# Red isn't green
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-isnt-green/710316
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [January 19, 2015, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-isnt-green/710316 "2015-01-19T22:02:56Z")
**Posts on this page:** 13
**Page:** 5
### Author:  [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Joker_and_the_Thief)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2015, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-isnt-green/710316/81 "2015-02-09T14:54:28Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#):
>
> It should be a little controversial, since there are employee-owned companies that do well. The [John Lewis Partnership](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership#Organisation_of_the_Partnership) in the UK is a hugely successful business that’s been growing even during the recession.
>
> The employees benefit from bonuses based on profits, so they do benefit from employing more people if doing so increases their profits.
>
> There’s also [The Co-Op. They consistently turn in decent profits, have expanded in recent years, and they are employee-owned.
I wasn’t saying that co-ops couldn’t succeed, just that their small share of the market meant that they were generally less likely to succeed than profit-driven companies. Again, the beautiful thing is that a free market allows for both employee-owned and privately owned companies–if co-ops are better, then no action is needed and they’ll succeed on their own.
> [@SciFiSam](#):
>
> The quote in that review about renationalising energy being popular in the UK does not mean renationalising oil companies: it means renationalising the energy _suppliers_ like British Gas that were sold off in the eighties and nineties. BP was sold off at the same time but they are very much not the focus of campaigns to renationalise industries sold off under Thatcher. British Telecom was also sold off and I’ve never heard or seen anyone seriously propose that they be renationalised (I’m sure you could find a lunatic someone on some bog saying so, but that goes for everything); not all of the privatisations are, or were, treated the same.
>
> And Thatcher did have an idealogical reason to close the mines down: it meant she could get rid of the unions who were one of the main funders of the Labour Party, her opposition. Under her administration most other union-dominated heavy industry areas, like steelworks, were also shut down. It wasn’t a fiscally wise decision as countries (like Germany) that have retained their heavy industry demonstrate. Unemployement in the former heavy industry regions in the UK is still, even now, hugely higher than elsewhere in the country and that costs money too.
>
> Part of the supposed fiscal reasoning for the coal mine closures was based around comparisons with North Sea gas and oil, which came online in the late '70s. Coal was less profitable than them, so they made it look unprofitable overall, when in the long-term it would have been better to retain diverse sources of domestic energy supply and keep people in work. But those people voted for her competitor, so they had to be disempowered, pun coincidental.
I don’t really know enough about British politics to discuss this, but I was trying to give examples of specific things Naomi Klein supports, not just nationalizing energy.
> [@septimus](#):
>
> I underlined a sentence near the end of this post. Using CO2 emissions as proxy for “pollute more”, and sorting [URL=[List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions)]the table on this Wiki page]([The Co-operative Group - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Co-operative_Group#Current)) by per capita, the first “socialist” country I come to is China (6.2 tons per capita), far below Russia, the EU, etc. China does emit more CO2 than France and Spain, but is hardly “socialist” paradigm – the high production derives directly from their capitalist twinge!
> Unless “socialist country” refers to France or Spain, we next come to Cuba, which at 3.4 (tons per capita) pollutes much less than Chile, Thailand, etc., let alone Spain (5.8), Italy (6.9), Ireland (8.8), Australia (16.9). 😕
> Therefore I’d ask Mr. Adaher to substantiate or retract the underlined sentence.
>
> I’ve also underlined the first sentence in **adaher** ’s post, which I largely agree with. However the conclusions adaher derives are backwards.
>
> It is _Government of the People By the People and For the People_ which has the strong incentive to look after the People’s interest! And indeed the “socialist countries” of Europe – by which Republicans surely mean France etc. since they even brand Democrat’s policies to be “socialist” – _ **are much less polluting than the U.S.** _, not more.
>
> The big problem of course is when, instead of Government of the People By the People and For the People, we have Government by a Selfish and Greedy Elite.
