the head of the class
talking about the latest theories, you sit back and reflect on the changes that you have
witnessed in your lifetime. Maybe your story will go something like this:
Over the 21st century, you lived through both deep recessions and economic
booms, through wars and political upheavals. You experienced staggering
technological breakthroughs, unprecedented droughts, sea-level rise that
forced tens of millions from their homes, large-scale extinctions, and the
outbreak of new diseases. Against this background, you and your classmates
from around the world maintained a relentless focus: redesigning every city
on earth, reengineering production processes, reimagining the global food
system, reinventing transportation.
World population grew from 6 to 8 to, eventually, 10 billion people,
before it finally stabilized in 2063. And through a heroic effort, ramping up in
2
 CHAPTER 1 FOUR ECONOMIC QUESTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING 3

the 2020s, your generation managed to completely phase out fossil fuels,
rewiring the entire planet with a new generation of renewable energy
technologies and stabilizing the global climate.
At the end of the day, you shepherded both the human race and the
remaining species on the planet through a critical bottleneck in human
history, in which rising populations, aspiring to ever-higher levels of
consumption, ran up against critical global resource shortages. Above all, you
managed, by 2050, to roll back emissions of global warming pollution by 80%
and stabilize the climate. In doing all this, you created tens of millions of jobs,
helped lift billions of people out of poverty, and built a global economy that is
truly sustainable.
Will that be your story?
We hope it will. And if so, you have a lot of work to do! Yours will be the “greatest
generation” because you must guide the earth through this extraordinary half century.
Your decisions will have profound consequences not only for you and your children
but indeed for a thousand human generations to follow.
This book introduces you to economic concepts and tools that you will need to
make the journey. We begin by framing economics in terms of four basic questions
as they apply to the defining environmental—indeed, civilizational—challenge of your
lifetimes: global warming.

1.1 Four Questions

Did you drive to school today? Or to work? Every mile you drove, you pumped around
a pound of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) into the air. This is a part of your small daily share
of the more than 25 billion pounds people around the world contribute annually from
the burning of carbon fuels such as coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Carbon dioxide
is a greenhouse gas—a compound that traps reflected heat from the earth’s surface
and contributes to global warming. Other greenhouse gases include nitrous oxide from
natural and human-made fertilizers; methane gas emitted from oil and gas production
and transport as well as from rice production and the digestive processes of cows
and sheep; and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), once widely used for air conditioning,
refrigeration, and other industrial applications.1
As a result of industrialization and the ensuing rapid increase in greenhouse gases
in our atmosphere, the vast majority of climate scientists agree that the earth’s surface
temperature will rise over the next few decades. The extent of the warming is uncertain:
low-end estimates suggest an increase in the earth’s average surface temperature of
3 degrees F by the year 2100. The official high-end prediction from the UN’s Inter-
national Panel on Climate Change is 11 degrees over this time period. To put that
number in perspective, during the last ice age, the earth’s average surface temperature
was only 9 degrees F colder than it is today.
The potential consequences of this warming range from manageable to
catastrophic. The first major impact will be on patterns of temperature, flooding,

1. Chlorofluorocarbons also deplete the earth’s protective ozone shield. This is a separate issue from global
warming and is discussed in more detail in Chapter 22.
4 INTRODUCTION

and drought, affecting agricultural output. As the planet heats up, it “forces” the
hydrologic cycle, adding more moisture to the air, leading to both more extreme
precipitation and flooding, along with increased temperatures, increased drought,
and changed patterns of drought. More northerly regions may actually experience an
increase in precipitation and yields, but the current grain belts of the United States,
Australia, and central Europe will become drier and agricultural output in these
regions will probably fall. The net global effect through the mid-century is expected
to be, on balance, negative. It will be particularly harsh in many developing countries,
which lack resources for irrigation and other adaptive measures. Tens of millions of
people are likely to be at risk of hunger as a result of climate change.
Second, natural ecosystems will also suffer from climate change. The U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that, by the year 2050, the southern
boundary of forest ecosystems could move northward by 600 kilometers, yet forests
can migrate naturally at a much slower pace. Several major vegetation models predict
large-scale forest diebacks in, among other places, the southern and eastern United
States and the Amazon Basin. Human and animal diseases and agricultural pests will
also thrive in a warmer climate.
Major impacts in the ocean will occur not only because of warming waters that,
for example, directly kill coral reefs but also because the oceans are absorbing large
quantities of the CO2 released by fossil fuel combustion. This in turn is leading to
ocean acidification: the pH of the ocean has dropped markedly in the last century. As
the ocean continues to acidify, life at the base of the ocean food chain could begin
to die off. On both land and sea, massive disruption of ecosystems and widespread
extinctions, affecting perhaps 30% or more of the life on the planet, are thus likely.
The third concern is the possibility of a sea-level rise as ice caps in Greenland and
Antarctica begin to melt, and the warming ocean expands. An increase in sea level of
3 feet—well within the realm of possibility within your lifetimes—would flood many
parts of Florida, Louisiana, Boston, and New York City as well as much of low-lying
countries like Bangladesh and the Netherlands (unless they were protected by dikes).
As many as 1 billion people live in areas that might be directly affected.2
The globe is very likely locked into a further warming of at least 3 degrees F over
the next 100 years. This warming will have far-reaching human and ecosystem effects,
but if contained would be a manageable event. A greater warming, however, not only
would have a greater impact but also could result in truly catastrophic outcomes. One
of these would be the collapse and melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice
sheets, events that would, over the course of several hundred years, raise sea levels by
40 feet or more and inundate many of the world’s major cities. Some scientists think
that a warming of 4 degrees F or more would significantly raise the probability of this
occurrence. Dr. James Hansen, NASA’s chief climate scientist, stated in early 2006:
How far can it go? The last time the world was three degrees [C] warmer than
today—which is what we expect later this century—sea levels were 25m [75
feet!] higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don’t act soon . . . .

