Where does environmentalism end?

[newfangle]

Originally posted by De Lorimier
You sure changed from last year... That's must be the Alberta air, there's something wrong with it.

Fear not. Repugnant Albertan conservatives have no effect on me.

Originally posted by jack merchant


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.

Maximum profits will be found in green industry. Why? Because obtaining energy from an infinite source (IE the sun) is more profitable than digging up crap and burning it. Unfortunately, government gets in the way and subsidizes fossil fuels.

Originally posted by jack merchant


So you'll only feel guilty when it's already too late ? What a foresighted, rational way of thinking.

It will never be too late. Sorry to break it to you.

Originally posted by jack merchant

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.

I don't see the problem. Look at how much we progressed environmentally in the last 200 years? The last 50 years? The last 10 years?

Its only getting better and capitalism can rightly be thanked.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Originally posted by newfangle
Its only getting better and capitalism can rightly be thanked.

Exactly what does capitalism have to do with industrialists finally getting punished sufficiently so they can no longer rape the environment with impunity?

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by newfangle

Maximum profits will be found in green industry. Why? Because obtaining energy from an infinite source (IE the sun) is more profitable than digging up crap and burning it. Unfortunately, government gets in the way and subsidizes fossil fuels.

That would be nice if it were true, but it isn't. Also, I wasn't just talking about energy - clean air and water are resources too.

Originally posted by newfangle

It will never be too late. Sorry to break it to you.

Prove it !

Originally posted by newfangle
I don't see the problem. Look at how much we progressed environmentally in the last 200 years? The last 50 years? The last 10 years?

Its only getting better and capitalism can rightly be thanked.

Capitalism can't be thanked at all - if progress has been made at all in reducing pollution, it's regulation that can be thanked for it. Until we recognize the value of our environment as a resource and properly charge those who use it up, we will have to keep imposing regulations & emissions caps to prevent more serious damage.
You can keep living in your dreamworld and think that capitalism solves all problems, but it won't wash. Companies don't stop polluting because they 'would be charged with murder', they won't stop compromising worker safety if it reduces costs, and they won't stop polluting the natural environment as much as they can if it's cheaper to do so unless they are forced through economic or legal incentives not to.

 

[metalhead]

Historical trends and current scientific advances show that it is almost a certainty that our environment will be completely safe, jack. No, there is no proof, but it's as much of a certainty as anyone can give about future events. Not that I think we should allow as much polluting as possible just because we won't be polluting 100 years from now, but perfectly clean energy and fuel sources are moving on from the experimental stage as we speak, and there is no reason to believe that such progress won't spill over to the rest of industry.

Regulation is a necessary evil when it comes to keeping pollution under control. It's a shame we realized that as late as we did, but you could probably thank capitalism for that. It was easier and cheaper to dump crap in the rivers and pollute the air than it was to regulate it - many a politician was probably bribed to turn their heads until things were so mucked up that it had to be fixed. The environment is the only area where capitalism should rightly be checked and regulated by the government.

 

[jack merchant]

I don't doubt that we can make safe our environment if we set our minds to it, but that does mean creating a set of incentives for businesses and consumers to help reach that goal. As you rightly point out, the government will probably involved there, though I'm really a fan of the 'tradable pollution rights'-system - which moreover has the advantage of being properly capitalist too .
Science can't solve everything though, and indeed not everything that we're losing now can be replaced.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Eventually the only living things left on the planet will be humans, cats , dogs, chickens, cows and pigs. Oh and corn too (there'll be plenty of corn as long as your around DP). Beat you to it

 

[Maj]

Considering where I'm sitting right now was buried under a kilometer or two of ice only ten millennia ago I believe it is important to point out that while the ecosphere may be immune to all but nuclear armageddon its subdivisions, ecosystems, can be greatly impacted by minute changes in ambient conditions.

Seeing how little thought most people put into the Earth and its functions (of which we still know little) I'm amazed at how brash some people are. I'd really like to know what literature has lead you to come to such conclusions as "Technology and capitalism will ensure a safe and enjoyable future".

We seem so far detached from our environment that I believe we're not setting our priorities straight. We only have one Earth.

 

[superslug]

Originally posted by Maj
We seem so far detached from our environment that I believe we're not setting our priorities straight. We only have one Earth.

Only one Earth? That's true, but it's not the only planet we could have. Once interplanetary colonization kicks in, this may all be moot. Heck, the first generation of native Martians will probably laugh their asses off in their biodomes when they hear us Earthlings complaining about the breathability of our air. They'll say, hey, try ours!

 

[jack merchant]

So seeing as we might be able to colonize another planet in a century or two there's no use in trying to keep our current planet livable ?

 

[superslug]

The impending advent of mass use of 'green' technology will happen as some posters here have predicted, sparing us much trouble. Also, someone will eventually nail cold fusion, giving us all the power and clean water we need (desalinazation). Should there be some environmental regulation? Sure, but the problem isn't keeping me up at night.

If the earth does become too uncomfortable for me, I'll leave...