>
> All too often, practices in present-day U.S.A. increase the political power of the moneyed elite, beyond any desireable compromise. Would government, heavily influenced by big moneyed interests like Wall St. and Koch Bros et al, defy the public trust by encouraging pollution and other public losses?
>
> Yes I’m afraid I agree with adaher here, assuming he agrees that such a political course is unwise, but the solution is try to elect progressive politicians, _**NOT to dampen regulation further and give more power (especially campaign power, see another thread) to the moneyed elite.**_ :eek:
>
> And, again, the assumption that unfettered markets magically achieve optimalities is a gross exaggeration rejected by competent scholars. It seems to be a view more prevalant among political bloggers rather than among professional economists.
But instead of looking at a poor proxy for pollution that is largely influenced by the size and development of a country, we can just look at measures of pollution directly.[A measure of air pollution by particulates](http://epi.yale.edu/epi/issue-ranking/air-quality) lists Bangladesh, Nepal, China, Pakistan, India, Laos, Bhutan, Myanmar, Vietnam, and the DRoC as the worst polluters. These countries don’t seem to be socialist so much as united by a lack of rule of law… so I guess the point’s a wash.
---
### Author:  [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2015, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-isnt-green/710316/82 "2015-02-09T15:14:38Z")
> [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](#):
>
> These countries don’t seem to be socialist so much as united by a lack of rule of law… so I guess the point’s a wash.
I’m not sure why this makes the point “a wash.” I think in any parlance “socialist country” is rather the opposite of one “lacking rule of law.”
---
### Author:  [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2015, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-isnt-green/710316/83 "2015-02-09T16:37:56Z")
> [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](#):
>
> I wasn’t saying that co-ops couldn’t succeed, just that their small share of the market meant that they were generally less likely to succeed than profit-driven companies. Again, the beautiful thing is that a free market allows for both employee-owned and privately owned companies–if co-ops are better, then no action is needed and they’ll succeed on their own.
>
> I don’t really know enough about British politics to discuss this, but I was trying to give examples of specific things Naomi Klein supports, not just nationalizing energy.
>
> But instead of looking at a poor proxy for pollution that is largely influenced by the size and development of a country, we can just look at measures of pollution directly.[A measure of air pollution by particulates](http://epi.yale.edu/epi/issue-ranking/air-quality) lists Bangladesh, Nepal, China, Pakistan, India, Laos, Bhutan, Myanmar, Vietnam, and the DRoC as the worst polluters. These countries don’t seem to be socialist so much as united by a lack of rule of law… so I guess the point’s a wash.
The companies I mentioned don’t have that small a share of the market in the UK; John Lewis is the third biggest company in the country and the co-op has more supermarkets than any other chain. The UK and US economies are not so different that they can’t be compared.
Of course, both those companies are profit-driven. That’s not usually against the rules for co-ops.
The article you cited talked about British people supporting renationalising energy companies, not just Naomi Klein, and incorrectly took that to mean renationalising oil companies.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [February 9, 2015, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-isnt-green/710316/84 "2015-02-09T16:58:16Z")
> [@septimus](#):
>
> I’m not sure why this makes the point “a wash.” I think in any parlance “socialist country” is rather the opposite of one “lacking rule of law.”
Depends on the form of socialism. Stalin’s motto was, “The law should be phrased so that anyone can be arrested at any time.” Another was, “If a man is giving you a problem, remember, no man, no problem.” That’s not what we usually mean by “rule of law.”
---
### Author:  [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)
#### Post date: [February 10, 2015, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-isnt-green/710316/85 "2015-02-10T14:06:57Z")
> [@septimus](#):
>
> 😕 Pardon me if I’m going off-topic, but many of these GD threads relate ultimately to U.S. politics and I’d like the chance to do a reality check:
> [ul]
> [li]Which major present-day U.S. partie(s), if any, do YOU think actively seek to dampen regulation further?[/li][li]Which major present-day U.S. partie(s), if any, do YOU think want to protect the environment?[/li][li]Which major present-day U.S. partie(s), if any, do YOU think actively seek to put industries under state control?[/li][/ul]
I get where you’re going with this. I would never try to claim that the GOP is the better party for the environment. The Democrats are clearly superior in every aspect of that issue.