2. IPCC (2007) details these impacts.

 CHAPTER 1 FOUR ECONOMIC QUESTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING 5

I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than
warming itself . . . . How long have we got? We have to stabilize emissions of
carbon dioxide within a decade, or temperatures will warm by more than one
degree [C]. That will be warmer than it has been for half a million years, and
many things could become unstoppable . . . . We don’t have much time left.3
A catastrophic collapse of the ice sheets is far from certain, but as Dr. Hansen
suggests, decisions made in the next decade about reducing greenhouse gas emissions
could have dramatic consequences lasting for tens of thousands of years.
Global warming is an environmental reality that presents stark choices. On the one
hand, substantial, short-term reductions in the human contribution to the greenhouse
effect would require substantial changes in Western energy use. In particular, our
casual reliance on fossil fuels for transportation, heat, and power would have to be
dramatically scaled back and new, clean energy sources developed. On the other hand,
the consequences of inaction are potentially disastrous. By continuing to pollute the
atmosphere, we may be condemning the next generation to even greater hardship.
This book focuses on the economic issues at stake in cases like global warming,
where human actions substantially alter the natural environment. In the process, we
examine the following four questions.

1. How much pollution is too much? Many people are tempted to answer simply:
any amount of pollution is too much. However, a little reflection reveals that
zero pollution is an unachievable and, in fact, undesirable goal. Pollution is a
by-product of living; for example, each time you drive in a car, you emit a small
amount of carbon dioxide to the air, thus exacerbating the greenhouse effect.
The question really is, “At what level are the benefits of pollution (cheap
transportation in the case we started with) outweighed by its costs?”
Different people will answer this question in different ways, depending on
their value systems: “costs” of pollution may be defined narrowly, as strictly
economic, or they may be broadened to include ethical considerations such as
fairness and the protection of rights. Costs may also be difficult to measure.
Nevertheless, it is clear that a rough weighing of benefits and costs is a critical
first step for deciding “how much is too much.”
2. Is government up to the job? After resolving the first question, we must then
rely on government to rewrite laws and regulations to control pollution. But
is our government able and willing to tackle the tough job of managing the
environment? The costs and mistakes associated with bureaucratic decision
making, as well as the likelihood of political influence in the process, will clearly
have an impact on government’s ability to respond effectively to the challenge.
The first Earth Day was April 20, 1970. Also that year, the U.S. Congress
passed the first major pollution control initiative, the National Environmental
Policy Act, which, among other things, created the EPA. Looking back over
our 40-plus years of experience in regulating the environment, we have a

3. See Hansen (2006) and Hansen (2005).

6 INTRODUCTION

record of both successes and failures to evaluate. Such an exploration can help
us design policies to increase the effectiveness of the governmental response.
3. How can we do better? Suppose that as a society we decide on a particular
target: for example, reduce carbon dioxide emissions to their 1990 level by
2020. Given the limitations that government might face, identified in the
answer to the second question, how can we best achieve that goal? A long
list of policies might be used: regulations, taxes, permit systems, technology
subsidies (or their removal), research incentives, infrastructure investment,
right-to-know laws, product labeling, legal liability, fines, and jail terms. Which
policies will most successfully induce firms and consumers to meet the target?
4. Can we resolve global issues? Finally, regulating pollution within a single
nation is a difficult task. Yet problems such as global warming transcend
national boundaries. Brazilians say that they will stop cutting down and
burning their rain forests to create crop and rangeland as soon as we stop
driving gas-guzzling cars. (Although the United States has only 4% of the
world’s population, we account for over 19% of the greenhouse gases.)
How can this kind of international coordination be achieved? Are economic
development and environmental quality necessarily in conflict? And to what
extent can the explosion in population growth and per capita resource use,
which ultimately drive environmental problems, be managed?
Let us return to our discussion of global warming and see what type of answers
we might develop to these four questions. Global warming is a consequence of what is
known as the greenhouse effect. Solar energy enters the earth’s biosphere in the form
of visible and ultraviolet light from the sun. The first law of thermodynamics—energy
can be neither created nor destroyed—requires that this energy go somewhere, and
much of it is radiated back into the biosphere as infrared radiation or heat. The CO2
and other greenhouse gases surrounding the earth let in the visible and ultraviolet
light from the sun. Yet, like a blanket, these gases trap the reflected infrared radiation
(heat) close to the earth’s surface.
Until the present time, the naturally occurring greenhouse effect has been primarily
beneficial. Without the true planet’s blanket of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other
gases, the average temperature on earth would be about 91 degrees F colder—well
below the freezing point. The problem we face today is the steady increase in human-
made greenhouse gases, which began with the Industrial Revolution but dramatically
accelerated after World War II. In less than two centuries, the thickness of the carbon
dioxide blanket in the atmosphere has increased by more than 25%, rising from 280
parts per million (ppm) in 1880 to over 400 ppm today. Every year the blanket gets
thicker by about 2 ppm. The question facing humanity is, how thick should we let this
heat-trapping blanket grow? Should we try to hold it to 450 ppm? 550 ppm? 650 ppm?
Or even roll it back to 350 ppm?
Is human-induced warming here yet? The earth’s average temperature has risen
more than 1 degree F over the last century, and the warming has accelerated in the
last few decades. The years 2005 and 2010 tied for the hottest on record, and the last
decade was probably the hottest in the last several thousand years. Back in 1995, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization of some 2,500
scientists operating under the auspices of the United Nations, made it official—the
 CHAPTER 1 FOUR ECONOMIC QUESTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING 7

