You’re such a killjoy, pldennison. Here Lightnin’ started such a lovely thread for taking potshsots at our HUA “leader” and you had to go and spoil it by injecting reason into it. Sheesh! :rolleyes:
Of course individuals can make a difference – if they will. But you know very well that the influence of advertising coupled with the desire to “keep up with the Joneses” (now there’s a geezer phrase for ya) means nothing actually will be accomplished unless people are coerced by law to do the right thing.
::Sigh:: It’s such a burden being a liberal. We have to tell everybody what’s good for 'em, and then make laws to force them (and not coincidentally, ourselves) to do it. Stuff just doesn’t get done without beating some brows.
That’s definitely the right approach. I wonder why it’s so hot a housing market, though. It’s not like AOL and Worldcom and those guys are booming.
I agree - nothing is cheap as long as we sprawl out over the countryside. You can build roads, you can build good public transportation, or you can have much stricter regs than we do containing growth. The first two are expensive, and the third is something we’re not ready for, despite the anti-sprawl movements in places like Fairfax County.
OK, but one place to work is by making the biggest cars smaller. A few years ago there was no Lincoln Navigator, to make an example of one of the most steroidal of the SUVs. You slim it and its cousins down, and you make some real headway. You don’t need to put the Geo Metro on a diet.
I’m not sure this one really makes much of a dent anyway. A/C is the biggie, and at highway speeds, you burn more energy by rolling down the windows (putting drag on the car) than by running the A/C full blast.
Anyhow, there are other ways. One is the tried-and-true method of making and selling fewer gashogs and more of your efficient cars. Do that, and you raise your average without a single engineering change.
Another is the gas/electric hybrid car, which I’ve already mentioned. If you have a 30 MPG CAFE requirement, each 70 MPG hybrid allows you to sell four 20 MPG SUVs. (At 20 MPG, they may be Honda Odysseys and not Lincoln Navigators, but that’s hardly deprivation.)
Well, they do after awhile. Today’s new car is the used clunker of 2012.
Gotta give you that one. All I can say is that I was trying to stick with one example.
Except that I didn’t say slowing the rate of increase was “doing nothing”.
Besides, with cars, I’m just assuming that it will take 12-15 years to fully cycle whatever changes we make into the market. Cars just last that long now. And even now, if you can afford a car at all, you can afford a car that gets better-than-average gas mileage. (Anyone want to buy a 1986 Accord? :)) So poor people may not be able to buy a 70 MPG car, but they can sure buy a 30 MPG car. And every bit helps.
Other than the whole Club of Rome “we’re running out of resources” thing (which admittedly was a big one), I’m not sure what you have in mind. Ozone hole - real. (And responded to.) Habitat loss endangering species’ survival - real. Polluted rivers - real. (And responded to.) Air pollution - real. (Responded to, but still a problem.) Acid rain - real. Aquifers being emptied - real. Effect of whaling on whale populations - real. Effect of industrial fishing techniques on fisheries - debated.
No, I think the reason is more basic: most people, like Candide, are going to tend their own gardens. If Bush takes us to war with Iraq or not, the vast majority of Americans will say, “fine”. But most Americans aren’t going to lift a finger to make it happen or not happen. They figure we have a government to figure out what’s best and do it, and won’t raise their voices unless it looks to hit close to home. I would suggest that the same is true here.
RTF: *Except that I didn’t say slowing the rate of increase was “doing nothing”. *
I was the one who made the “doing nothing” comment, actually, back in the second post of this thread, and I’m quite ready to admit that it’s hyperbolic, to the extent that any mandated restraint on emissions is by definition not literally “doing nothing”. However, I think that the current policy of merely requiring that emissions should increase no faster than economic growth is so paltry—especially since it already applies to existing levels, if I’m recalling jshore’s arguments correctly—that it’s not much better than nothing. It certainly doesn’t compare with, for instance, raising CAFE standards, which would have a significant immediate effect on the large proportion of driven vehicles that are new, even if it would take several years before it applied to most of the cars on the roads.
To this, I can only say, “Yikes!” There are any number of despots and tyrants around the world that are convinced they’re doing the Right Thing, now and throughout history. So who’s gonna be the ultimate arbiter of “Right?” Oh wait, you’ve already answered that, “It’s such a burden being a liberal. We have to tell everybody what’s good for 'em, and then make laws to force them (and not coincidentally, ourselves) to do it. Stuff just doesn’t get done without beating some brows.”