But since we’re talking about socialism, even the GOP are better stewards of the environment than countries with extensive control of industry. Even where those countries aren’t totalitarian, those who favor government control tend to surrender their ability to change their behavior. Elections tend to be one or the other affairs: You either vote for the party that favors government control of industry or the party that opposes it. That limits your leverage to change the government’s behavior since the only thing you can threaten to do is say, take health care away from them and give it to the private sector. Which 99% of lefties would never do. So they have to just take it as it is.
What you said earlier about government by the people and for the people having a strong incentive to look after the people’s interests is simply not true. It’s not even true in theory. Government’s natural inclination is to serve its own interests. Democracy is superior to dictatorship because the government must serve the people or get fired. But that has never meant it has to serve the people in every detail, because voters don’t fire governments for failures in one area of the vast apparatus. No government has ever been booted from office because the health ministry failed to do its job or the government-run oil company had a bad spill. That’s one of the pernicious problems with Big Government: it removes accountability from elected officials and places it with an unelected bureaucracy which in theory, is supposed to be overseen by the elected officials, but in practice, elected officials are rarely held responsible for their failures in a way that actually matters: by voting them out of office.
The theory of democracy that you cited was only true back when democracy was limited to government insuring liberty and equal application of the laws. Once you start getting into government providing goods and services, then there’s just too much outsourcing going on and no one knows who is responsible for what.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [February 11, 2015, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-isnt-green/710316/86 "2015-02-11T20:38:47Z")
> [@The\_Joker\_and\_the\_Thief](#):
>
> [Cite.](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/books/review/naomi-klein-this-changes-everything-review.html?_r=0)
Hmm.
Well, **ITR?** All of that is a bad idea why?
---
### Author:  [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)
#### Post date: [February 12, 2015, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-isnt-green/710316/87 "2015-02-12T02:04:37Z")
I think we can build a sustainable society, but we need leadership to prepare us for the sacrifices. Democrats favor doing something about climate change, but they don’t prepare Americans for the cost. They sometimes even insist there will be no cost, that there is somehow a free lunch.
Anything worth doing is not cheap. As long as Democrats keep proposing climate change fighting on the cheap, nothing will change. If Naomi Klein wants to see the change she wants, then the Democrats are going to have to be bold and abandon economic growth politics in favor of sustainability politics.
Of course, the odds of that NOT leading to the Democrats getting sent to the toolshed by voters are slim to none.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [February 12, 2015, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-isnt-green/710316/88 "2015-02-12T02:55:45Z")
> [@adaher](#):
>
> I think we can build a sustainable society, but we need leadership to prepare us for the sacrifices. Democrats favor doing something about climate change, but they don’t prepare Americans for the cost. They sometimes even insist there will be no cost, that there is somehow a free lunch.
The problem with this view is that it ignores that the issue should not be a partisan one, after many years of looking at the issue it is very clear that merchants of doubt used a lot of money and influence to make it so.
But even so, a majority of conservative scientists are on the record of the dangers, and then we have conservative economists that already made calculations and most do tell us that the real irresponsible position is to not do anything and then let the USA and most of other nations face even more costs in the future if we just follow the advice of the do noting Republican congress.
[http://www.carbontax.org/services/supporters/conservatives/](http://www.carbontax.org/services/supporters/conservatives/)
> [@](#):
>
> Economists
>
> Gregory Mankiw (Harvard): Perhaps the most widely-published advocate for higher fuel taxes in the economics profession is Gregory Mankiw, Harvard professor and former chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (2003-2005), and former senior adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Mankiw also contributes a column to the New York Times Sunday Business section every six weeks.
