4 ms·

I disagree. Corporations don't have to have any goal to "destroy the earth" or "cause overpopulation". Pursuit of short-term profits while externalising the ris

I disagree. Corporations don't have to have any goal to "destroy the earth" or "cause overpopulation". Pursuit of short-term profits while externalising the risks and wastes is bad enough. If you consider the "the abundance that has been caused" you should also consider the common tactic of trying to ignore and hide the drawbacks (e.g. tobacco industry) and drag feet on any effective action to change thigns (e.g. recent Copenhagen climate conference).

jcnnghm 17y ago
The changes advocated at Copenhagen only make sense if your financial future is tied to either green tech or carbon trading. If the stuff was economically viable or offered an attractive alternative (e.g. Tankless water heaters never run out of hot water. Plugging in a car should be much cheaper and easier than visiting a gas station.) it wouldn't require legislation.
- StrawberryFrog 17y ago
  If the stuff was economically viable ... it wouldn't require legislation I think you're missing the point if what I said. Lots of things are economically viable to a corporation if it can externalise the downsides (either by dumping the wastes or getting a bailout when it make mistakes) or simply get the legislation that favours it (google "oil industry tax breaks" for an example). You can't get away from legislation. Bailouts are legislation. But making polluters pay requires legislation. There is no mythical free, unlegislated market that will magically do the right thing. There's only good legislation and bad legislation.
  - jcnnghm 17y ago
    Don't polluters already pay? The proposed measures are designed to curtail carbon emissions, aren't there already supply side taxes on carbon generating fuel sources like oil and natural gas. Has carbon actually been scientifically proven to be the sole driver of global warming? By scientifically, I don't mean using a computer model with fudged numbers generated by interested parties with poor programming skills. If it isn't testable and repeatable it also isn't science. The models have made predictions that haven't matched reality thus far, why would we believe they are going to start matching reality in the future? Aren't there other more pressing forms of pollution than CO2 emmisions? What about strip mining, particulate emissions, and methane? Is this really about curtailing emissions, or creating a lucrative secondary trading market and taxation system to benefit people like Al Gore who are both heavily invested in carbon trading, and part of the legislature.
    - StrawberryFrog 17y ago
      Whoah, that's a whole lot of rant you've got pent-up in there.

jcnnghm 17y ago

The changes advocated at Copenhagen only make sense if your financial future is tied to either green tech or carbon trading. If the stuff was economically viable or offered an attractive alternative (e.g. Tankless water heaters never run out of hot water. Plugging in a car should be much cheaper and easier than visiting a gas station.) it wouldn't require legislation.

StrawberryFrog 17y ago
If the stuff was economically viable ... it wouldn't require legislation I think you're missing the point if what I said. Lots of things are economically viable to a corporation if it can externalise the downsides (either by dumping the wastes or getting a bailout when it make mistakes) or simply get the legislation that favours it (google "oil industry tax breaks" for an example). You can't get away from legislation. Bailouts are legislation. But making polluters pay requires legislation. There is no mythical free, unlegislated market that will magically do the right thing. There's only good legislation and bad legislation.
- jcnnghm 17y ago
  Don't polluters already pay? The proposed measures are designed to curtail carbon emissions, aren't there already supply side taxes on carbon generating fuel sources like oil and natural gas. Has carbon actually been scientifically proven to be the sole driver of global warming? By scientifically, I don't mean using a computer model with fudged numbers generated by interested parties with poor programming skills. If it isn't testable and repeatable it also isn't science. The models have made predictions that haven't matched reality thus far, why would we believe they are going to start matching reality in the future? Aren't there other more pressing forms of pollution than CO2 emmisions? What about strip mining, particulate emissions, and methane? Is this really about curtailing emissions, or creating a lucrative secondary trading market and taxation system to benefit people like Al Gore who are both heavily invested in carbon trading, and part of the legislature.
  - StrawberryFrog 17y ago
    Whoah, that's a whole lot of rant you've got pent-up in there.