SamuelRSmith said:
| Nik24 said:
@Samuel: Yes, nature does decarbonize. However, please take a look at rise of pollution compared to the decline of forests. There is no way that all these pollutions can be made up. Regarding the economics, there is (more or less) a common understanding among economists that externalities are not fully internalized, just as the market can never be fully efficient. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong if you believe that the most profitable route is always the most efficient route. Recent developments should convince you otherwise.
3. @Samuel: It actually is a discussion about property rights. I do believe there a certain limits to it and you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate even if it your store. Back in the 60s (and sadly still today in some parts) in the South, Racism was common and widespread. The general public was not disgusted by Racism. So the Civil Rights Act really was very much ahead of its time. But what is government for if not to actually lead and educate people in some areas? I do not know how long it would have taken to really get rid of discrimination if not for the CRA.
|
Yes, I know that externatilities are not internalized (hence the name), but, forced climate change rules also have other externalities. What of the families in China and India who won't be able to feed their families because of our green policies? Why do we spend so much time worrying about people in the future when there are people suffering today? This is my main problem with climate change, no action can be made without consequences, and climate change actions tend to lead to bigger problems than the destruction climate change could cause. Bangladesh will be under water by 2100 if we don't do something? Well, if we continue on our current path, Bangladesh will be as wealthy as the Netherlands by 2100, and they've been dealing with the problem of being below sea level for a long time.
Which recent developments will convince me otherwise? Lots of companies have started going "green" recently. If you look beyond the PR statements, and see what they say to the investors, it's because they know that by cutting waste, they can reduce costs. When Tesco started replacing the freezers in their stores, they didn't do it for the environment (although their PR said this), they did it because the reduced energy costs were going to save them millions in the long run. Cars are constantly getting more energy efficient, because that's what the market dictates (and hybrids, natural gas, electricity cars are already starting to carve niches), because energy costs go up.
The fact of the matter is, the West have now reached a point where the amount of carbon emitted per dollar generared is on the decline. This is a fundamental cornerstone, but it would have been reached no matter who was in charge, as its a product of economic development. The same is true of other environmental issues, as countries get richer, they get more efficient, and they can pay to treat waste. As a result, things like water and air pollution in developed countries are starting to improve.
Basically, if you're worried about climate change, let the world grow rich. It's not moral to say to countries that they must stay poor, and produce nothing, so we have to engage in policies that let them get as rich as possible. Forcing us to buy energy-efficient lightbulbs, and having a swath of unnecessary environmental regulations don't solve this issue.
---
"What is government for if not to actually lead and educate people in some areas? "
The role of the (Federal) Government is to protect our rights, nothing more, nothing less.
|