>
> Mankiw made the case for a carbon tax in a forceful NY Times op-ed, One Answer to Global Warming (Sept. 16, 2007) which we discussed on our blog. His 2006 Wall Street Journal op-ed pieces (Jan. 3 and Oct. 20) are among the many lively pieces available on Mankiw’s pro-fuel-tax blog, The Pigou Club Manifesto. (Economist Arthur Pigou, 1877-1959, articulated the concept of economic externalities along with corrective “Pigovian” taxes.) On Dec. 31, 2006 Mankiw reiterated his 2006 New Year’s Resolutions from his Jan. 3, 2006 WSJ piece, including:
>
> ```
> I will tell the American people that a higher tax on gasoline is better at encouraging conservation than are heavy-handed CAFE regulations. It would not only encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient cars, but it would encourage them to drive less, such as by living closer to where they work. I will tell people that tolls are a good way to reduce traffic congestion — and with new technologies they are getting easier to collect. I will advocate a carbon tax as the best way to control global warming.
>
> ```
>
> In a Sept. 16, 2006 post to his blog, Rogoff Joins the Pigou Club, Mankiw listed some three dozen other economists and pundits who have publicly advocated higher Pigovian taxes, such as gasoline taxes or carbon taxes. The list includes, in addition to several individuals mentioned here, such notables from economics, finance and journalism as Alan Greenspan, Gary Becker, William Nordhaus, Richard Posner, Anthony Lake, Martin Feldstein, Gregg Easterbrook and Lawrence Summers. (Links are included.)
> [@](#):
>
> The article neatly describes the potential for a “double dividend” obtained by tax shifting: imposing taxes on CO2 pollution while using the revenue to reduce other distortionary taxes such as payroll, individual and corporate income taxes that dampen desirable economic activity. Hassett and colleagues suggest that such a carbon tax “shift” can improve the overall output of the economy even without considering climate benefits and thus represents a “no regrets” policy for conservatives who aren’t convinced of the danger of global warming. The article cites authoritative works by a range of leading economists including Yale’s William Nordhaus and Stanford’s Lawrence Goulder who also support carbon taxes.
> [@adaher](#):
>
> Anything worth doing is not cheap. As long as Democrats keep proposing climate change fighting on the cheap, nothing will change. If Naomi Klein wants to see the change she wants, then the Democrats are going to have to be bold and abandon economic growth politics in favor of sustainability politics.
Missing the point spectacularly, comparatively speaking the costs of transition do not equal the end of civilization, the real alarmists are indeed the propagandists of the Republican party.
> **[3.6 Degrees of Uncertainty (Published 2014)](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/science/earth/is-a-two-degree-limit-on-global-warming-off-target.html)**
>
> Science and observation have raised questions of whether the limit of a 2 degrees Celsius temperature increase, a basis of climate negotiations, is stringent enough.
> [@](#):
>
> In practice, moreover, a tighter temperature limit would not alter the advice that scientists have been giving to politicians for decades about cutting emissions. Their recommendation is simple and blunt: Get going now.
>
> “Dealing with this is a little bit like saving for retirement,” said Richard B. Alley, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University. “All delay is costly, but it helps whenever you start.”
[And that was Republican scientist Richard B. Alley BTW.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7bmg65SS20)
> [@adaher](#):
>
> Of course, the odds of that NOT leading to the Democrats getting sent to the toolshed by voters are slim to none.
Of course the odds are bad about that because no serious researcher or economist has proposed “to abandon economic growth politics in favor of sustainability politics.”, again, dealing with this issue will not lead to the end of our economic growth. Not dealing with this will most likely lead to monstrous costs that coastal cities will have to face when the oceans rise and that is **only one of the most likely costs we would face**. Republicans somehow never seem to be able to understand that they are being penny wise, but pound foolish.
> **[Floods May Cost Coastal Cities $60 Billion a Year by 2050 | Climate Central](https://www.climatecentral.org/news/floods-may-cost-coastal-cities-60-billion-annually-by-2050-16356)**
>
> Adapting coastal cities to sea level rise won't negate flood losses completely, a new study finds.
