Dealing with Climate Change---Not Only Good Ethics, But Good Business

[TLK Valentine]

EPA needs to do what it needs to do to stop dumping. If a business is dumping stop it.

How?

But don't cut out the heart of America to accomplish your goals. And you don't need 5 people to take first class seats and a limousine to a business to fine it for dumping.

No, but the businesses need at least that to lobby the GOP to keep dumping.

Find a cost effective way to resolve the dumping problem. How bout that, solve the problem so the business can continue to supply products and jobs for our country. It seems all the EPA wants to crush business, they are anti business. EPA is not for America. Trump is changing that.

Indeed -- Donald is pro-business. Dumping saves money, and saving money is pro-business.

Ergo, dumping is pro-business. Whatever do we need an EPA for, anyway?

 

[Belk]

If private businesses find it to be good business, then that’s good. Let the market dictate.

No thanks. I think we should regulate businesses to ensure they are not damaging our environment.

 

[Hammster]

No thanks. I think we should regulate businesses to ensure they are not damaging our environment.

Okay.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's kind of silly to think that the market could take care of pollution when:

1.) Healthy markets rely on symmetry of information, yet it's often unclear to the consumer how much pollution is caused by making a given product or providing a given service.

2.) Healthy markets require that the costs and benefits of a transaction (including the costs of providing/manufacturing the goods & services involved in the transaction) be borne only by the parties to that transaction, not any third parties. Yet pollution, almost by definition, affects a host of other third parties, causing the purchase price of goods/services to be artificially low, since at least some of the expense of providing them is being borne by someone else.

 

[Hammster]

It's kind of silly to think that the market could take care of pollution when:

1.) Healthy markets rely on symmetry of information, yet it's often unclear to the consumer how much pollution is caused by making a given product or providing a given service.

2.) Healthy markets require that the costs and benefits of a transaction (including the costs of providing/manufacturing the goods & services involved in the transaction) be borne only by the parties to that transaction, not any third parties. Yet pollution, almost by definition, affects a host of other third parties, causing the purchase price of goods/services to be artificially low, since at least some of the expense of providing them is being borne by someone else.

If the market can’t take care of it, then it’s safe to say that the majority of Americans just don’t care, or don’t believe it to be that big of an issue.

 

[iluvatar5150]

If the market can’t take care of it, then it’s safe to say that the majority of Americans just don’t care, or don’t believe it to be that big of an issue.

It's pretty clear from your comments that you don't understand how markets actually work. I've been pointing out the flaws in the markets-as-a-panacea approach that you've been hinting at, and you've just been waving off my concerns without actually addressing - or even asking about - them.

Markets don't function well in all situations - rather, their efficiency requires certain criteria to be met. Otherwise, the market can become distorted, leading to all sorts of strange and undesirable outcomes.

Wikipedia has a good definition of market distortion along with a list of common causes:
Market distortion - Wikipedia

As I mentioned earlier, asymmetric information is a problem with pollution. Even if a buyer is concerned about pollution and willing to allow his purchasing decisions to be influenced by how "green" a product is, it can often be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain that information from the seller. "Green" products can't succeed in the market if buyers can't sufficiently discern which products are actually "green".

The issue of externalities falls under the protection of property rights listed on the market distortion page. Basically, if government doesn't sufficiently protect your property (e.g. groundwater, air for breathing, etc) from my pollution, then I'm effectively free to pollute your stuff without your approval.

Wikipedia's page about externalities is also pretty decent:
Externality - Wikipedia

"Green" products can't succeed in the market (or will at least have a difficult time doing so) if non-"green" products enjoy a price advantage stemming from their ability to shunt a portion of the manufacturing cost onto third parties. High-pollution products are, essentially, cheating by having their prices subsidized via government inaction.

 

[Hammster]

"Green" products can't succeed in the market (or will at least have a difficult time doing so) if non-"green" products enjoy a price advantage stemming from their ability to shunt a portion of the manufacturing cost onto third parties. High-pollution products are, essentially, cheating by having their prices subsidized via government inaction.

Hence, my previous post.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Hence, my previous post.

So, you're using the effects of an unfair price advantage as evidence that Americans don't care about pollution?

 

[szechuan]

If the market can’t take care of it, then it’s safe to say that the majority of Americans just don’t care, or don’t believe it to be that big of an issue.

Ummmmmm? The majority of Americans do, we just don't have much power in the matter.

 

[Hammster]

So, you're using the effects of an unfair price advantage as evidence that Americans don't care about pollution?

If folks cared as much as they say they did...

 

[Hammster]

Ummmmmm? The majority of Americans do, we just don't have much power in the matter.

You can choose what products you purchase or don’t purchase.

 

[szechuan]

You can choose what products you purchase or don’t purchase.

But there aren't any Gas Stations that recharge my car nearby.

 

[Hammster]

But there aren't any Gas Stations that recharge my car nearby.

So how do you recharge it?

 

[szechuan]

So how do you recharge it?

thought capitalism was about choices.

 

[rambot]

Relying on the market to solve your problems... the most intellectually weak method to solve your problem.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Relying on the market to solve your problems... the most intellectually weak method to solve your problem.

eh... I see "the market" as a sort of algorithm - it's good at solving some kinds of problems and bad at solving other kinds. Central planning may seem like a less intellectually weak method on the surface, but in practice, it's often the case that central planning is far less effective or efficient. "The market" is, effectively, a means of crowdsourcing the optimal allocation of limited resources to a bunch of self-interested, autonomous, small-scale actors with little-to-no visibility into the end goal. For some problems, that's a perfectly legitimate approach to finding a solution:

https://www.wired.com/2010/01/slime-mold-grows-network-just-like-tokyo-rail-system/

 

[Hammster]

thought capitalism was about choices.

So how do you recharge it?

 

[TLK Valentine]

If the market can’t take care of it, then it’s safe to say that the majority of Americans just don’t care, or don’t believe it to be that big of an issue.

The can't care if they're not informed... and the money the businesses spend to keep the public misinformed is small change compared to what they'd lose if the public knew enough to care.

 

[Hammster]

The can't care if they're not informed... and the money the businesses spend to keep the public misinformed is small change compared to what they'd lose if the public knew enough to care.

So, are you uninformed?

 

[TLK Valentine]

So, are you uninformed?

I'd like to think not.... but I'm just one person -- statistically and financially insignificant.