greenhouse effect is here. According to the IPCC, “the balance of evidence suggests
that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.” Since then, the evidence
supporting human-induced warming has become much stronger.4
Today, scientists are virtually unanimous in their belief that further warming will
occur, but the magnitude of the warming is difficult to predict. Nevertheless, we do
have a range: recall 3–11 degrees F.
Uncertainty in predicting the degree of global warming is due primarily to the
presence of positive and negative feedback effects. If it were necessary only to predict
the impact of greenhouse gases on global temperature, the problem would be difficult
enough. But changing temperatures will in turn affect many different parts of the earth
and its surface, leading to either an acceleration of the warming (positive feedback) or
a deceleration (negative feedback).
Two examples of the latter include the possibility that increasing cloud cover will
reduce the amount of radiation entering the earth’s atmosphere, or that higher rates
of carbon dioxide will lead to higher rates of plant growth and thus more trapping
of carbon dioxide. Negative feedbacks would clearly be welcome, but unfortunately,
positive feedbacks appear just as likely, if not more so, to occur. For example, higher
temperatures may generate widespread forest fires and forest dieback in regions like
the Amazon; lead to the emission of methane and CO2 currently trapped in frozen
bogs and peat fields at high latitudes; expose heat-absorbing darker earth under ice
shields; or reduce the capacity of ocean organisms to fix carbon dioxide in their shells.
These positive feedbacks have led some researchers to believe that at some point,
global warming will trigger a runaway greenhouse effect, in which the initial warming
will feed on itself. Under this scenario, policymakers no longer face a continuum of
temperature possibilities: a warming of somewhere between 4 degrees and 11 degrees.
Instead, there are only two options; either hold warming to the low end, 4–5 degrees, or
risk triggering positive feedback loops that quickly drive the planet’s temperatures up
by 9–11 degrees, the equivalent of a swing of ice-age magnitude, only in the opposite
direction.
In the face of this uncertainty, what action should be taken to prevent or mitigate
the consequences of global warming? Following the outline described, we can begin to
tackle this daunting question piece by piece.

1.2 How Much Pollution Is Too Much?

First of all, where do we now stand on global warming emission targets? At the Earth
Summit meeting in Rio de Janeiro back in 1992, attended by the leaders of more than
140 countries, the industrialized nations signed a pledge to “try” to stabilize greenhouse
gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. However, this promise was not kept. In
the United States, low energy prices and strong economic growth boosted greenhouse
gas emissions by 19% between 1990 and 2009.
Faced with the failure of this voluntary approach, at a meeting in Kyoto, Japan,
in 1997, the industrial countries of the world signed the Kyoto global warming treaty.
The accord requires participating countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse

4. See IPCC (1996) and IPCC (2007).

8 INTRODUCTION

gases to around 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. Poor countries—including major

emitters like India and China—were explicitly excluded under the reasoning that rich
countries should shoulder the initial burden of developing clean-energy technologies
like wind and solar power, making it affordable in the long run for the developing
world to come on board. The treaty was ratified by the European countries, as well as
Russia, Japan, and Canada, and entered into force in early 2005. All of these nations
are taking implementation measures, though not all are likely to achieve the Kyoto
targets. More on this in Chapter 21.
However, President Bush pulled the United States out of the Kyoto process,
arguing that the country simply could not afford to tackle the global warming problem.
Instead, he called for industry to take voluntary measures to reduce the rate of increase
of emissions (not to reduce emissions themselves). In 2009 President Obama proposed
U.S. cuts of around 17% by 2020, which would bring the nation back to 1990-level
emissions, not quite achieving the Kyoto targets, ten years late. Was Kyoto the
right short-term goal? Should emissions be reduced even further, as some European
countries are already doing? Or, as Bush argued, should they not be reduced at all?
One way to answer this question is to use a benefit-cost framework. Quantifying
the benefits and costs of reducing emissions is a difficult task, primarily because
uncertainties loom very large in the case of climate change. On the benefits side,
analysts are required to estimate the damages that will be avoided 100 years hence,
by stabilizing CO2 as it affects not only global agriculture and human health but also
species extinction and biodiversity. Moreover, across the planet, some regions will
gain and others will lose; impacts will be proportionately larger in poor countries and
smaller in rich countries. Developing countries will be hardest hit because they tend
already to be in warmer and drier parts of the planet—but more importantly, because
they have fewer financial resources for adapting their agriculture or building sea walls.
Putting a monetary value on such benefits presents difficult issues, among them:
How do we deal with uncertainty, and the possibility of cataclysmic change? How do
we value damage to future generations? Can we measure the value of intangible or
“priceless” benefits such as human suffering and death averted or forests saved? How
do we weigh the fact that certain countries will lose more than others in the warming
process? These are issues we explore in detail later in the book.
Nevertheless, and bearing in mind these large uncertainties, two prominent
economists—Sir Nicholas Stern, former head of the World Bank, and William
Nordhaus from Yale University—have recently offered very different perspectives
on the net benefits of aggressively reducing global warming pollution. The two
researchers start with different estimates of “business-as-usual” warming by 2100; that
is, the warming that would occur in the absence of any laws or government policies
requiring or subsidizing emission reductions. Stern explores a range of between 5 and
11 degrees F of warming from current levels, while Nordhaus focuses on a single
warming estimate, a “best guess” of under 5 degrees F.
Stern’s projections are that, unchecked, global warming would reduce global output
of goods and services from 5 to 20%, and the higher end is more likely. (For a reference
point, the Great Depression of the 1930s led to a reduction in U.S. GDP of 25%.)
 CHAPTER 1 FOUR ECONOMIC QUESTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING 9