---
### Author:  [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)
#### Post date: [February 12, 2015, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-isnt-green/710316/89 "2015-02-12T02:58:36Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> The problem with this view is that it ignores that the issue should not be a partisan one, after many years of looking at the issue it is very clear that merchants of doubt used a lot of money and influence to make it so.
>
> But even so, a majority of conservative scientists are on the record of the dangers, and then we have conservative economists that already made calculations and most do tell us that the real irresponsible position is to not do anything and then let the USA and most of other nations face even more costs in the future if we just follow the advice of the do noting Republican congress.
>
> [Conservatives](http://www.carbontax.org/services/supporters/conservatives/)
Politicians don’t usually lead, they follow. THe public wants economic growth. They want jobs. They want to have more stuff. So the political system, to the extent it is willing to combat climate change, is only willing to do so if it doesn’t reduce growth much. That limits the options considerably. Klein’s book is valuable in that it tries to change minds about what our priorities should be. Politicians aren’t trying to do that. And it’s not just an American problem.
> [@](#):
>
> Of course the odds are bad about that because no serious researcher or economist has proposed “to abandon economic growth politics in favor of sustainability politics.”, again, dealing with this issue will not lead to the end of our economic growth. Not dealing with this will most likely lead to monstrous costs that coastal cities will have to face when the oceans rise and that is only one of the most likely costs we would face. Republicans somehow never seem to be able to understand a simple concept like being penny wise, but pound foolish.
Given today’s technology, cutting emissions by the amount necessary to actually avert disaster would plunge us into deep depression.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [February 12, 2015, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-isnt-green/710316/90 "2015-02-12T03:05:41Z")
> [@adaher](#):
>
> Politicians don’t usually lead, they follow. THe public wants economic growth. They want jobs. They want to have more stuff. So the political system, to the extent it is willing to combat climate change, is only willing to do so if it doesn’t reduce growth much. That limits the options considerably. Klein’s book is valuable in that it tries to change minds about what our priorities should be. Politicians aren’t trying to do that. And it’s not just an American problem.
So clearly you did not check the links. No surprise here.
> [@adaher](#):
>
> Given today’s technology, cutting emissions by the amount necessary to actually avert disaster would plunge us into deep depression.
Again, not my problem that you are advertising to all that you are not looking at the real costs of not doing anything and how most Republican scientists and economists do not see a reason to follow your alarmist claim here.
---
### Author:  [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)
#### Post date: [February 12, 2015, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-isnt-green/710316/91 "2015-02-12T03:17:20Z")
Which country is doing the best at reducing emissions so far, and by how much have they done so?
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [February 12, 2015, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-isnt-green/710316/92 "2015-02-12T03:36:11Z")
> [@adaher](#):
>
> Which country is doing the best at reducing emissions so far, and by how much have they done so?
Avoidance of what Republican economists and scientists recommend noted again.
And if you want to answer the USA go ahead, but you are only then pushing a humongous contradiction for the simple reason that the Republicans are the ones that want to put a stop to the progress seen. The point remains that the efforts done in the USA are good, but not good enough to be on top of the lists of nations that are actually reducing emissions, Denmark is currently on top with the USA at #44.
> **[theenergycollective.com might be for sale. Request the price today.](https://www.theenergycollective.com/)**
>
> Check out the domain name theenergycollective.com and inquire today.
> [@](#):
>
> The report praises Denmark for “ambitious renewable energy and emissions reduction policies” noting that “[e]ven though emission levels are still relatively high, the country sets an example in how industrialised countries can not only promise, but also implement effective climate protection policies.”
As I have pointed many times before, we can still do much better and ensure that in the future we will spend less into saving our coastal cities. Again, I have not even mentioned the other likely costs of not doing enough or little. The point that the current Republicans in congress are Penny wise and Pound foolish stands.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [February 12, 2015, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-isnt-green/710316/93 "2015-02-12T04:18:32Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> The point that the current Republicans in congress are Penny wise . . .
“Down here you’ll float . . .”
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-isnt-green/710316.md?page=4)