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

[Nithavela]

People are resilient and resourceful.

You mean that people are cutt-throats who'd do anything to help themselves and their friends and relatives survive and thrive.

Sure, some people will survive, and propably even thrive during the destruction. For a time.

Earth has been around for billions of years. We've been around for a few millenia. It is patient. Our so-called resilence and resourcefullness won't broaden the thin sheet of plastic and radioactive isotopes that will be our legacy by more than a few nanometers.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Just keep telling yourself that...as the hurricanes and the wildfires become more severe with each passing year.....

LOL. "Humans Make Hurricanes Worse"
Good lord.

 

[Hammster]

Because your post doesn't make any sense. Pollution ( of which agw is a form) is a textbook case of an externality, which is a distortion of a market, not something for which the market can compensate.

Your suggestion that the market should take care of it would suggest that you didn't understand that.... unless I'm misunderstanding your initial comment.

That you don’t think that the market can take care of it means that you don’t understand the market.

 

[iluvatar5150]

That you don’t think that the market can take care of it means that you don’t the market.

You dropped a word, so I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say, but I can't come up with any word to insert in there that would make it correct.

How do you propose that the market is supposed to correct for a distortion of the market? What do you think an externality is?

 

[Hammster]

You dropped a word, so I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say, but I can't come up with any word to insert in there that would make it correct.

How do you propose that the market is supposed to correct for a distortion of the market? What do you think an externality is?

Fixed it.

My suggestion is that if it’s a problem, which it isn’t, the market will take care of it. If a company starts “going green”, and they make more money than their competitors, the competitors will also “go green”.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Fixed it.

My suggestion is that if it’s a problem, which it isn’t, the market will take care of it. If a company starts “going green”, and they make more money than their competitors, the competitors will also “go green”.

Ok.

Maybe we're talking about two different things. I realize the OP was about the profitability of "going green". I'm talking about "going green" in general and how the market may or may not solve for that.

How does the market solve for the externalities of pollution?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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

Ah, the old "let the corporation dump 50 tons of toxic sludge in the local water supply...don't worry, the market will correct for it" mentality.

The reality is "private business" can't always be trusted to act ethically, and the mere notion that "there's someone out there that can compete against them" isn't an adequate safeguard against potentially sweeping negative effects.

While I do lean libertarian on most issues, one must keep in mind, the idea is "minimum government in order to protect our rights to life liberty and property", not some sort of economic thunderdome in which business can make their own rules that could potentially endanger millions of people.

 

[Nithavela]

Ah, the old "let the corporation dump 50 tons of toxic sludge in the local water supply...don't worry, the market will correct for it" mentality.

The reality is "private business" can't always be trusted to act ethically, and the mere notion that "there's someone out there that can compete against them" isn't an adequate safeguard against potentially sweeping negative effects.

While I do lean libertarian on most issues, one must keep in mind, the idea is "minimum government in order to protect our rights to life liberty and property", not some sort of economic thunderdome in which business can make their own rules that could potentially endanger millions of people.

So what you're saying is that libertarianism needs to get beyond thunderdome?

 

[TLK Valentine]

People are resilient and resourceful. There are many things that we can do to enhance the environments we live in. Just like we can protect against earthquakes, there are building codes and zoning laws that can be put into place to protect people and property from vulnerable areas.
Laughing at destruction is inhumane, and is the result of people living a hellish existence where hope is no longer part of their lexicon.

There are regulations -- Donald's been erasing them.

 

[Hammster]

Ok.

Maybe we're talking about two different things. I realize the OP was about the profitability of "going green". I'm talking about "going green" in general and how the market may or may not solve for that.

How does the market solve for the externalities of pollution?

See previous post.

 

[Fantine]

So Hammster, are you suggesting we get rid of the subsidies for oil and coal we've been shelling out for decades?

 

[Hammster]

So Hammster, are you suggesting we get rid of the subsidies for oil and coal we've been shelling out for decades?

I’ve not suggested anything.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I’ve not suggested anything.

Suppose "going green" isn't about making money, but about a long-term investment in the health and general welfare of the people? Not much profit in that, is there?

 

[Hammster]

Suppose "going green" isn't about making money, but about a long-term investment in the health and general welfare of the people? Not much profit in that, is there?

Do you understand why companies are in business?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Do you understand why companies are in business?

To make money.

Going green costs money. Recycling can be expensive; dumping is cheap.

 

[Nithavela]

To make money.

Going green costs money. Recycling can be expensive; dumping is cheap.

It's so much cheaper that corporations spend big money in lobbying to be allowed to continue dumping.

 

[elliott95]

You mean that people are cutt-throats who'd do anything to help themselves and their friends and relatives survive and thrive.

Evil exists in humanity. It does not define all that we are and all that we do.

Sure, some people will survive, and probably even thrive during the destruction. For a time.

Okay.

Earth has been around for billions of years. We've been around for a few millenia. It is patient. Our so-called resilence and resourcefullness won't broaden the thin sheet of plastic and radioactive isotopes that will be our legacy by more than a few nanometers.

Well, I think the earth being reduced to a thin sheet of plastic and radioactive isotopes goes beyond the scope of global warming.

 

[Peter1000]

It's so much cheaper that corporations spend big money in lobbying to be allowed to continue dumping.

The dumping problem is supposed to be monitored by the EPA, but the EPA is not doing their job. It is just a billion dollar industry that does more for the Democratic Party than for the environment.

It is a bloated bureaucracy that needs to be deflated, and brought back to what it was set up for in the first place, monitoring dumping, which it does little of now.
Fifty employees could do that easily.

 

[iluvatar5150]

See previous post.

Your answer isn't clear. That's why I asked again.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The dumping problem is supposed to be monitored by the EPA, but the EPA is not doing their job. It is just a billion dollar industry that does more for the Democratic Party than for the environment.

Which party runs EPA?

It is a bloated bureaucracy that needs to be deflated, and brought back to what it was set up for in the first place, monitoring dumping, which it does little of now.
Fifty employees could do that easily.

Or not... which will serve EPA just fine.

EPA chief Pruitt met with many corporate execs. Then he made decisions in their favor.