Nordhaus is much more sanguine, arguing that by 2100, the impacts would be closer to
a significant but much smaller 3% of world output.5
With such large damages, Stern’s analysis calls for rapid cuts in emissions to hold
global warming to the low end: 4 degrees F. This would require global reductions
of 25% below 1990 levels by 2050. However, since emissions from India, China, and
Brazil will keep growing for some time, this means 80% reductions by 2050 for the
developed countries. Stern estimates that this policy would cost—in the form of reduced
consumption—about 1% of global GDP per year by 2050, equivalent to about $540
billion (about half a trillion) in today’s dollars.
Nordhaus, by contrast, calls for much smaller cuts of about 15% below business-
as-usual, rising to 25% by 2050 and 45% by 2100. Because emissions will increase a
lot under business-as-usual, relative to 1990 levels, Nordhaus is actually recommending
an increase in global annual emissions of around 40% by 2050. Under Nordhaus’s
analysis, this policy of holding emissions down relative to their unregulated state would
trim warming from a projected 5 degrees F increase to 4 degrees F. Nordhaus figures
that the total benefits of this reduced warming will be $7 trillion while the costs will
run $2 trillion, leaving society $5 trillion better off.
These are two very different policy prescriptions: “deep cuts” in emissions, versus
“start slow, ramp up.” But interestingly, both researchers arrive at similar answers to
the “how much is too much” question: both recommend holding further global warming
to the low end of 4 degrees F! Their big differences in recommended emission cuts
instead reflect disagreement on three points: (1) how much warming will be generated
by business-as-usual, (2) the costs of acting to slow climate change, and (3) the costs of
inaction.
First, on the climate-warming side, Nordhaus sticks with a single “best guess” to
back up his start-slow policy recommendation. If business as usual “only” leads to a
5 degrees F warming by 2100, it won’t require as much in emissions cuts to get us back to
4 degrees. Stern, by contrast, is both less certain about the simple correlation between
CO2 buildup and future temperatures, and much more worried about the possibility
of positive feedbacks and the unleashing of a runaway greenhouse effect of the kind
discussed earlier. Stern takes seriously the possibility that business-as-usual will blow
quickly past 5 degrees F, and push us beyond 10 degrees F, within your lifetimes.
A 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study clearly supports Stern on
this—it pushes the median projection of warming by 2100 under business as usual to a
high-end, catastrophic 10 degrees F, with a one in nine chance that temperatures could
rise as high as 12.5 degrees F.6
Second, Stern sees deep cuts in emissions as achievable at relatively low cost to
the global economy: 1% of GDP. The Stern perspective is that energy efficiency and
renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar electricity offer great promise
for de-linking economic growth from fossil fuel use relatively quickly, thus achieving
emission reductions cheaply. In important cases, emission reductions can even be

5. The discussion in these paragraphs is drawn from Stern (2006) and Nordhaus (2008). Ackerman and
Stanton (2010) point out that Nordhaus’s damage function implies that an increase in global temperature of
19 degrees C (34 degrees F) would be required to cut global GDP in half! Nordhaus is clearly a technological
optimist.
6. Sokolov et al. (2009).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Miscellanies
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

Title: Miscellanies

Author: Ralph Waldo Emerson

Editor: Edward Waldo Emerson

Release date: October 5, 2023 [eBook #71812]

Language: English

Original publication: Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company,

1878

Credits: Emmanuel Ackerman and the Online Distributed

Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file
was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK

