Randomly chosen from the anti-capitalist comments.
Since mine were not anti-capitalist… you chose poorly. 
Err, yes, Peter, not Paul. I always mix up my Popes and my Beatles.
Oh, honestly. I think it’s pretty clear that you don’t know what you are talking about. Let me quote wiki:
These are concrete regulations which incentivize manufacturers against inefficient lighting. Without these regulations, manufacturers would have little incentive to change over their lighting production. The goal of the regulations is to ensure that manufacturers can change without being undercut by other manufacturers who don’t want to change. It’s not ideal, but it’s not a “pebble” either. For a “pebble,” there sure was a lot of wailing about the regulations. Only someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about would make this claim.
I have a background in regulatory economics. Trust me, I know far more about this topic than you do.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. But, maybe, you could learn something about regulatory economics instead of trying to pretend that you know everything.
These are not nudges, and by claiming that they are nudges, you are showing your ignorance. If you were actually interested in the topic, you could go to the energy.gov website and wade through all the regulations. But your ignorance on the topic doesn’t constitute an argument.
And, as I’ve already stated, who cares? I mean, we have to come up with some concrete goals about what people can sustainably consume. Not vague pablum about people needing to consume less. That doesn’t tell us anything.
I will also point to a very successful government regulation program, which is the SO2 cap-and-trade system, which dramatically reduced acid rain in the US. We actually have tools that are tried and tested to reduce consumption in whatever fashion you want to define it. But instead of learning about them, you want to pretend that you know everything. But if the goal is to protect Bangladeshis from being flooded out of their country due to global climate change, then we’ve got to do a lot more than make vague nonsense about people reducing consumption. We’ve got to come up with concrete goals and implement them.
I’m not going to bother to try to convince you, since I think it’s clear you have no interest in actually learning about the topic. But for anyone else reading this thread, if you want to save the environment or fix global climate change or protect species from extinction, then we have to do that through regulatory action.
Yeah well, for someone who wasn’t a Pope he sure did a lot of bossying the Church around
I never would have guessed, from the way you address the issue with two screenfuls of how regulatory economics will save the world, and a one-sentence dismissal of pretty much everything else I said. Maslow’s hammer, and all that.
The only thing regulatory action is good for is to codify actions already decided upon elsewhere, or to implement point-source change. (Heh. See what I did there?) It has never been effective at addressing widespread problems that don’t lend themselves to such “chokepoint” implementation and enforcement. Attempts like that lead to bureaucratic nightmares and add to the perception of smothering, controlling government, because only layer upon layer of added reporting, surveillance and control can hope to make such plans work.
Regulatory action is and always has been an important component of some kinds of social/economic change. But we could go on all day listing efforts that worked against those that failed miserably.
The real solution to the major problems we’re facing will *not *come from ever-more-elegantly-drafted legislation and regulation. I’ll even expand on my above point in saying that most of the regulation and legislation that effectively addresses global climate change will be codification of practices developed outside of economic think-tanks and the like, not tools developed from within them.
But you don’t want to talk about that, since it doesn’t fit your neat model of economic thought. (Neither does most of the world, but I’d hate to be the one keeping you up nights.) Somewhere in your stores of economic knowledge, you know that over-consumption is the real problem, and addressing it by fixing a regulation here and a technical spec there isn’t going to do more than piss on the fire. We have to remove the fuel, not try to purify the emissions.
Well I, for one, am shocked.
Why? It’s a current thread.
That was not the case on many of the items me and Richard Alley mentioned. Most people did not have toilet installed until a sewage line was ready, for example. And then you are also wrong in what is **currently **happening. regarding practices and opinions.
In reality the weakest link is with the current Republicans in congress where most Republicans do not even think that there is a problem and the EPA is evil, but the reality is that most of the people do agree that change and regulations are needed to accelerate the change.
The latest polls show that Nationally speaking 74% of Americans do want to have CO2 regulated as a pollutant. 77% want to Fund research, 63% to restrict coal plants.
