Why is pro-pollution considered a free market position?

[Old Rocks]

And why did the buffalo and geese have to be saved? Dumbest arguement that I have ever seen posted, Walleyes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can anyone answer that. What gives coal and oil producers the right to pollute other people's air?

Tell you what.

Why don't you start by pointing me to a pro pollution promoter and we will talk. Until then, you are just another idiot.

koch brothers

The guys that want to repeal the PATRIOT Act are pro pollution? Or are you just spouting your typical reactionary nonsense?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And why did the buffalo and geese have to be saved? Dumbest arguement that I have ever seen posted, Walleyes.

One of the rules of a good trial lawyer, that applies equally well to debate, is never ask a question that you do not know the answer to. The buffalo extinction was a campaign of the US Army, and not the work of the free market. The progressives of the time knew that killing off the buffalo would destroy the Indians as a culture, forcing them to agree to be herded onto reservations for their own good.

The Buffalo Harvest

As for the geese, I could probably find a link to the buffalo and its destruction without looking very hard. The ecosystem is incredibly complex and delicate, yet resilient enough to survive the worst that we can do to it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? Tell that to the Dodo and Passenger Pidgeon.

 

[westwall]

And why did the buffalo and geese have to be saved? Dumbest arguement that I have ever seen posted, Walleyes.

They had to be saved because they were nearly hunted to extinction. My point, if you bothered to actually THINK, was nobody felt they were worth saving EXCEPT the hunters who did save them. The group that has done more to save wildlife worldwide is hunting organisations. No environmental group has done more to preserve wildlife than the various hunting organisations. None.

 

[westwall]

Really? Tell that to the Dodo and Passenger Pidgeon.

Indeed, and where were the environmental groups that should have saved them? They existed, they just didn't care. If the species had been hunted on a large scale I would be quite happy to bet that a hunting organisation would have saved them. Because they would have had a vested interest in doing so.

A better example of the lack of care for the critters of the world by the environmental organisations would be hard to find. Thank you.

 

[Intense]

Nobody wants to drink dirty water or breathe poisoned air, but everyone wants to drive their car and enjoy air conditioning and heat. It's an economic balancing act.

Sure, but any time anyone has suggested we limit any form of pollution, that claim has been that it means the end of the freedom. Without getting into contemporary debates about cap-and-trade and the like, look at the passage the Clean Air Act or the implementation of the EPA's Acid Rain Program.

I think the real issue is Regulation by the consent of the Governed for the General Welfare V.S. Regulation for the sake of Regulation and unjustified control or manipulation.

 

[konradv]

But seriously, anti-regulation is the free market position. Always has been always will be. But this is one example where the free market, left to it's own devices, fails everyone.

yep... forests and clean, fresh water would only be learned about in history books if the government didn't clamp down on it. similarly, many types of tuna, whales, and sharks, would also be gone... i think the buffalo is a good example to learn from

Actually the buffalo were saved by a buffalo hunter who realised they were approaching extinction and decided to preserve the remaining animals that he could find, and he did it completely on his own because no one else cared. The same thing happened with the Canada Geese, they too were saved by hunters (that's how Ducks Unlimited was founded)
nobody else cared what happened to them, no scientists or zoologists or the embryonic environmental movement, nope it was the hunters that saved them and the buffalo.

Nobody cared? This a good example of why your posts are to be taken with a rather large grain of salt. I'd only have to find ONE non-hunter who cared and your thesis would be proven false and you'd look foolish. It's that kind of absolutist thinking that runs all through your posts and makes them worthless at best and damaging to those less knowledgable, at worst.

 

[martybegan]

Good to see you are your normal, irrational, self.

Which part is irrational?

The part about anti-regulation being the free market position? Um, no. That's more or less the definition of the 'free market'. But don't take my word for it, go read 'Capitalism and Freedom' by Milton Friedman. A good read with a lot of good arguments actually.

