The Mark 2010

The old rules about economic resource allocation don't apply online.

One of the biggest problems old institutions have in grasping the internet is how it changes notions of abundance and scarcity. We are used to a world of scarcity where, if you have something, I cannot also have it. This world requires some sort of allocation system, be it market forces, government regulation, etc. But with the internet, the old rules don’t apply in the same way.

The following two examples are wonderful cases of mistaking scarcity for abundance, and mistaking abundance for scarcity.

The Province of Quebec – Don't help people vote!

A while ago a friend of mine, a web developer who goes by the name Ducky, asked the government of Quebec for image files of provincial ridings in Quebec. These files would allow her to show people in, say, Google Maps, which riding they live in, who their representative in the national assembly might be, etc. The province was happy to share, but only on the condition that she never make money using the information.

So if Ducky, or any newspaper, wanted to create a website to help residents of Quebec identify which riding they live in and were going to have advertising on the site, they couldn't do it without permission from the province. Heaven forbid that someone offer citizens or voters a helpful or interesting service, especially using information that is in the public interest.

Why is this? I'm not sure. If Ducky created her site, it wouldn't preclude someone else from using the exact same information to create their own site. No, the Quebec government is making something that is infinitely abundant and that can be used over and over again (election data) scarce by preventing anyone from using it in a way that could be useful and profitable.

Perhaps they think they could make some money from the data. Sadly, every academic analysis shows they won't – usually money recovered for data like this only covers the cost of collecting the money and nothing else.

Ultimately, the losers here are Quebec residents.

Abitibibowater – Print, Print, and Print more!

On the flip side of this is AbitibiBowater, the producer of "a wide range of newsprint, commercial printing papers, market pulp and wood products." Apparently they have become concerned about the number of people who include "do not print this email" at the bottom of their emails. So they sent around this memo to their employees:

To all our employees:

At AbitibiBowater, we rely on the forest to make our products, and respect for the environment is a fundamental part of everything we do. Too often, however, we see the use of paper singled out as something ‘bad’ for the environment, which is the reason why some people include “do not print this e-mail” notes to the end of their electronic messages. There has been ongoing discussion concerning this matter in the media recently, given the proliferation of electronic readers. Here is a link to a March article that appeared on PBS’s website, which raises this issue.

We believe it is OK to print, especially if you use paper sourced from independently certified forests and recycle the paper after you are finished with it. Our Company works hard to operate in a way that is sustainable, and that reflects the values of our employees, our customers, and the communities in which we operate. We are continuously improving our manufacturing processes and reducing our environmental footprint.

We have developed a page on our website to address this issue (abitibibowater.com/print) that explains why you can feel comfortable knowing that using paper is an environmentally responsible choice. We have written our own e-mail footnote that makes this point and invites others to find out why:

It's OK to print this e-mail. Paper is made from a renewable resource. Please choose paper sourced from independently certified sustainable forests and recycle. For more information visit abitibibowater.com/print.

Uh ... actually it is still really, really, wasteful to print an email that you could just forward to someone. Even if that email is printed on certified paper. Paper may be a renewable resource, but that doesn't mean that it isn't scarce. Trees used for making paper aren't being used for something else, like building homes, making tourists happy, or, say, converting CO2 into air.

Pretending like something is abundant when it is actually scarce is deeply irresponsible – and Abitibi's email is prompting me to actually add the "do not print this email" signature to the bottom of my own emails.

The economics of abundance and scarcity matter. Knowing which one you are dealing with matters too. Make the wrong choice, and you could end up looking at best like a fool, at worst, deeply irresponsible.