MISCELLANIES ***
 MISCELLANIES

BY
RALPH WALDO EMERSON

BOSTON AND NEW YORK

HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY
The Riverside Press, Cambridge
 COPYRIGHT, 1878, BY RALPH WALDO EMERSON
COPYRIGHT, 1883, 1904, AND 1906, BY EDWARD W. EMERSON
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
 PREFACE
The year after Mr. Emerson’s death, Mr. Cabot, in editing his
works, gathered into a volume the occasional writings which had
never been included in previous editions, although six of them had
been printed, either as pamphlets or in periodicals, long before, by
the author. These were the Sermon on The Lord’s Supper, the
Historical Address at Concord in 1835, that at the dedication of the
Soldiers’ Monument there in 1867, and that on Emancipation in the
British West Indies, the Essay on War, and the Editors’ Address in
the Massachusetts Quarterly Review. “American Civilization” had
been a portion of the article of that name in the Atlantic in 1862. “The
Fortune of the Republic” also had been printed as a pamphlet in
1874. Mr. Cabot said in his prefatory note, “In none was any change
from the original form made by me, except in the ‘Fortune of the
Republic,’ which was made up of several lectures, for the occasion
upon which it was read.” This was after Mr. Emerson was no longer
able to arrange his work and his friends had come to his aid.
The speeches at the John Brown, the Walter Scott, and the Free
Religious Association meetings had been printed, probably with Mr.
Emerson’s consent. The other pieces included by Mr. Cabot, namely,
the speeches on Theodore Parker, the Emancipation Proclamation,
Abraham Lincoln, at the Harvard Commemoration, “Woman,” the
addresses to Kossuth, and at the Burns Festival, had not been
published.
All that were in Mr. Cabot’s collection will be found here, although
the order has been slightly changed. To these I have added Mr.
Emerson’s letter to President Van Buren in 1838, his speech on the
Fugitive Slave Law in Concord soon after its enactment, that on
Shakspeare to the Saturday Club, and his remarks at the Humboldt
Centennial, and at the dinner to the Chinese Embassy; also the
addresses at the consecration of Sleepy Hollow Cemetery and at the
opening of the Concord Free Public Library. The oration before the
New England Society of New York in 1870, printed by them in their
recent volume, is not included, as most of the matter may be found
in the Historical Discourse at Concord and in the essay “Boston,” in
Natural History of Intellect.
I have given to the chapters mottoes, the most of them drawn from
Mr. Emerson’s writings.
EDWARD W. EMERSON.
 CONTENTS
PAGE
I. THE LORD’S SUPPER 1
II. HISTORICAL DISCOURSE AT CONCORD 27
III. LETTER TO PRESIDENT VAN BUREN 87
IV. EMANCIPATION IN THE BRITISH WEST INDIES 97
V. WAR 149
VI. THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW—ADDRESS AT
CONCORD 177
VII. THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW—LECTURE AT NEW
YORK 215
VIII. THE ASSAULT UPON MR. SUMNER 245
IX. SPEECH ON AFFAIRS IN KANSAS 253
X. JOHN BROWN—SPEECH AT BOSTON 265
XI. JOHN BROWN—SPEECH AT SALEM 275
XII. THEODORE PARKER 283
XIII. AMERICAN CIVILIZATION 295
XIV. THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION 313
XV. ABRAHAM LINCOLN 327
XVI. HARVARD COMMEMORATION SPEECH 339
XVII. DEDICATION OF THE SOLDIERS’ MONUMENT IN
CONCORD 347
XVIII. EDITORS’ ADDRESS 381
XIX. ADDRESS TO KOSSUTH 395
XX. WOMAN 403
XXI. CONSECRATION OF SLEEPY HOLLOW
CEMETERY 427
XXII. ROBERT BURNS 437
XXIII. SHAKSPEARE 445
XXIV. HUMBOLDT 455
 XXV. WALTER SCOTT 461
XXVI. SPEECH AT BANQUET IN HONOR OF CHINESE
EMBASSY 469
XXVII. REMARKS AT ORGANIZATION OF FREE
RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATION 475
XXVIII. SPEECH AT SECOND ANNUAL MEETING OF
FREE RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATION 483
XXIX. ADDRESS AT OPENING OF CONCORD FREE
PUBLIC LIBRARY 493
XXX. THE FORTUNE OF THE REPUBLIC 509
NOTES 545
 I
THE LORD’S SUPPER

SERMON DELIVERED BEFORE THE SECOND

CHURCH IN BOSTON, SEPTEMBER 9, 1832

I like a church; I like a cowl,

I love a prophet of the soul;
And on my heart monastic aisles
Fall like sweet strains, or pensive smiles:
Yet not for all his faith can see
Would I that cowlèd churchman be.
Why should the vest on him allure,
Which I could not on me endure?

The word unto the prophet spoken

Was writ on tables yet unbroken;
The word by seers or sibyls told,
In groves of oak, or fanes of gold,
Still floats upon the morning wind,
Still whispers to the willing mind.