Or the part about the free market failing to adequately keep pollution in check? Um no. The evidence on that one proves it to be a slam dunk.

Sorry, not only is it rational, it's fact.

The irrational part is your insistence that the free market is going to fail no matter what. One of the most polluted places on the planet is in what used to be the Soviet Union. Because they had no free market at all, the people were not free to protest against, and force the companies that were polluting to respond to them.

On the other hand, companies here in the United States, once the dangers of pollution became clear, were forced to bow to demands to cut back. It is not the free market that fails to protect the environment, it is the government. That makes you position irrational. Some regulations make sense, but most of them just make things worse. Some of them exist just to keep large corporations from having to compete.

The problem starts when the regulations go from being about controlling byproducts of various energy/item producing proccesses, to becoming back door methods of eliminating that process/item entirely. The standards being set go from being about preventing pollutants from entering the environment to being so strict that they end result is you cannot use said process without being afoul of environmental laws.

Add the sad fact that once a regulation matures the end goal goes from preventing the pollutant entering the atmosphere to doing the mounds of paperwork to cover your ass when the regulator or a public interest group comes sniffing around that the original intent of the regulation becomes a side effect instead of the intended effect.

 

[manifold]

Good to see you are your normal, irrational, self.

Which part is irrational?

The part about anti-regulation being the free market position? Um, no. That's more or less the definition of the 'free market'. But don't take my word for it, go read 'Capitalism and Freedom' by Milton Friedman. A good read with a lot of good arguments actually.

Or the part about the free market failing to adequately keep pollution in check? Um no. The evidence on that one proves it to be a slam dunk.

Sorry, not only is it rational, it's fact.

The irrational part is your insistence that the free market is going to fail no matter what.

My apologies. I stopped reading there because it's obvious I didn't make myself clear.

I'm not suggesting in any way that the free market fails no matter what. In fact, on most issues I tend to err on the side of more free, less regulation. But in the case of pollution regulations, experience has shown their absence (pure freedom as it were), to be a failure. I don't believe we always achieve optimal regulation all things considered, but what we've done so far pollution-wise is a damn sight better than if we did nothing at all.

That's all I'm saying.

PS: I believe the term 'pro-pollution' to be just as partisanly disingenuos as 'pro-abortion'.

 

[Dot Com]

what about it?

exactly

I would only add that the water is also polluted when coal producers use the mountaintop-removal method. "fracking" also has potentially disastrous effects to the water table.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which part is irrational?

The part about anti-regulation being the free market position? Um, no. That's more or less the definition of the 'free market'. But don't take my word for it, go read 'Capitalism and Freedom' by Milton Friedman. A good read with a lot of good arguments actually.

Or the part about the free market failing to adequately keep pollution in check? Um no. The evidence on that one proves it to be a slam dunk.

Sorry, not only is it rational, it's fact.

The irrational part is your insistence that the free market is going to fail no matter what.

My apologies. I stopped reading there because it's obvious I didn't make myself clear.

I'm not suggesting in any way that the free market fails no matter what. In fact, on most issues I tend to err on the side of more free, less regulation. But in the case of pollution regulations, experience has shown their absence (pure freedom as it were), to be a failure. I don't believe we always achieve optimal regulation all things considered, but what we've done so far pollution-wise is a damn sight better than if we did nothing at all.

That's all I'm saying.

PS: I believe the term 'pro-pollution' to be just as partisanly disingenuos as 'pro-abortion'.

Experience has never shown that.

The EPA was started because an environmental activist used junk science to overstate the dangers of pesticides, and scared the government into over reacting. People were just beginning to see the long term dangers of pollution, and companies were reacting to social pressure to curb the pollution.

Would it have been enough to make real changes? To be honest, I do not know. But I am sure that no one can say the free market would not work in this area because it never had a chance.

 

[manifold]

The irrational part is your insistence that the free market is going to fail no matter what.

My apologies. I stopped reading there because it's obvious I didn't make myself clear.