And creatively editing its message for fun and [del]profit[/del] misogyny, yes.
Really. So when legislation is created to further those goals… at what point will it not be codification of (in this case, social) practice?
Such legislation would be stillborn or die an infant death if the polls were the other way, and often has been. You cannot - can not - simply legislate things into existence. There has to be factual and social support, and where appropriate, scientific basis. Until you have that, legislators and regulators are largely pissing upwind.
The context shows that you were not aware of that (and the inroads of solar power in many locations). So one should indeed arrive to one conclusion: We need to drop the weakest link that is nowadays with the Republicans in congress.
Indeed, so you have to realize where the problem is then regarding this issue.
Oh, I’m seeking solutions.
I desperately want solutions.
Give me solutions!
Meanwhile, also give me a private jet and new golf clubs please.
Also, a bigger house, and the Ritz when I travel.
But keep working on Solutions, of course (just not ones that involve me living poor).
Religious leaders have been getting far into politics for centuries, it’s nothing new. Gandhi had credibility as a nationalist leader because he was a religious leader, MLK was a preacher who never sought public office but still had a profound influence on American politics, etc., etc. I want to see the wall of separation maintained, but that alone is no reason why religious leaders cannot use their influence as such to spread a political message – that is not theocracy, it’s an ineluctable element of democracy – ineluctable, at any rate, so long as such things as religious leaders exist. Pat Robertson is wrong about everything IMO, but he still has the right to speak from his pulpit about politics.
No, GIGO, there has been very little in this thread that was not something I was aware of. That I (or anyone) doesn’t mention every ramification and variant of a topic doesn’t mean they’re ignorant of it. You haven’t said a word about hydro power; does that mean you’ve never heard of it? (No, of course not.)
If you see pressure on legislators and resulting legislation as the answer to our problems, I don’t have anything further to argue. IMO, legislation works where it works and when it can work… but that’s a subset of problems, and we have others that are not going to be solved by widening the US Code. Legislation and regulation can help box in and define change, but it is only rarely the source of it.
:sigh:
As pointed before it is not the only solution, it is one of the big ones, but as I pointed before also our purchasing power has to be used too.
Both cap-and-trade and a carbon tax (linked to countervailing tariffs) are solutions, and neither one involves you living poor. :rolleyes:
I mean, seriously. Refrigerator regulation made it so that at one point, it was cheaper over the long run to buy a new energy efficient refrigerator, then keep trying to fix your old one (and it’s still the case today for a lot of people). So, most people switched to the energy efficient refrigerators (and I’m not even getting into the coolant stuff here, which I could, and which was a more drastic regulation).
He doesn’t know anything about how energy efficiency regulations have dramatically reduced per-capita power consumption in the US and Europe. And since most countries have to export to the US and Europe, if between us, we adopt regulations, then most countries will eventually follow suit.
There are many tools to force change. I maintain only that legislation by itself makes a poor one; shall we go down the list of things that were arbitrarily legislated into being and failed miserably?
Legislation and regulation are good tools - maybe in many cases the only tools - that can turn changing public and consumer attitudes into useful positions. (That is, there would always be some segment of makers and buyers for horribly inefficient refrigerators; the energy efficiency regulations closed that door because it had been established that some larger part of the market saw the value in the requirements. The “free market” needs more than individual good will to work.)
I am always suspicious of efforts that focus on the legal or regulatory control to the exclusion of other factors. The reasons are… too long to list. But I like to see the other forces marshaled along with pounding on legislators’ doors.
It is really underwelming when many examples have been produced that shows that you are ignoring many counter examples.
As it is also the reality that most Americans are willing to have legislation to accelerate the rate of change.
It is important to realize who are the ones that are preventing a more significant change, they are using the same tactics of the tobacco manufacturers, and in the high political spheres the same outfits that prevented legislation against the use of tobacco are many times the same that are opposing legislation to deal with our emissions.