THE LORD’S SUPPER

The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but

righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.—
Romans xiv. 17.
 In the history of the Church no subject has been more fruitful of
controversy than the Lord’s Supper. There never has been any
unanimity in the understanding of its nature, nor any uniformity in the
mode of celebrating it. Without considering the frivolous questions
which have been lately debated as to the posture in which men
should partake of it; whether mixed or unmixed wine should be
served; whether leavened or unleavened bread should be broken;—
the questions have been settled differently in every church, who
should be admitted to the feast, and how often it should be prepared.
In the Catholic Church, infants were at one time permitted and then
forbidden to partake; and since the ninth century the laity receive the
bread only, the cup being reserved to the priesthood. So, as to the
time of the solemnity. In the Fourth Lateran Council, it was decreed
that any believer should communicate at least once in a year,—at
Easter. Afterwards it was determined that this Sacrament should be
received three times in the year,—at Easter, Whitsuntide and
Christmas. But more important controversies have arisen respecting
its nature. The famous question of the Real Presence was the main
controversy between the Church of England and the Church of
Rome. The doctrine of the Consubstantiation taught by Luther was
denied by Calvin. In the Church of England, Archbishops Laud and
Wake maintained that the elements were an Eucharist, or sacrifice of
Thanksgiving to God; Cudworth and Warburton, that this was not a
sacrifice, but a sacrificial feast; and Bishop Hoadley, that it was
neither a sacrifice nor a feast after sacrifice, but a simple
commemoration. And finally, it is now near two hundred years since
the Society of Quakers denied the authority of the rite altogether, and
gave good reasons for disusing it.
I allude to these facts only to show that, so far from the Supper
being a tradition in which men are fully agreed, there has always
been the widest room for difference of opinion upon this particular.
Having recently given particular attention to this subject, I was led to
the conclusion that Jesus did not intend to establish an institution for
perpetual observance when he ate the Passover with his disciples;
and further, to the opinion that it is not expedient to celebrate it as we
do. I shall now endeavor to state distinctly my reasons for these two
opinions.
 I. The authority of the rite.
An account of the Last Supper of Christ with his disciples is given
by the four Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
In St. Matthew’s Gospel (Matt. xxvi. 26-30) are recorded the words
of Jesus in giving bread and wine on that occasion to his disciples,
but no expression occurs intimating that this feast was hereafter to
be commemorated. In St. Mark (Mark xiv. 22-25) the same words are
recorded, and still with no intimation that the occasion was to be
remembered. St. Luke (Luke xxii. 19), after relating the breaking of
the bread, has these words: “This do in remembrance of me.” In St.
John, although other occurrences of the same evening are related,
this whole transaction is passed over without notice.
Now observe the facts. Two of the Evangelists, namely, Matthew
and John, were of the twelve disciples, and were present on that
occasion. Neither of them drops the slightest intimation of any
intention on the part of Jesus to set up anything permanent. John
especially, the beloved disciple, who has recorded with minuteness
the conversation and the transactions of that memorable evening,
has quite omitted such a notice. Neither does it appear to have come
to the knowledge of Mark, who, though not an eye-witness, relates
the other facts. This material fact, that the occasion was to be
remembered, is found in Luke alone, who was not present. There is
no reason, however, that we know, for rejecting the account of Luke.
I doubt not, the expression was used by Jesus. I shall presently
consider its meaning. I have only brought these accounts together,
that you may judge whether it is likely that a solemn institution, to be
continued to the end of time by all mankind, as they should come,
nation after nation, within the influence of the Christian religion,
would have been established in this slight manner—in a manner so
slight, that the intention of commemorating it should not appear, from
their narrative, to have caught the ear or dwelt in the mind of the only
two among the twelve who wrote down what happened.
Still we must suppose that the expression, “This do in
remembrance of me,” had come to the ear of Luke from some
disciple who was present. What did it really signify? It is a prophetic
and an affectionate expression. Jesus is a Jew, sitting with his
countrymen, celebrating their national feast. He thinks of his own
impending death, and wishes the minds of his disciples to be
prepared for it. “When hereafter,” he says to them, “you shall keep
the Passover, it will have an altered aspect to your eyes. It is now a
historical covenant of God with the Jewish nation. Hereafter it will
remind you of a new covenant sealed with my blood. In years to
come, as long as your people shall come up to Jerusalem to keep
this feast, the connection which has subsisted between us will give a
new meaning in your eyes to the national festival, as the anniversary
of my death.” I see natural feeling and beauty in the use of such
language from Jesus, a friend to his friends; I can readily imagine
that he was willing and desirous, when his disciples met, his memory
should hallow their intercourse; but I cannot bring myself to believe
that in the use of such an expression he looked beyond the living
generation, beyond the abolition of the festival he was celebrating,
and the scattering of the nation, and meant to impose a memorial
feast upon the whole world.
Without presuming to fix precisely the purpose in the mind of
Jesus, you will see that many opinions may be entertained of his
intention, all consistent with the opinion that he did not design a
perpetual ordinance. He may have foreseen that his disciples would
meet to remember him, and that with good effect. It may have
crossed his mind that this would be easily continued a hundred or a
thousand years,—as men more easily transmit a form than a virtue,
—and yet have been altogether out of his purpose to fasten it upon
men in all times and all countries.
But though the words, “Do this in remembrance of me,” do not
occur in Matthew, Mark or John, and although it should be granted
us that, taken alone, they do not necessarily import so much as is
usually thought, yet many persons are apt to imagine that the very
striking and personal manner in which the eating and drinking is
described, indicates a striking and formal purpose to found a festival.
And I admit that this impression might probably be left upon the mind
of one who read only the passages under consideration in the New