I'm not suggesting in any way that the free market fails no matter what. In fact, on most issues I tend to err on the side of more free, less regulation. But in the case of pollution regulations, experience has shown their absence (pure freedom as it were), to be a failure. I don't believe we always achieve optimal regulation all things considered, but what we've done so far pollution-wise is a damn sight better than if we did nothing at all.

That's all I'm saying.

PS: I believe the term 'pro-pollution' to be just as partisanly disingenuos as 'pro-abortion'.

Experience has never shown that.

The EPA was started because an environmental activist used junk science to overstate the dangers of pesticides, and scared the government into over reacting. People were just beginning to see the long term dangers of pollution, and companies were reacting to social pressure to curb the pollution.

Would it have been enough to make real changes? To be honest, I do not know. But I am sure that no one can say the free market would not work in this area because it never had a chance.

I can't argue with this. I concede this point.

But in the end, it comes down to a judgement call. And in my judgement doing nothing would have been worse. And while I concede the theoretical argument to you, I question the wisdom of a person who honestly believes, all things considered, that doing nothing was the wise choice.

 

[westwall]

yep... forests and clean, fresh water would only be learned about in history books if the government didn't clamp down on it. similarly, many types of tuna, whales, and sharks, would also be gone... i think the buffalo is a good example to learn from

Actually the buffalo were saved by a buffalo hunter who realised they were approaching extinction and decided to preserve the remaining animals that he could find, and he did it completely on his own because no one else cared. The same thing happened with the Canada Geese, they too were saved by hunters (that's how Ducks Unlimited was founded)
nobody else cared what happened to them, no scientists or zoologists or the embryonic environmental movement, nope it was the hunters that saved them and the buffalo.

Nobody cared? This a good example of why your posts are to be taken with a rather large grain of salt. I'd only have to find ONE non-hunter who cared and your thesis would be proven false and you'd look foolish. It's that kind of absolutist thinking that runs all through your posts and makes them worthless at best and damaging to those less knowledgable, at worst.

Then do so. The hunter who did save them approached many different organisations for help and not one offered to do so. He is soley responsible for saving the buffalo. Enjoy the hunt (pardon the pun) because it will be a long one.

 

[westwall]

My apologies. I stopped reading there because it's obvious I didn't make myself clear.

I'm not suggesting in any way that the free market fails no matter what. In fact, on most issues I tend to err on the side of more free, less regulation. But in the case of pollution regulations, experience has shown their absence (pure freedom as it were), to be a failure. I don't believe we always achieve optimal regulation all things considered, but what we've done so far pollution-wise is a damn sight better than if we did nothing at all.

That's all I'm saying.

PS: I believe the term 'pro-pollution' to be just as partisanly disingenuos as 'pro-abortion'.

Experience has never shown that.

The EPA was started because an environmental activist used junk science to overstate the dangers of pesticides, and scared the government into over reacting. People were just beginning to see the long term dangers of pollution, and companies were reacting to social pressure to curb the pollution.

Would it have been enough to make real changes? To be honest, I do not know. But I am sure that no one can say the free market would not work in this area because it never had a chance.

I can't argue with this. I concede this point.

But in the end, it comes down to a judgement call. And in my judgement doing nothing would have been worse. And while I concede the theoretical argument to you, I question the wisdom of a person who honestly believes, all things considered, that doing nothing was the wise choice.

Sometimes doing nothing is the better option. Around 30 years ago an environmental anti hunting group wanted to make it impossible to hunt dear in a part of Arizona. They proceeded to place a herd of deer on the Kaibab Plateau and because there was no access for hunters the deer were safe. there were however no natural predators either so, as was predicted and made very plain to the organisation involved, the deer population exploded and they proceeded to eat every livng plant on the plateau then in due course they all died of starvation. The plateau has still not recovered from that little feel good operation.

