CandleInTheDark

And it could have been done faster and less costly with market means and economic incentives. Regulations do work. By they do it poorly, with nowhere near the speed and cost effectiveness of an established system of property rights, an effective civil law system, economic incentives, innovative tax structures, and other decentralized measure. At the same time they are not coercive, and leave people free to choose, rather than giving the government more power.

In the USA, the effectiveness of your litigious culture has saved the environment. Had people not been able to sue government for not following its own laws, or individuals and corporations for violating their property rights, you would not have the same quality of environment.

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

dc_dux

With all due respect, I think you need to read up on the US environmental policies of the past 30 years.

The quality of the environment was deteriorating at a significant and steady rate from the industrial revolution through the 1970s as a result of the free market; the regulations made the difference.

Even the industries that vocally opposed the regs at the time and predicted enonomic armageddon - auto industry, petro-chemical industry, agri-business, etc - now acknowledge they were wrong.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

CandleInTheDark

I think maybe you should read my post again. Just because a regulation accomplishes a goal does not make it a good regulation, or that regulations are good. If you must go about trying to "save the environment" regulations are the most costly and excruciatingly slow method of doing so. Just because they work doesn't mean there are not better options.

__________________
Where there is doubt there is freedom.

Cynthetiq

so then you must agree that missionaries saving the heathens is a good thing... since you know they are "saving the world"

and
If they don't want to change... it's egotistical.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

People don't want to stop reproducing at an eventually unsustainable rate. There will be a point where people have to either grow up or starve to death. If I'm one of those people that says "grow up", will I be egotistical?

Cynthetiq

there's a difference in saying it versus forcing someone to do it.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

The problem with this specific situation (the one of this thread), though, is that I've personally been harmed by it. Sure, some politicians think they can fool people into thinking that it's impossible for humans to effect our climate, but there is no doubt that there is a direct, causal link between air pollution and asthma. I have no family history of asthma going back 3 generations, but Ch'i and I were both raised in San Jose, which had bad pollution in the 80s into the 90s, and we both have serious asthma. As a matter of fact, asthma rates here, especially for those born and raised in the 80s into the 90s, are unusually high. You can find similar situations in other higher pollution areas (especially LA). There's other, extensive documentation that I've read (but won't reference in a pub discussion).

If I say, "Stop polluting", I'm not just saying don't ruin our climate, I'm saying that I don't want my posterity having the asthma that I have, which isn't some abstract damage.

dc_dux

I didnt have any problem with forcing industries from dumping their toxic sludge into the nearest lake...or agri-business disposing of their feed lot runoff into the nearest river or stream...they bitched and moaned..and then complied and their bottom line did not suffer measurably.

And now I dont have any problem with forcing utlities or any heavy industry from continuing to spew tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

It wont save the planet...it will make it more breathable for many....and contrary to free market thinking, there is little incentive to do it voluntarily and it certainly wouldnt be done faster as suggested in earlier posts.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Cynthetiq

Again, egotistical. You want it for YOUR posterity. I don't plan on having kids, so my opinion doesn't count? I have asthma too, I don't want to inflict it upon anyone. It doesn't mean that I don't want to have the CHOICE to sit in a smokey jazz or blues bar and listen to some deep music with a drink in one hand and a cigarette in another.

My wife? She doesn't like to sit in smokey bars. That's not her thing. When I used to come home smelling like an ashtray even after I quit smoking, I'd have to shower before going to bed at 5AM. It was my choice and my consequences I had to deal with.

So far, egotistical people have removed CHOICES.

I don't like the color temperature of CFL bulbs. I prefer incandescent. The great state of California has removed that CHOICE from me.
-----Added 6/9/2008 at 12 : 15 : 53-----
I don't have a problem with industry. I've stated it before, I'm fine with measurable caps and hardlined penalties. I don't believe in carbon credits, buying/selling/trading.

If you want conservation, then everyone conserves across the board. Not use someone else's unused spots.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

dc_dux

The federal government has removed that choice from you as well. Last year's energy bill phases-out incandescent light bulbs starting in 2012 and completly by 2020.

Australia is ahead of us and has baned incandescent bulbs by 2010.
-----Added 6/9/2008 at 12 : 31 : 36-----
I'm with you on the carbon credits and I'm with you on everyone conserving across the board...even with something that might appear to be as insignificant as light bulbs.

And I wouldnt be surprised if CFL bulbs lose out in the process (issues with disposal) and by 2012, some entrepreneurs develop brighter and less costly LED bulbs than those currently available (now they are expensive and have a small "light circle") and that are 70% more energy efficient than incandescent and 30% more energy efficient than CFLs. (I may be off on the percentages).

That is one byproduct of regulation...it stimulates innovation to meet compliance.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

You're arguing for your right to poison people, though. I don't get to choose not to breathe air. Cigarette smoke really only effects the smoker and the immediate area around the smoker. The cumulative effect of automobiles, power plants, manufacturing facilities, etc. all contribute to a toxic environment that's substantially large. Entire metropolitan areas often are accompanied by moderate to severe air pollution. Even moving out of major metro areas, one is still exposed to metro pollution and pollution from more local sources. The north San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys get pollution blown in from the Bay Area. Mojave gets pollution from LA.

Is it egotistical for me to take action to demonstrate that there are alternatives to our polluting ways that could be just as useful but wouldn't put anyone at risk for asthma (or climate change, for that matter)?

That's how I go about doing what I do, usually. I've found that most people don't have the same Christ-complex I have, they need further motivation than "it will help the world". When I talk about replacing light bulbs, I talk about the money people will save. When I talk about alternative fuel cars, I tout "150 miles per gallon". When I talk about solar, I explain "we won't run out of sun power for billions of years". There are more altruistic explanations for each of these, of course, but many people are a little self centered when it comes to decisions in their life. I'm not going to berate them for it, just factor it in when I make my pitch. It's really not even my place to judge them, unless they're actively hurting others or themselves (which isn't the case).