Testament. But this impression is removed by reading any narrative
of the mode in which the ancient or the modern Jews have kept the
Passover. It is then perceived that the leading circumstances in the
Gospels are only a faithful account of that ceremony. Jesus did not
celebrate the Passover, and afterwards the Supper, but the Supper
was the Passover. He did with his disciples exactly what every
master of a family in Jerusalem was doing at the same hour with his
household. It appears that the Jews ate the lamb and the
unleavened bread and drank wine after a prescribed manner. It was
the custom for the master of the feast to break the bread and to
bless it, using this formula, which the Talmudists have preserved to
us, “Blessed be Thou, O Lord, our God, who givest us the fruit of the
vine,”—and then to give the cup to all. Among the modern Jews, who
in their dispersion retain the Passover, a hymn is also sung after this
ceremony, specifying the twelve great works done by God for the
deliverance of their fathers out of Egypt.
But still it may be asked, Why did Jesus make expressions so
extraordinary and emphatic as these—“This is my body which is
broken for you. Take; eat. This is my blood which is shed for you.
Drink it”?—I reply they are not extraordinary expressions from him.
They were familiar in his mouth. He always taught by parables and
symbols. It was the national way of teaching, and was largely used
by him. Remember the readiness which he always showed to
spiritualize every occurrence. He stopped and wrote on the sand. He
admonished his disciples respecting the leaven of the Pharisees. He
instructed the woman of Samaria respecting living water. He
permitted himself to be anointed, declaring that it was for his
interment. He washed the feet of his disciples. These are admitted to
be symbolical actions and expressions. Here, in like manner, he calls
the bread his body, and bids the disciples eat. He had used the
same expression repeatedly before. The reason why St. John does
not repeat his words on this occasion seems to be that he had
reported a similar discourse of Jesus to the people of Capernaum
more at length already (John vi. 27-60). He there tells the Jews,
“Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, ye
have no life in you.” And when the Jews on that occasion
complained that they did not comprehend what he meant, he added
for their better understanding, and as if for our understanding, that
we might not think his body was to be actually eaten, that he only
meant we should live by his commandment. He closed his discourse
with these explanatory expressions: “The flesh profiteth nothing; the
words that I speak to you, they are spirit and they are life.”
Whilst I am upon this topic, I cannot help remarking that it is not a
little singular that we should have preserved this rite and insisted
upon perpetuating one symbolical act of Christ whilst we have totally
neglected all others,—particularly one other which had at least an
equal claim to our observance. Jesus washed the feet of his
disciples and told them that, as he had washed their feet, they ought
to wash one another’s feet; for he had given them an example, that
they should do as he had done to them. I ask any person who
believes the Supper to have been designed by Jesus to be
commemorated forever, to go and read the account of it in the other
Gospels, and then compare with it the account of this transaction in
St. John, and tell me if this be not much more explicitly authorized
than the Supper. It only differs in this, that we have found the Supper
used in New England and the washing of the feet not. But if we had
found it an established rite in our churches, on grounds of mere
authority, it would have been impossible to have argued against it.
That rite is used by the Church of Rome, and by the Sandemanians.
It has been very properly dropped by other Christians. Why? For two
reasons: (1) because it was a local custom, and unsuitable in
western countries; and (2) because it was typical, and all understood
that humility is the thing signified. But the Passover was local too,
and does not concern us, and its bread and wine were typical, and
do not help us to understand the redemption which they signified.
These views of the original account of the Lord’s Supper lead me to
esteem it an occasion full of solemn and prophetic interest, but never
intended by Jesus to be the foundation of a perpetual institution.
It appears, however, in Christian history that the disciples had very
early taken advantage of these impressive words of Christ to hold
religious meetings, where they broke bread and drank wine as
symbols. I look upon this fact as very natural in the circumstances of
the Church. The disciples lived together; they threw all their property
into a common stock; they were bound together by the memory of
Christ, and nothing could be more natural than that this eventful
evening should be affectionately remembered by them; that they,
Jews like Jesus, should adopt his expressions and his types, and
furthermore, that what was done with peculiar propriety by them, his
personal friends, with less propriety should come to be extended to
their companions also. In this way religious feasts grew up among
the early Christians. They were readily adopted by the Jewish
converts, who were familiar with religious feasts, and also by the
Pagan converts, whose idolatrous worship had been made up of
sacred festivals, and who very readily abused these to gross riot, as
appears from the censures of St. Paul. Many persons consider this
fact, the observance of such a memorial feast by the early disciples,
decisive of the question whether it ought to be observed by us.
There was good reason for his personal friends to remember their
friend and repeat his words. It was only too probable that among the
half-converted Pagans and Jews, any rite, any form, would find
favor, whilst yet unable to comprehend the spiritual character of
Christianity.
The circumstance, however, that St. Paul adopts these views, has
seemed to many persons conclusive in favor of the institution. I am
of opinion that it is wholly upon the Epistle to the Corinthians, and
not upon the Gospels, that the ordinance stands. Upon this matter of
St. Paul’s view of the Supper, a few important considerations must
be stated.
The end which he has in view, in the eleventh chapter of the first
Epistle, is not to enjoin upon his friends to observe the Supper, but to
censure their abuse of it. We quote the passage nowadays as if it
enjoined attendance upon the Supper; but he wrote it merely to
chide them for drunkenness. To make their enormity plainer, he goes
back to the origin of this religious feast to show what sort of feast
that was, out of which this riot of theirs came, and so relates the
transactions of the Last Supper. “I have received of the Lord,” he
says, “that which I delivered to you.” By this expression it is often
thought that a miraculous communication is implied; but certainly
