Without studying it much, I have never been convinced that a system of capping and trading environmental degradation would ever actually work for mother earth. My main grievance is that the right to pollute is given to preexisting firms; whereas I think that the carbon credits issued by government should go to every tax payer.
This report from Democracy Now points out some of the logical holes in the cap & trade scheme.
We debated health care--now how about the environment? I think I might side with Ptera on this one.
Nov 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 sucka ass fools had something to say:
She prim-er. I say prime-er. Which is it?
I'm pretty ignorant on the subject to, but my understanding is that its basically designed to cap growth on future pollution, not inhibit in any way significant existing pollution. That and it creates an economic incentive for development. Polluters will still pollute but they might have some incentive to orient future development on less polluting technology.
Maybe I'll watch the video now and not just talk.
Fucking stupid--but at least this useless system acknowledges that there is an emissions problem.
Hopefully a (tiny little) step in the right direction.
Of course, my Ann Rand father-in-law says that it will result in all of us little guys paying more and more for electricity until we all eventually snap and drag America into a post-apocalyptic festival of baby eating and extreme cage fights.
Does anyone think that individual recycling and going green is anything more than symbolic ritual and status attainment?
I do not see how environmental regulations can ever succeed under capitalism.
1.It is pure status attainment, just like when I don't discard my empty 40 oz mountain dew onto the roadside. It makes me feel so cool.
My face wants to go green with this logic.
2. Define "succeed".
Every scientist I've ever heard on the subject speaks about climate change unless there are major changes in consumption, ones that even they recognize are almost impossible to envision.
Higher electricity costs is the simplest place to start. I'm told people are resilient, even though spoiled, so I'm sure they'll be alright.
You can argue that sounding the alarm of irrelevance is more worthwhile than the conscience-clearing trivial impact urbanites make by separating their glass while keeping their houses at 70 degrees all year, and you may have a point. Perhaps the world does need a charismatic punk-environmentalist who'll pollute or publicly reject go-green exercises to raise awareness about more important issues.
Like SZ said, baby steps are better than nothing. The impacts of recycling have to be pretty significant, even if not as measured against TOTAL SUCCESS. If TOTAL SUCCESS is to come about it'll have to be through collective and nearly universal shared sacrifice. Recycling isn't a bad model, but the sacrifice has to be more than the one hour of the year it takes to sort garbage between two or three containers.
The entire green commodity fad lets people achieve some special status of caring and project an image of consciousness, but they are still over consuming. Not making another car would be more environmentally friendly than driving a sporty hybrid.
Not littering makes people feel exalted--yet they buy plastic products from Chinese factories that leak hazardousness into every known ecosystem because, in that case, they do not see the tarnished landscape.
Recycling may have some small positive effect; but I would argue that it is outweighed by the negative effects of people thinking doing their minor individual part is sufficient--yet another psychic obstacle on the road to global collective action.
Actually, I think recycling is helpful because it at least gets people in the habit of thinking about the earth, a developing mindset that a broader and deeper campaign can find connsonance with. If they did not recycle, then they would be oblivious all the time, not just 99% of the time, and maybe even obstinant, if their refusal to recycle created an inner-persona which had to reject all other forms of environmentalism in order to maintain cognitive consistance.
Do I need to create an alter ego, if I am going to argue with myself?
Thats a good question. If only we had an Adviser around here...
No--most of us argue against ourselves all the time in these threads. I'm just impressed that it took you more than one post to get there.
But I don't understand: if our personal day-to-day choices can't make a difference, then what can we as individuals do to effect change?
Two of the EPA’s own San Francisco lawyers penned a Washington Post op-ed to this effect. They also have a You Tube video comparing the cap and trade bill to the Challenger disaster.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/30/AR2009103002988.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06aYJ8Ja75c&feature=player_embedded#
Clearly between your first comment and your last comment, you did not watch the video linked to in the post.
kinda
But mainly, I think the source material is better and I forgot to cut and paste the link where I read that.
http://www.urbanophile.com/2009/11/13/reducing-carbon-should-not-distort-regional-economies/
I just read way too much without them ever telling why there is geographic imbalance in paying the costs.
Do me a favor.
oh yeah, I didn't mean READ the thing. just that the comments...oh nevermind.
Yes, sorry I played not watched the video. That would have made for more coherent commentary on my part.
Post a Comment