Count me out of your little utopia. I have an aversion to coercion—from any quarter.
UB:I have an aversion to coercion—from any quarter.
Bully for you, Unc, but a necessary part of living in a society is deciding what kinds of coercion we’re going to put up with and what kinds we think are intolerable. All’s that liberals like DG and RTF and me are really saying is that considering the expected consequences of anthropogenic climate change to the human environment, we don’t consider it unreasonable for industrial energy use and efficiency to be one of the areas subject to some governmental coercion. (And I think you overreacted to DG’s tongue-in-cheek comment: notice the little smiley?)
So UncleBeer, you don’t think you’re being coerced when you’re encouraged to use your car as much as possible by low fuel taxes and low taxes on car purchases (lower, that is, than the environmental cost of using same), or where you park the car is influenced by town parking restrictions (or not), or that other transport options may operate under different tax regimes making them less desirable, or that suburban shops/mall’s aren’t built and designed to encourage you to drive…
Just about everything we do is subject to manipulation, is to someone’s advantage, in capitalist society, and the best sell is when ‘we’ think it’s our decision made in our own best interests.
Thanks, Kimstu, for noticing the irony. I used the tongue-out smiley because there isn’t one with tongue in cheek. Honest, ** UncleBeer**, I wouldn’t welcome the despotism of any faction. Although I wouldn’t mind being Emperor of the World myself. (please note the smiley)
Liberals do have ideas about what’s good for everybody, as do conservatives. But under our Constitution laws are made by individuals of two parties comprising several factions from conservative to liberal and in between, who represent us in two houses of Congress. The difference, it seems to me, is that liberals are more out front about what they think is good for everybody. Conservatives (like Reagan), on the other hand, increase the size of government at all levels while telling us government is too big, and quoting Thomas Jefferson (“That government is best which governs least.”). Kind of makes me think of the walrus and the carpenter, who decried the condition of the poor oysters while they ate every one.
Personally, I’m kind of liberal and kind of not. I think governrment intervention is sometimes necessary, but that government can sometimes be overbearing (no matter who is in the White House). It’s a matter of balance. So far the Nation is till standing pretty much upright. I like it that way.
Doesn’t mean I have to like it. After all, us libertarian-leaning conservatives are against coercion and government intrusions. That’s all I’m saying. And anyway, what makes you believe the market won’t sort all this stuff out through its own mechanisms? After all, I keep hearing from all the conservationists that we’re running outta fossil fuels anyway. As prices increase due to scarcity, there will be a natural movement to conserve, or find alternatives, thus reducing greenhouse emissions, no? Nothing need be imposed by anyone. I’d also like to note, Kimtstu, that your most recent post taking issue with my statements, addresses industrial energy use. My post said nothing about industrial regulation; I only commented that I find the coercion of individuals abhorrent. A readily distinguishable dissimilarity it should be apparent.
Actually, in a very recent ANWR thread right here in the pit, I called for a large increase in federal gas tax, but no, this is not coercion. I’m still free to choose from among several options.
Yup. Two parties (although there are usurped elements of many others) who ostensibly come to some compromise when passing law. Again, compromise, is not coercion.
But this is all silliness. I apparently over-reacted to your statement about coercing people to do the right thing. You have my apologies for a somewhat knee-jerk reaction.
UB:As prices increase due to scarcity, there will be a natural movement to conserve, or find alternatives, thus reducing greenhouse emissions, no? Nothing need be imposed by anyone.
Well, that would be nice, but it assumes that (i) there’s no such thing as market failure, in which the ideal conditions of a “free market” aren’t completely met so the market doesn’t properly manifest the theoretical laws of supply and demand, and (ii) the extra waste and emissions that occur while we wait for fossil fuels to get scarce enough for that market principle to kick in aren’t going to do severe and avoidable additional damage to the environment.
I’d also like to note, Kimtstu, that your most recent post taking issue with my statements, addresses industrial energy use.