That is a classic example of doing nothing would have been far better to the outcome, but those involved were able to feel good about themselves for a couple of years and that was all they cared about in the long run.

The EPA was founded with the best of intentions and in the beginning was a very good organisation. They did some good work, listened to some good scientists and were able to actually reduce pollution in a significant way much faster than the free market would have.

Now, however, that is no longer true. Now the EPA is far more interested in political advocacy than in pollution control. They have also far overstepped their mandate and are now engaging in regulation by fiat. Now they need to be shut down.

 

[Old Rocks]

In other words, your ox is getting gored.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My apologies. I stopped reading there because it's obvious I didn't make myself clear.

I'm not suggesting in any way that the free market fails no matter what. In fact, on most issues I tend to err on the side of more free, less regulation. But in the case of pollution regulations, experience has shown their absence (pure freedom as it were), to be a failure. I don't believe we always achieve optimal regulation all things considered, but what we've done so far pollution-wise is a damn sight better than if we did nothing at all.

That's all I'm saying.

PS: I believe the term 'pro-pollution' to be just as partisanly disingenuos as 'pro-abortion'.

Experience has never shown that.

The EPA was started because an environmental activist used junk science to overstate the dangers of pesticides, and scared the government into over reacting. People were just beginning to see the long term dangers of pollution, and companies were reacting to social pressure to curb the pollution.

Would it have been enough to make real changes? To be honest, I do not know. But I am sure that no one can say the free market would not work in this area because it never had a chance.

I can't argue with this. I concede this point.

But in the end, it comes down to a judgement call. And in my judgement doing nothing would have been worse. And while I concede the theoretical argument to you, I question the wisdom of a person who honestly believes, all things considered, that doing nothing was the wise choice.

I am not saying doing nothing would have been wise. The government had a clear, and constitutional, role in acting once the danger was understood. The problem is not that they reacted, it is that they over reacted. That, in the long run, made things worse. Not necessarily for the environment, but it did prevent some technologies that would have made things better from being implemented.

 

[blu]

Tell you what.

Why don't you start by pointing me to a pro pollution promoter and we will talk. Until then, you are just another idiot.

koch brothers

The guys that want to repeal the PATRIOT Act are pro pollution? Or are you just spouting your typical reactionary nonsense?

WTF does the patriot act and pollution have to do with each other? and koch industries is consitently ranked in the top ten biggest polluters in the country

 

[Quantum Windbag]

koch brothers

The guys that want to repeal the PATRIOT Act are pro pollution? Or are you just spouting your typical reactionary nonsense?

WTF does the patriot act and pollution have to do with each other? and koch industries is consitently ranked in the top ten biggest polluters in the country

In other words, you have no evidence to support your claim, you just hate the Koch brothers because your masters told you that they are evil.

Just curious, exactly where is Koch industries on this list?

Top Ten Polluters in the USA | PlanetHazard

 

[manifold]

Experience has never shown that.

The EPA was started because an environmental activist used junk science to overstate the dangers of pesticides, and scared the government into over reacting. People were just beginning to see the long term dangers of pollution, and companies were reacting to social pressure to curb the pollution.

Would it have been enough to make real changes? To be honest, I do not know. But I am sure that no one can say the free market would not work in this area because it never had a chance.

I can't argue with this. I concede this point.

But in the end, it comes down to a judgement call. And in my judgement doing nothing would have been worse. And while I concede the theoretical argument to you, I question the wisdom of a person who honestly believes, all things considered, that doing nothing was the wise choice.

I am not saying doing nothing would have been wise. The government had a clear, and constitutional, role in acting once the danger was understood. The problem is not that they reacted, it is that they over reacted. That, in the long run, made things worse. Not necessarily for the environment, but it did prevent some technologies that would have made things better from being implemented.

I understand your point, but I'm not prepared to make such a blanket statement. I believe specific instances can be identified where they underreacted, overreacted, and on rare occasion, got it just right. All of course according to my best judgement.