Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
I pay for an offensive military I don't use...
Where does environmentalism end?
- Thread starter superslug
- Start date
jpowers
Emperor
China subsidizes ignorance, not health-care. Mexico doesn't have the income to fund healthcare, whether private or public. My point remains that without (and sometimes despite) massive government subsidy of health-care, environmentally-related diseases are shortening lives and will continue to do so. When the governments (and their taxpaying citizens) get tired of paying and dying, maybe the corporations causing the problems will be held accountable. Unfortunately, it will probably be too late to avoid violent conflagrations, and GM and Exxon will be forced to hire their own armies to do battle with those of governments.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
In the grand scheme of things, it is. The point of environmentalism is supposed to be to make the planet cleaner for future generations. I'm saying that, given the progress we've made so far since industrialization, there seems to be absolutely no reason not to trust science to do that. Environmentalists today seem to have completely lost their focus, and don't realize that we can't save the environment overnight. Moderate regulation will do just fine until science catches up.
De Lorimier
North American Scum
People with money would. Broke people couldn't. No money? No park for you, no tennis court for you, no baseball field for you, no fun for you.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
I said National Forests:
http://www.sierraclub.org/wwatch/forests/index.asp
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/89162_trees30.shtml
http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/lp0302_Forests.html
http://www.saveamericasforests.org/congress/HouseSenateReintroArticle.htm
Reagan started it, Bush Sr. followed up, and now GWB is poised to hit the homer.
If you want a shock go up to Oregon or Washington and take a look at 10,000 acres of National Forest that is completely bald. It is a real eye-opener.
These exploiters are stealing our children's future and most people are too jaded to even notice.
What does that have to do with people paying for their own safety? If I can't afford the medical treatment needed to cure X problem, I should not take the risk in having the chance to receive that problem from another object.
It all falls back to this same old point. What is the problem? Capitalism.
Aphex_Twin
Evergreen
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,474
You are right. However "moderate regulation" is most often confused with "de-regulation".
But again, is it so much to ask for clean air and water during my lifetime?
jack merchant
Internationalist
The whole problem is that our air, our water and other natural resources are just that - resources (and perishable ones at that). The problem then is that polluting industries and individuals use those resources without, at the moment, having to pay the rightful owner - all of mankind (as represented by governments). Obviously, this means that as economists would say, those resources are being misallocated.
Society adresses this by regulating the polluters and, as has been pointed out, regulation is often imperfect. An alternative idea (already implemented in a few sectors, IIRC) is to create a system of property rights - auction off the right to emit a certain amount of pollutants, for example. This means companies must take into account the true cost of pollution in their production & pricing decisions, and creates an economic incentive to pollute as little as possible to hold down costs, or find ways to replace polluting methods of production with non-polluting ones.
However, this system isn't always workable so regulation remains needed. Its success is obvious from Metalhead's post :
Society adresses this by regulating the polluters and, as has been pointed out, regulation is often imperfect. An alternative idea (already implemented in a few sectors, IIRC) is to create a system of property rights - auction off the right to emit a certain amount of pollutants, for example. This means companies must take into account the true cost of pollution in their production & pricing decisions, and creates an economic incentive to pollute as little as possible to hold down costs, or find ways to replace polluting methods of production with non-polluting ones.
However, this system isn't always workable so regulation remains needed. Its success is obvious from Metalhead's post :
Since of course the reduction of the 'messes' didn't occur in a vacuum - it occurred precisely because people woke up to the dangers of pollution and governments started forcing companies to literally clean up their acts.
Maj
Emperor
"what is a 468,000 acre forest fire?"
Fertilizer.
Fertilizer.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
I just picked an arbitrarily large number to represent a single instance of clearcutting. Seeing thousands of clearcut acres in person is a religions experience. I don't know the exact numbers but it is staggering. They are literally raping our National Forests.
Forest fires are nothing similar to clearcutting. You alway get this inage that the forest is completely destroyed and all that are left are blackened nubs but that's only in certain small areas if at all. In most areas a very smaill percentage of trees are burned along with a lot of ground crap that accumulates over time. It is a natural process that have been going on for millenia without every Republican President's efforts to make it stop in the name of fiscal rward for his immediate cronies.
According to the Constitution the military is for the common defense. Since when is invading 3rd world countries halfway around the world defeinse?
CenturionV
Warrior Forever
and who say there is anything wrong with cutting down the worlds forest? once they are gone people will find new ways of building things and they will grow back, it just like with oil, once it is exhausted we will find something else to run are cars (and it will be better) there is no reason to conserve something simply because it is nice to look at. Every thing in nature is simply a resource that can and should be used(albeit responsibly)
there is no nation far away anymore, modern communication and travel have made the world into a place were EVERYONE lives side by side. a threat on the other side of the world is just as bad as on on our doorstep, saddam is insane and also is not bothered by mass destruction. he will do what ever it takes to get his way and in the modern world ANYONE who is willing to do that is an instant threat to our defense.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Thankfully most Americans have a more viable long term approach to the use of natural resources.
newfangle
hates you.
An intelligent industrialist will always know the long term value of a resource. Resources, however, exist to be used by us. If we eventually do fudge up this Earth beyond all hope (very unlikely), then I'll sit in a corner and cry. But until that time comes, I will enjoy all the fruits of my industrialized life, and not feel guilty for a single minute of it.
Man is capable of achieving remarkable things. Keeping our home sustainable is not beyond our abilities.
De Lorimier
North American Scum
You sure changed from last year... That's must be the Alberta air, there's something wrong with it. 
jack merchant
Internationalist
He may know it, but that doesn't mean diddly squat as long as he doesn't have to pay for it. Industrialists aren't paid to be intelligent - they are paid to be profit-maximizing.
So you'll only feel guilty when it's already too late ? What a foresighted, rational way of thinking.
Indeed it isn't - but man will only achieve remarkable things given the right incentives. Until man is forced to develop in a sustainable manner, a repeat of the tragedy of the commons is inevitable.