My bad, I should have explicitly specified “industrial and consumer energy use”. I quite agree with you that regulating the activities of industries is less dangerous for individual freedoms than regulating those of individuals, but I think that the latter is also sometimes necessary. I don’t think it’s unacceptable to mandate (as we do even now with auto inspections) that individuals may not operate cars that get less than x miles to the gallon, or produce more than x amount of such-and-such pollutants, and so forth. (Exceptions should be included, of course, for things like recreational use of antique cars—let’s not be too draconian about this.) Same goes for energy efficiency of newly purchased appliances, etc. There’s potential for abuse in such a broad approach, of course, and at bottom I’m glad to have stubborn lib-con types like you serving as a check on the process with your loud hollering, even if I hope you don’t get your way most of the time.
Well…Let’s see the issue from another point of view. I don’t even have a car. Assuming you drive one and that you use a lot of gas, what you’re actually doing doing is polluting my air and changing my climate. Roughly you’re in the same position than someone who would put his garbage on my doorstep. How much do you intend to pay to me for the inconvenience?
This is not a rhetorical question, it’s a very real one. Using gas (that’s only an example…it would work with anything else) has negative consequences on the life of other people. These consequences, called external costs, are sometimes taken into account, when they’re are obvious and direct (for instance, an industry has to take care of its wastes, and the cost is eventually included in the price of the final product you buy). When the consequences are less direct and obvious, this external cost is ignored, and the people who eventually pay for it aren’t the ones who bought and used the product, but the ones who suffer or will suffer from pollution (increased number of respiratory diseases, drought or flooding somewhere in the world in case of global warming, skin cancers due to the depletion of the ozone layer, etc…).
In other word, the guy driving his SUV is essentially a freerider who let other people pay, now or in the future, here or elsewhere, for what he’s using. These external costs should be included in the price of energy (or whatever product which increase whatever form of pollution), possibly by taxation. For instance, forests fix the athmospheric CO2. Let’s assume your hypothetical SUV produce in a year as much CO2 as 5 trees will fix during the same duration. The price of your gas should be taxed enough to pay for the planting of 5 three/year (including the cost of the land used to plant the trees, etc…).
Once the external costs are actually included, you can let the market regulate the actual consomption, if you believe in the market. Putting your garbage in my garden to spare on your garbage disposal cost has nothing to do with free market.
The US, which is the country which release the most CO2/head, and more generally the industrialized countries which have build their wealth on the release of a high amount of the CO2 in the athmosphere are exactly in the position of someone who threw his garbage on the neighbor’s lawn, or more exactly in the communal pastures. When Bush says “These regulations would hurt the US economy”, he means “we should go on throwing garbage on pastures, or else we would have to pay for their removal”. If other countries actually implement such regulations, the US is viewed as a freerider, and rightly so.
This is not coercion, this is equity. You’re using ressources which aren’t yours (or at least are as much mine than yours), so you must pay for them. Not different from paying to remove the garbage you left in my driveway. If you don’t pay for these ressources, if your comsomption of gas mean that someday my house will be flooded and you didn’t take step to prevent this nor you intend to indemnize me, you stole me. It’s that simple.
Of our American version, I’ll just say, “checks and balances”, which our system has because its founders didn’t believe in human goodness.
BTW, I think there’s a lot of daylight between ‘goodness’ and ‘self-interest’. But remind me again of the distinction between ‘enlightened’ self-interest, and the plain ol’ moneygrubbing kind.
OK… not doubting you, Com, but I respectfully request a cite describing just how fucking fast we’d fill up this area with nuclear waste. Seems to me we’ve already got the nuclear waste from many reactors, and seem to be dealing with it (albeit sometimes in a poor manner) in some small areas…
If you can quantify that, I’d be happy to write you a check, first, of course, offsetting the amount for the taxes I currently pay on gasoline and other federal taxes that go to the regulation of the environment and transportation. I’m currently driving a Honda Civic DX (and have been for a number of years now), gets about 38 city & 42 highway MPG and I drive about 13,000 miles each year. You figure the actual costs to you of my driving and I’ll see you’re compensated fairly. I suspect that I’m already compensating you equitably through the taxes I pay. You may even end up owing me.
Anyway, I’m happy you can do entirely without an automobile, but my experience with people that don’t own cars is simply that, they don’t own cars. Doesn’t mean they don’t rely on private transportation when its convenient, they just don’t happen to possess their own conveyance. In other words, they often rely on friends and family with automobiles; using public transportation isn’t the virtue it’s always made out to be. I’m not saying this applies to you; I’m merely telling you my experiences and why I’m skeptical of those who claim virtue because they don’t drive.