without good reason, if it is remembered that St. Paul was living in
the lifetime of all the apostles who could give him an account of the
transaction; and it is contrary to all reason to suppose that God
should work a miracle to convey information that could so easily be
got by natural means. So that the import of the expression is that he
had received the story of an eye-witness such as we also possess.
But there is a material circumstance which diminishes our
confidence in the correctness of the Apostle’s view; and that is, the
observation that his mind had not escaped the prevalent error of the
primitive Church, the belief, namely, that the second coming of Christ
would shortly occur, until which time, he tells them, this feast was to
be kept. Elsewhere he tells them that at that time the world would be
burnt up with fire, and a new government established, in which the
Saints would sit on thrones; so slow were the disciples, during the
life and after the ascension of Christ, to receive the idea which we
receive, that his second coming was a spiritual kingdom, the
dominion of his religion in the hearts of men, to be extended
gradually over the whole world. In this manner we may see clearly
enough how this ancient ordinance got its footing among the early
Christians, and this single expectation of a speedy reappearance of
a temporal Messiah, which kept its influence even over so spiritual a
man as St. Paul, would naturally tend to preserve the use of the rite
when once established.
We arrive, then, at this conclusion: first, that it does not appear,
from a careful examination of the account of the Last Supper in the
Evangelists, that it was designed by Jesus to be perpetual; secondly,
that it does not appear that the opinion of St. Paul, all things
considered, ought to alter our opinion derived from the Evangelists.
One general remark before quitting this branch of this subject. We
ought to be cautious in taking even the best ascertained opinions
and practices of the primitive Church for our own. If it could be
satisfactorily shown that they esteemed it authorized and to be
transmitted forever, that does not settle the question for us. We know
how inveterately they were attached to their Jewish prejudices, and
how often even the influence of Christ failed to enlarge their views.
On every other subject succeeding times have learned to form a
judgment more in accordance with the spirit of Christianity than was
the practice of the early ages.
 II. But it is said: “Admit that the rite was not designed to be
perpetual. What harm doth it? Here it stands, generally accepted,
under some form, by the Christian world, the undoubted occasion of
much good; is it not better it should remain?” This is the question of
expediency.
I proceed to state a few objections that in my judgment lie against
its use in its present form.
1. If the view which I have taken of the history of the institution be
correct, then the claim of authority should be dropped in
administering it. You say, every time you celebrate the rite, that
Jesus enjoined it; and the whole language you use conveys that
impression. But if you read the New Testament as I do, you do not
believe he did.
2. It has seemed to me that the use of this ordinance tends to
produce confusion in our views of the relation of the soul to God. It is
the old objection to the doctrine of the Trinity,—that the true worship
was transferred from God to Christ, or that such confusion was
introduced into the soul that an undivided worship was given
nowhere. Is not that the effect of the Lord’s Supper? I appeal now to
the convictions of communicants, and ask such persons whether
they have not been occasionally conscious of a painful confusion of
thought between the worship due to God and the commemoration
due to Christ. For the service does not stand upon the basis of a
voluntary act, but is imposed by authority. It is an expression of
gratitude to Christ, enjoined by Christ. There is an endeavor to keep
Jesus in mind, whilst yet the prayers are addressed to God. I fear it
is the effect of this ordinance to clothe Jesus with an authority which
he never claimed and which distracts the mind of the worshipper. I
know our opinions differ much respecting the nature and offices of
Christ, and the degree of veneration to which he is entitled. I am so
much a Unitarian as this: that I believe the human mind can admit
but one God, and that every effort to pay religious homage to more
than one being goes to take away all right ideas. I appeal, brethren,
to your individual experience. In the moment when you make the
least petition to God, though it be but a silent wish that he may
approve you, or add one moment to your life,—do you not, in the
very act, necessarily exclude all other beings from your thought? In
that act, the soul stands alone with God, and Jesus is no more
present to your mind than your brother or your child.[1]
But is not Jesus called in Scripture the Mediator? He is the
mediator in that only sense in which possibly any being can mediate
between God and man,—that is, an instructor of man. He teaches us
how to become like God. And a true disciple of Jesus will receive the
light he gives most thankfully; but the thanks he offers, and which an
exalted being will accept, are not compliments, commemorations,
but the use of that instruction.
3. Passing other objections, I come to this, that the use of the
elements, however suitable to the people and the modes of thought
in the East, where it originated, is foreign and unsuited to affect us.
Whatever long usage and strong association may have done in
some individuals to deaden this repulsion, I apprehend that their use
is rather tolerated than loved by any of us. We are not accustomed
to express our thoughts or emotions by symbolical actions. Most
men find the bread and wine no aid to devotion, and to some it is a
painful impediment. To eat bread is one thing; to love the precepts of
Christ and resolve to obey them is quite another.[2]
The statement of this objection leads me to say that I think this
difficulty, wherever it is felt, to be entitled to the greatest weight. It is
alone a sufficient objection to the ordinance. It is my own objection.
This mode of commemorating Christ is not suitable to me. That is
reason enough why I should abandon it. If I believed it was enjoined
by Jesus on his disciples, and that he even contemplated making
permanent this mode of commemoration, every way agreeable to an
Eastern mind, and yet on trial it was disagreeable to my own
feelings, I should not adopt it. I should choose other ways which, as
more effectual upon me, he would approve more. For I choose that
my remembrances of him should be pleasing, affecting, religious. I
will love him as a glorified friend, after the free way of friendship, and
not pay him a stiff sign of respect, as men do those whom they fear.
A passage read from his discourses, a moving provocation to works
like his, any act or meeting which tends to awaken a pure thought, a