Environmentalism? What to do?

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by Bern80
You think people in the Mid-East don't like us now? Wait till we stop buying their oil. Their only real source of income

Let em eat their oil for a bit and I do believe they will start to act and behave like adults....

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by nbdysfu

I honestly think that this is totally irresponsible. If we are to push "green" society, it must be sustainable or even a boon to our society. If you have a green energy industry, but no infrastructure to support it, no workers paid to provide it, thereby no consumers to afford it, in all likelihood it will go the way that most other noble innovations which assumed the same thing did, like the steerable headlight.

If our "green" industry fails, it's not going to be an easy sell to the other countries who are doing fine with the same tech that they've always had, especially when we are not obligating them in any way to do so. The united states in particular, and canada, are nations which rely heavily on coal and oil for transportation of goods and service to maintain spread out settlements. If you cut off oil and enforce, say hydrogen, as energy source, without providing infrastructure, disaster will ensue. The disaster will be used around the world to say "this is what happens when you try to be green" and the multitudes which hadn't been actively staging protest anyway will tend to agree. Jobs are a component of human survival and therefore must be incorporated into any sustainable vision of tomorrow.

I think there is a misconception somewhere there. I'm not advocating a socialized economic system by any means at all. I'm not saying we don't play ball, i'm saying we change some of the rules of the game. Capitalism is the best system out there, what we need to do is use it to meet an environmental end.

In that spirit I have two ideas:
1) Shift taxes from profit to production
2) Place a price on our environment

Shifting taxes from proft to production has two immediate advantages. It inceases efficiency and spurrs technology growth to promote efficiency rather than the mass consumption/production of goods. The benefit to the environment is obvious, less production and more effiency in production will ultimately leed to less energy and resource use due to capitalist forces. For industry it opens up the game to encourage maximizing profit with less punative tax on earnings.

Placing a price on the environment seems at first, a bit heartless, but I say why not (I'm sure half the environmentalists out there would hate me for saying that)? What is capital? It is a resource, means or financial bond in order to create a product or service. Water gives our plants, animals and ourselves life. Oxygen is needed to live. The ozone layer provides protection for the suns ray. Ecosystems provide stability in face of pollution. All of the above all commodities that provide an essential service, that is life. Why can we not put a price on that to factor into our capitalist equation?

With respect to green technologies, I agree with you. We cannot simply shut down one industry and completely convert overnight to a new "green" economy. That being said, we need to invest in that infrastructure now so that the slow conversion can begin, no different than the industrial revolution of days past, the green revolution will not be quick. Though just like the industrial revolution, the green revolution will provide new means of employment while shutting down ones of days past. If the transition is gradual, it will be no different than the employment shifts after past technological inventions. Somehow, we always seem to be able to provide jobs of some time, I don't see why it would be different now.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Bern80
I would like us to move toward less polluting energy sources as much as the next guy, but you have to remember there will be negatice consequences no matter what.

nbsysfu mentions the infrastructure/job loss and more for the U.S., but the toll of this would be even worse on the rest of the world. If developing countries barely have the technology to incorporate polluting energy sources how do you expect them to cope w/ switching over to new energy sources.

You think people in the Mid-East don't like us now? Wait till we stop buying their oil. Their only real source of income

Pardon me if this sounds hostile towards the middle-east but i'm going to take the hardline with this one. They have known for years that oil reserves are finite and there was going to be a technological shift away from oil. It is their fault not the US's, not even western countries in this instance if they cannot provide a diversity of income sources for their country. It's no different than a boy band reaching its stride with a one-hit wonder and dropping out of the limelight after they realize that they have nothing better to say. Think of oil and fossils as the New Kids on the Block of the industrial world. Was great for awhile, until we realized that they sucked...

As for renewable techonology for developping nations that will be a problem, no doubt, but the decentralizing effect of renewable resources may in the long term provide better economic benefits than traditional industrializating ever offered...

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
As for renewable techonology for developping nations that will be a problem, no doubt, but the decentralizing effect of renewable resources may in the long term provide better economic benefits than traditional industrializating ever offered...

That will be quite the period of adjustment, don't you think? That said, is it worth it? Again I'm not against it, but it isn't something that't going to happen over night nor should we try and make it happen over night.

There are an infinite number of things that need be considered before we stop all the gas pumps. From what to do w/ all the gas stations, refineries, impact on auto dealers, can they make a truck that will work as well as a gas truck if it is powered by hydrogen or some other clean fuel?, ramifications to other countries, etc.

We are the country most asaptable to this at this pt and we're not even close. This isn't as easy as flipping a switch. It will be more like a revolution. the equivalent of the horse and buggy to the modern automobile.

Again, not against, but a little more thought than "we need to switch to green energy now" needs to be put into this

 

[jon_forward]

switching from one form of energy to another will not come over-night....as for worry'in about all those gas station being vacant....they will just be selling some other kind of fuel or the newest thingamajiggy.... my point is that fossil fuel wont go out of vogue in an instant...there will be plenty of time for the corps that have all these stations to do what ever it is that they need to do...we need to get with it now...

 

[Bern80]

I don't think you're seein the big picture.

We're not talking about a change in energy here. We're talkin about a change in the way billions of people live their lives and how they depend on, essentially, the largest industry on the planet.

 

[jon_forward]

sorry Bern80....I was talking about us here in North America...I understand that the 3rd world countrys cant or wont change the status qou...it will be up to us..as usual to lead the world by the nose where it needs to go...where there is a clean effecient way to supply energy to the masses I am sure that those countrys that are able will follow suit....those that cant we will help...

 

[nbdysfu]

originally posted by Isaac Brock
2) Place a price on our environment
____________ ____________

Isaac, if only you had been at the Kyoto protocols to tell them that. Brilliant. I didn't mean to be so anti-socialist, I just misread what you had stated in the context of something else. I'm kind of thinking that things like socialism, capitalism, anarchy etc. are merely twentieth century abstractions of normal government. It's all there. Undeveloped countries should receive incentives to stay undeveloped. That can be covered partially by tourism, but inevitably will require extra funding.

Rather than a flat tax or incentives, developed countries should be able to trade the positive environmental effects of their well kept forests on the market to companies to go past a certain waste tonnage cap.

Additionally any company, the logging industry, or a specialized company should be able to trade the environmental impact of their campus or their field. The forest crop would be reviewed by a government official for intact wildlife in addition to simple phytoremediation, and based on that it's impact contribution would receive a grade.

That in turn would create a busy market aimed at making low pollution, low energy production devices, without homogenizing the environment.

Additionally you might tax pollution per production and have it counterbalance an oversupply of greens so the logging company wouldn't be tempted to raze.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

"Blue skies on mars?"