Again, I’m in favor of a large federal gas tax. Since the external costs, as you call them, are impossible to calculate on a local basis, I would agree that a usage tax is the best method of assessing these costs.
This is silly. Are you suggesting that the people who buy and use these “polluting products” don’t suffer skin cancers, droughts and floods, and other catasrophes in the same proportion as the rest of humanity? Or are you saying that because they have enjoyed the benefits of these “polluting products” they perchance deserve these catastrophes? Or are you saying that the rampant consumption of fossil fuels in developed countires is to blame for the disease and suffering of those in less develop nations? I would remind you that some of the most polluted hellholes on earth are areas with little development and that a pastoral society generally has lower life spans than a developed one. Not to mention that methane, a by-product of cows, is one of the most pointed to and blamed greenhouse gases. And surely you cannot be saying these external costs are being totally ignored. If this were to be true, the Cuyahoga River would still be on fire, Lake Erie would be the dead body of water Paul Erlich predicted, the air around all major cities woulde be as unbreathable as it was around Chicago (according to Upton Sinclair) in the early part of the 20th century. This is most clearly not the case. Today, Lake Erie is palatable; Paul Erlich still is not. You seem to be conveinently ignoring the vast improvements made in the environment in the U.S. over the past 40 years—all without government coercion, only regulation—your choices still exist. These external costs have been addressed and equitably compensated for through the federal and various state EPA’s and probably dozens of other government (and non-government) organizations.
I happen to agree that Bush is playing ostrich on this issue, sticking his head in the sand, but the simple fact is, those that wish a pristine environment, which by the way, isn’t a right, after close analysis it turns out to be a luxury good, are going to have to be the ones who pay for it. Pollution, and all its myriad and complex effects, are an unavoidable by-product of people making things—like a living. You want a pristine environment, you’re gonna have to buy it. And demonstrably, the market (with a modicum of regulation) is the more effective method for getting that than government coercion. This explains the success of organizations like the Nature Conservancy.
No, it’s not. It’s a gross over-simplification. The earth is not a static system, as much as you may wish it, or as much as it may seem from a short term view. It is most certainly not my fault if you didn’t allow for this when buidling your home.
Now here we have a problem. The subject under discussion was coercion, I believe, not regulation. Regulation leaves individuals (or corporations) with choices; it attempts to flatten, or distribute, market inequities based upon a set of predicted consumer actions, or choices; coercion does not. Coercion forces entities along a predetermined path by eliminating choice. I would agree that regulation is sometimes necessary; coercion is not.
And I’ve spent way too much time on a post to be made here in the Pit.
I think clairobscur’s point was that the costs are spread amongst the users and nonusers alike. So the users pay a share of the cost, but have extracted all the benefit.
You tell Eve she can’t have her Masai cows, then.
I have to agree with you there, Unc. The question then becomes, what level of environmental health is a right? Or, to reverse it, what levels of environmental degradation get taxed, penalized, or whatever?
One point of confusion here, Unc, is that you’re using ‘coercion’ in the everyday sense. I think others here (including nonlibertarians) are using it in the Noncoercion Principle sense, or something near to it. (I could be wrong. Show of hands?)
BTW, I concur that a regulated market is almost always preferable to specific mandates.
The earth may not be a wholly static system, but most of the time things like sea levels change pretty slowly: Venice, for instance, is fighting a continuation of the same battle to stay above the waves that it was engaged in six or seven centuries ago. A rise of a foot and a half in the sea level is not one of those things the fabled ‘prudent man’ has been expected to plan for.
pld: the effects of an increase of 5° to 9° F. (3° to 5° C.) in mean annual temperatures in the contiguous USA would be pretty serious, and relying on individual actions to avoid that outcome without any government-generated carrots and sticks to nudge people in the right direction, is putting a great deal of faith in the willingness of humans to act together on a voluntary basis, and being very afraid of the same sort of regulation we take for granted at present. (Which isn’t without its problems, but it hasn’t prevented the US from having the most kick-ass economy in the world.)
I think this can be done within Unc’s definition of regulation. (I think he and I are much more on the same page than the back-and-forth here reflects, partly due to the confusion over ‘coercion’.) And I think that the risk that the additional laws and regs needed to stave off global warming will turn us into some sort of authoritarian state, is far less worrisome than the risk of massive population shifts should Mexico and much of the Sun Belt become all but uninhabitable. YMMV, of course.
(please note the smiley)
