-
Posts
-
What I fear most about the Green movement is what the government and unscrupulous businesses will do to cash in on the movement.
Here is a good example of what we will be facing, and how it will cost us more than it should.
Please note: I am not against the idea of responsible environmental actions, buut I feel it should be pewrsonal, not enforced.
What a bunch of BS. So now it is not about helping the environment it is about making money. They said Trillion and that is a scary thought.
Hi Tom, Hi Andy,
Like the War and many others issues it all comes back to big oil. The purchasing of credits originally started with the oil industry. They said…Hey we dont want to clean up our act, so we will buy your credits.
BTW, IMO oil is too precious to burn. It is the base material for plastics you wear, and medicines. If made into plastics, it can be recycled. If burned up in our tanks, well its just carbon monoxide.
Typical Congress! Thats why TJ *(Thomas Jefferson) said God forbid the country be 50 years without a revolution..
Throw the bums out!
Lenny
I’ll just stick my toe into this discussion, because I’ll admit that I don’t know a lot about the particulars of this legislation. I will say, though, that it is possible to make a persuasive argument (persuasive to me, anyway) that polluting companies are costing the rest of us something by spoiling something (the environment) that we “own” collectively. A plan that makes them pay to do it will have the effect of making them figure out ways to do what they do cleaner, so they’ll have to pay less.
This doesn’t strike me as so terrible. My 2 cents.
Randy,
It’s never the intent, but the execution of ideas. The disbursement of the “benefits” (money) and politics of who gets what at who’s expense is where the evil lies.It should be noted, towards your argument, that we all benefit in some form or another from these companies that do pollute the environment. We drive the cars, we wear the clothing, we use the medicine, we work with the materials that are using this environmental degrading stuff. If we wouldn’t buy it, they wouldn’t make it.
Also, as usual, we will get the shaft on all international decisions, similar to what we would have gotten if we signed onto Kyoto.
I agree, Tom, that the ultimate consumer is the reason for the pollution, in the sense that the demand from those consumers is what drives the polluting activity in the first place. The point I’m making is that in some cases, the cost (to society, to the environment that society shares, however you want to phrase it) is not captured in the price of the item.
Again, I don’t know enough to say that I’m defending or attacking the particular plan referenced in the article that you linked. The underlying philosophy, though, wherein that environmental impact is monetized, with the proceeds going to us collectively as government revenue, is one that makes sense to me.
Any regulations about clean air or water are taxes, in the sense that businesses incur an expense to comply with the regulation, and they pass that expense on to us. In the absence of such regulations, businesses are driven by competition and shareholder demands for profit to dump pollutants into our air and water because that way of getting rid of them is “free”. At least generically, the kind of plan that I understand the article to discuss is one that tries to identify a proper “cost”, and then lets the market sort it out.
It would be nice if we could leave all this to personal choice, but the bottom line (in my view) is that we’d be letting individuals make personal choices about matters in which we all have a legitimate interest. A “tragedy of the commons” ensues, I fear. I understand and, to a degree, share some of your concerns about our government’s capacity to deal with it. To rip off Winston Churchill, we have the worst form of government in the world, except for every other form of government in the world.
Randy,
The more they regulate, the more they propose fees. It is in a sense controlling something and, as George Will recently wrote, creating, not a market, but a scarcity. Then they have the power in two different ways: Once to charge rates for caps, and once again to regulate volume.When the government can regulate air content, they will use it to further the power grab. This has been a pet peeve of mine for a good long time.
Most of my debates with Jon and Gene on this issue is not that green action is warranted or good, it is that I know from history that it will cost too much, with too many hands in the pockets, and little results to show from it. Look at what has happened so far: Companies pay a certain fee to have the product tested and pronounced “green”. Not because it is really green, but because someone, somewhere came up with some kind of flaky justification for it to be green.
The classic example is granite and solid surface as green materials. Granite – cut from mountains and sliced like petrified bread into slices for our consumption. Solid surface? Bauxite (or whatever) processed, belching out pollutants left and right. The justification for green accreditation? They have the potential to last a very long time. Never mind the reality that most people swap out coountertops every 12 years, on average, regardless of the material. If we are to approve certification on what’s possible, we can justify almost any materials having green status.
The only way this will work is by changing the public’s mindset, not forcing it on them. It is merely politicians doing something unnecessary, to be able to show they ‘care’ about something.
Posted By Tom M on 06/02/2008 9:17 PMMost of my debates with Jon and Gene on this issue is not that green action is warranted or good, it is that I know from history that it will cost too much, with too many hands in the pockets, and little results to show from it. Look at what has happened so far: Companies pay a certain fee to have the product tested and pronounced “green”. Not because it is really green, but because someone, somewhere came up with some kind of flaky justification for it to be green.
The classic example is granite and solid surface as green materials. Granite – cut from mountains and sliced like petrified bread into slices for our consumption. Solid surface? Bauxite (or whatever) processed, belching out pollutants left and right. The justification for green accreditation? They have the potential to last a very long time. Never mind the reality that most people swap out coountertops every 12 years, on average, regardless of the material. If we are to approve certification on what’s possible, we can justify almost any materials having green status.
The only way this will work is by changing the public’s mindset, not forcing it on them. It is merely politicians doing something unnecessary, to be able to show they ‘care’ about something.
Carefull there Tom. That kind of common sense ain’t so common.
The painfull thing is that it is soooooo obvious. But no one seems to see it.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, Tom, on the possibility that this sort of problem can be solved strictly by public awareness efforts.
It certainly is a pain, from a consumer perspective, to wade through all the stuff trying to figure out if this or that product is really “green”, or if it’s just a marketing scam. Maybe we need government regulations to address all that
(joke, obviously).We need an Iron-Eyes Cody for the new green generation. Randy, you may be too young to remember him, but Lenny and some others will. Paddling up to a bank of a lake in his canoe, only to find waste thrown in the water around him. (cue – look at camera, a tear in his eye).
Good marketing.
Littering fines certainly helped in those days, but not as much as public awareness.
The highways and waterways used to filled with garbage. Nowhere near as much now.
I do remember that commercial from when I was a kid (born in 1961). It was effective, and I have no doubt that it made a difference in the littering behaviors of many individuals. When it comes to industrial polluters, the Clean Water Act seems likelier to have made the difference imho.
I think you’re right about the industrial water contaminants, I’ll grant you that.
As for green building, it will need to have the public behind it. For now, I, with my John Q. hat on, don’t see where the benefits outweigh the extra costs.
Tom,
I just wanted to say thank you for jumping into my brain and writng my opinion for me. I could not agree with you more. The big problem is that people either don’t see or don’t care about all of the freedoms they are giving over to government.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.