 

[jack merchant]

Cold fusion has been predicted to be coming along ' any time now' for the last 30 years at least..... To give up efforts to save our earth now because at some point we'll supposedly be living in a brave new world of ubiquitous green technology is (ironically) dangerously shortsighted. Also, we can't simply replace what we've already lost with that future technology.
Furthermore, your definition of what constitutes the environment is way too narrow - what about the ongoing destruction of natural habitats and the elimination of species ? How is green technology going to help us there ?

You may well find that the world will become too uncomfortable before it is possible for you to leave. And what about the rest of us who don't want to leave ? Are we supposed to pack up and leave too because you have no qualms about using the world as your personal garbage bin ?

 

[Stapel]

Though rmsharpe's convidence is the working of the market (i.e. those that manage the use of resources in a bad way, will get out of business themselves) is remarkable and, imho too big, he has a point here and there.

The biggest problem with many environmentalist institutions is that they not only try to defend the environment, but also tend to see capitalism as the big enemy. This causes actions agaisnt companies on bad grounds.

The dismantling of Shell's Brent Spar oil platform a few years ago, comes to mind. Greenpeace tried to block it and succesfully forced Shell to ship the platform to a Norwegian Fjord, as they claimed it would be better for the environment. After a few weeks of ranting, GP admitted that Shell already had chosen for the best option themselves.....

But in the eyes of Joe 'Average' Greenpeace, a big oil company like Shell is the enemy....

This is not the only example.

Apart from being 'against capatalism' in a radical way, many environmental organisations are naive. Many of their well-intended plans are just not feasable.

Letting cars runs on H comes to mind. The element H, hydro-something in english I guess....

 

[jack merchant]

Hydrogen.

The problem, Stapel, isn't that some environmentalist organizations have naive or misguided ideas. Rather, it is that people use those organizations as examples in a pars pro toto argument to discredit all of environmentalism. These are the same people who have deluded themselves into thinking that capitalism actually caused what little progress has been made in reducing pollution.

 

[superslug]

H=hydrogen in english.

@jackmerchant: The only species I care about saving is my own. The animals are not sentient, hence irrelevant save the ones I eat. Furthermore, I do not consider this planet my personal dumping ground. I'm a firm believer in recycling, sustainable development and more miles to the gallon, just so that we have more time to develop solutions to our problems.

And if you don't want to leave, that's fine. You'll have the planet to yourselves after we careless polluting souls leave...

 

[jack merchant]

Superslug, I'm just concerned that this planet may not be worth, or even suitable for, living in by the time you 'careless, polluting souls' leave. Also, apart from non-sentient species being a valuable part of this world in their own right, their casual elimination will have consequences for the world's ecosystem that we simply can't foresee. We'll be like a child breaking apart a toy and finding out we can't put it back together again.

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by jack merchant
Hydrogen.

The problem, Stapel, isn't that some environmentalist organizations have naive or misguided ideas. Rather, it is that people use those organizations as examples in a pars pro toto argument to discredit all of environmentalism. These are the same people who have deluded themselves into thinking that capitalism actually caused what little progress has been made in reducing pollution.

I do not fully agree with you. At this moment, the naive and misguided ideas are still a part of environmentalism They seem to be attached to it! It can be very annoying.

Furthermore, capitalism does cause some progress. If environmental organisations explain the consumer that certain products are manufactured in a polluting way, the consumer might boycot them.

Last note: I do think governments should be able to tax products that are manufactured in a polluting way! But it ain't that easy to do in a fair way.

 

[superslug]

Originally posted by jack merchant
Also, apart from non-sentient species being a valuable part of this world in their own right,-

They're animals, they shouldn't have rights.

-their casual elimination will have consequences for the world's ecosystem that we simply can't foresee.

Everything we do has unforseen consequences on the environment, hence, it's a pitiful reason to save animals.

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by superslug

They're animals, they shouldn't have rights.

I'm not talking 'rights' as in the kind of rights we claim for humans, except maybe the right to have us at least consider whether we're doing the right thing when we wipe them out.

Originally posted by superslug

Everything we do has unforseen consequences on the environment, hence, it's a pitiful reason to save animals.

Except in this case, we can be quite sure that the consequences will be negative rather than positive. Good reason to think twice, if you ask me. But then, I don't see this world as something to look at and use in a purely short-term utilitarian manner.

 

[superslug]

Originally posted by jack merchant
But then, I don't see this world as something to look at and use in a purely short-term utilitarian manner.

I do think the world should be used in a utilitarian manner, but definitely not for the short term! The impending interstellar empire is going to need a capitol!

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by Stapel

I do not fully agree with you. At this moment, the naive and misguided ideas are still a part of environmentalism They seem to be attached to it! It can be very annoying.

True, but the point is that they're a part rather than the whole.

Originally posted by Stapel

Furthermore, capitalism does cause some progress. If environmental organisations explain the consumer that certain products are manufactured in a polluting way, the consumer might boycot them.

However, in that case you shouldn't thank capitalism for responding to incentives, but rather environmentalism for changing the incentives. No true capitalist is going to decide by himself to reduce the amount of pollution he causes if it isn't profitable.

Originally posted by Stapel

Last note: I do think governments should be able to tax products that are manufactured in a polluting way! But it ain't that easy to do in a fair way.

Do a Google for 'pollution rights' .