Language like "egotistical" isn't pragmatic because people tend to stop listening when you insult them. It's just a part of being a sympathetic, social species, I guess.

Cynthetiq

and again, lighting isn't just about having light to read. It's about lighting for mood, atmosphere. LED also cannot produce the same effect as an incandescent bulb.



Again, will NO I AM NOT ADVOCATING THE RIGHT TO POISON PEOPLE.

I've stated I'm fine with regulations that limit industry.

I'm not fine with removing my choices for sitting in an private place of business to sit with INCANDESCENT low lighting and SMOKE CIGARETTES. Please learn to READ and understand what I've posted, and not what you want to see.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

But you called me egotistical for suggesting that I would take some action to make sure my kids wouldn't have asthma. You can see a mixed signal there, right?
I'm not talking about regulations, even. I'm talking about explaining to people there are better options that are in their best interest AND the best interest of the planet, instead of having them continue, ignorant to the better option. That's how I would prefer to go about changing things for the better.

Who are you arguing against? It seems you applied a context to something I said that wasn't really there.

Cynthetiq

It's egotistical of you. That's my opinion of your and your greenie type folk who tout "for the children" and "save the planet"

So there are better options for saving your soul ala missionaries. You aren't being much different in your explanation to the "better option that are in their best interest." Big fucking deal. It's not my cup of tea and I don't appreciate someone telling me that my lifestyle sucks and that yours is better, and then FORCING me to comply via stupid regulation.

But hey, I get that you don't get that, just like any of the other misssionary midsets, you can't live and let live.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Yes, but in order to reach your conclusion about "greenies" you have to ignore what I've been posting. Nowhere did I say anything about forcing anyone to do anything, so all you're doing is repeating a strawman. I've not discussed legislation. I've only discussed making sure that everyone is aware of their options. How is me explaining to someone "air pollution can cause asthma, and the things that cause air pollution can be replaced with cheaper and more efficient alternatives", allowing them to make an informed decision, egotistical? It's not.
You're picking a fight. I'm out.

Cynthetiq

I'm not doing any such thing. Again, you've stated that pollution is bad. I've AGREED to that, which you aren't interested in reading. I'm stating simply that your psoition of making someone aware of their options is like any missionary that says "You must believe in God to be saved, it's the better way." and keeps on it, even when someone has said politely,"No thank you not interested." But see that's okay when it's for you, again, it's same stance, "I don't need to change, you need to change."

Funny, you're not discussing legislation, but the fact remains there is some legislation that does remove choice, incandescent bulbs are no longer a choice? Why? Because it's not "green" and there is legislation that has come to the forefront to REMOVE the choice, just like removing the choice from private businesses to allow SMOKING in their space. See, you aren't willing to concede or agree that I should be free to do what I want in my own private space as long as I'm not harming someone else who isn't consenting. But see, legislation has removed such a choice. I am not allowed to cater a business to a select niche of adults who care to sit in a smokey bar.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

jorgelito

I don't understand why we can't conserve. It's not a big deal or a big strain to not shit in the drinking water. I don't know if the science is right or wrong (sorry liberals I'm not smart enough to deserve my right to vote) but I do know when I look out my window and can;t see the mountains or have trouble breathing that something is wrong. It doesn't take a Phd to know well enough to NOT poop or throw trash in our drinking water. Using common sense in regards to the environment is not detrimental to business. What's wring with protecting our environment? I really don't understand the argument here. I'm a conservative. I believe in conserving our environment and our resources. What am I not getting?

__________________
"The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but
to the one that endures to the end."

"Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!"

- My recruiter

Tusko

it made me change my major.

i became too frustrated with green-fear. too many idiots running around. all those environmental science courses for naught.
-----Added 18/9/2008 at 02 : 42 : 56-----
the problem is all the leftists (everyone in my program) who want to go sticking hefty punitive fines, telling people how to live their lives, and appealing to a false-god-like sensibility by telling people "it's just that simple!".

basically, the majority of people speaking in favour of the environment, and conservation in general have their heads literally inside their colon. i think they are searching for bio-fuel.

DSmith67

Yes, going green may not affect a large company's bottom line as the costs attributed to securing the procedures are eventually passed on to the consumer. Which means average american joe pays for those costs.
Where it does affect business are those smaller family sized businesses that have a hard time passing the green costs on to their customers which happen to be big corporate business that will not accept price increases in any form. Causing the smaller company to eventually fold or be bought out by the same big business that we all love to hate. Causing less market competition and hence higher costs to the end consumer once again.
Another affect is in global imbalance - if American companies all have to implement zero emmisions standards and similar Indian/Chinese companies have no such standards, the market cost imbalance will (and is) cost American's jobs that will travel overseas.

So, all "green" enforcements have costs that do affect the bottom line in Big Business and in our wallets. The only thing that has to be considered is how much really needs to be done so that we don't go back to days of dumping toxic pollutants into rivers yet don't put some many restrictions as to force small business' to not be able to compete in a global market. So, yes some "green" enforcements need to be done but not at the expense of closing american companies or the loss of jobs. Finally, to answer the original thread question - no I don't think global warming is a big threat. It has been blown out of porportion.

AVoiceOfReason

To answer the original question, yes, my opinion has changed over the years.

I'm more convinced than ever that warming and cooling is part of a natural cycle and that man isn't contributing to the forces of nature that is causing it.

__________________
AVOR

A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

Nimetic

My opinion hasn't changed much. I think the first piece I read on CO2 warming was in the 80s. I still have it. This was in the mainstream (Scientific American).