Jay Ambrose: Let the free market take care of global warming

I might point out that the greed and indifference of the market place is how we got in this mess in the first place. How would they 'fix' it?? The drivers of the marketplace are money and power, not the environment or benefit to the public.

If this is his best thought on the subject, to reject responsiblity and take no action, I suspect his library is going to burn.

Natural gas is a viable alternative. It is an example of how the market place can 'fix it'.

It is a narrow minded view to think that industry has no concern for the future. Industry like everything else wants to survive and to do so has to have a future it can survive in.

Instead of intentionally destroying its own environment, it is often involved in the research required to create the optimum environment. One in which it, industry, can prosper.

Energy industries are involved in all kinds of energy production. It is and can be to their advantage to discover a better energy source.

Natural gas and the technology being used to extract it demonstrates inovation to expand our energy resources.

This isn't greed, this is good, this is what we need to achieve energy independence and put less co2 into the atmosphere.

Natural gas won't give us energy independence all by itself and it won't clean up the atmosphere all by itself, but the more clean energy we can produce the closer we get to the goals.

Fun Facts wrote:

Natural gas is a viable alternative. It is an example of how the market place can 'fix it'.
It is a narrow minded view to think that industry has no concern for the future. Industry like everything else wants to survive and to do so has to have a future it can survive in.
Instead of intentionally destroying its own environment, it is often involved in the research required to create the optimum environment. One in which it, industry, can prosper.
Energy industries are involved in all kinds of energy production. It is and can be to their advantage to discover a better energy source.
Natural gas and the technology being used to extract it demonstrates inovation to expand our energy resources.
This isn't greed, this is good, this is what we need to achieve energy independence and put less co2 into the atmosphere.
Natural gas won't give us energy independence all by itself and it won't clean up the atmosphere all by itself, but the more clean energy we can produce the closer we get to the goals.

A problem is that private industry has little motivation to protect the environment. The principle motivation is profit. As we have seen in the past, regulations and/or penalties, taxes or some outside force must be applied to change such things as unleaded gasoline, asbestos, PCB's etc. etc. Do you really believe that chemical industries would voluntarily clean up land that they have polluted in the past? Get real!

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

I might point out that the greed and indifference of the market place is how we got in this mess in the first place. How would they 'fix' it?? The drivers of the marketplace are money and power, not the environment or benefit to the public.
If this is his best thought on the subject, to reject responsiblity and take no action, I suspect his library is going to burn.

oH S.T.F.U. your daddy Al Gore is the BIGGEST SOCIALIST AROUND but he KEEPS GETTING
FILTHY
RICH
FROM HIS OIL HOLDINGS in O.C.C.I.D.E.N.T.A.L. OIL, the THIRD LARGEST OIL COMPANY on E.A.R.T.H.

You're just Marxist trash.

fun farts wrote:

It is a narrow minded view to think that industry has no concern for the future.

Industry traded with Nazi Germany, even during WWII.

http://libcom.org/library/allied-multinationa...

Industry will & is trading off the future for today's(& maybe tomorrow's) profits.

'fun facts' farts in the wind to become 'fun farts'.

litesong wrote:

Industry will & is trading off the future for today's(& maybe tomorrow's) profits.

True. Two facts.

About 50% of the war material (rubber, fuel, steel, etc) that made the weapons killing allied soldiers was supplied BY the US.

The main backers of the Nazi Party were the US Industrialist who hoped to use them to defuse the movement towards socialism and communism by desperate Germans (after the US recalled its loans and left Germans rooting through dumps for food).

Call it a 'principled' stand. The principle being profits before people.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
A problem is that private industry has little motivation to protect the environment. The principle motivation is profit. As we have seen in the past, regulations and/or penalties, taxes or some outside force must be applied to change such things as unleaded gasoline, asbestos, PCB's etc. etc. Do you really believe that chemical industries would voluntarily clean up land that they have polluted in the past? Get real!

Yes I do. What I don't understand is your very narrow perspective. Do you think the people who run industry do not live in this world? Do you think they do not have children, parents, cousins, red haired step children?

Do you think they are not part of their communities? Don't shop at the local grocery, pay the utilities, play on the little league baseball team, swim in the local lakes, breathe the air.

You try to make 'industry' this giant unthinking behemouth that has no concern for it's existence. Industry is people like you and I, people who punch a clock, people who return everyday to a stack of phone calls to make, people who push brooms and others who push paper.

Industry is the provider of paychecks and pension plans. Industry is your 401(k).

As we learn more, then new regulations are created to reflect that which we now know and must fix from before. There are polluting industries that will take a long time to fix. Coal, for electricity. We are going to use coal, pipe dreams aside, a 300 year supply we will use it. We need to find a good way to use it, less polluting, but it will be a main energy source.

The old plants were built with the most current technology at the time, but they are old and the technology is old too. Changing to the new and improved takes cash. Cash many rate payers don't have.

No new refurbishing will happen without money from the rate payers. There's only one place to get the money to fix the problem, from you and me. If you've got enough to help your local electric company implement new technology, please share.

Fun Facts wrote:

Natural gas is a viable alternative. It is an example of how the market place can 'fix it'.
It is a narrow minded view to think that industry has no concern for the future. Industry like everything else wants to survive and to do so has to have a future it can survive in.
Instead of intentionally destroying its own environment, it is often involved in the research required to create the optimum environment. One in which it, industry, can prosper.
Energy industries are involved in all kinds of energy production. It is and can be to their advantage to discover a better energy source.
Natural gas and the technology being used to extract it demonstrates inovation to expand our energy resources.
This isn't greed, this is good, this is what we need to achieve energy independence and put less co2 into the atmosphere.
Natural gas won't give us energy independence all by itself and it won't clean up the atmosphere all by itself, but the more clean energy we can produce the closer we get to the goals.

Amazing. I can almost agree.

Almost.

Except that natural gas has reduced US carbon emissions by only 8%, when we need to cut them by 80%. It's a start, but only a start, and due mostly to happenstance; no one set out to invent slickwater fracking in order to reduce carbon emissions; that was merely its accidental side effect. Lucky us. But carbon taxes would encourage more innovation like this, so that's what we need.

As for corporate leaders caring about the future, you are naive, aren't you? I've worked with leaders of some of the world's largest, most-farsighted companies, yet I can assure you that none look more than a decade out, and even those visionaries are rare indeed. Their sole duty, as they see it, is to present shareholders whose investment horizons are even shorter. These days, most shares of stock are held for about eleven seconds.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/speedy...

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Amazing. I can almost agree.
Almost.
Except that natural gas has reduced US carbon emissions by only 8%, when we need to cut them by 80%. It's a start, but only a start, and due mostly to happenstance; no one set out to invent slickwater fracking in order to reduce carbon emissions; that was merely its accidental side effect. Lucky us. But carbon taxes would encourage more innovation like this, so that's what we need.
As for corporate leaders caring about the future, you are naive, aren't you? I've worked with leaders of some of the world's largest, most-farsighted companies, yet I can assure you that none look more than a decade out, and even those visionaries are rare indeed. Their sole duty, as they see it, is to present shareholders whose investment horizons are even shorter. These days, most shares of stock are held for about eleven seconds.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/speedy...

Every innovation will have it's positive benefits and it's negative consequences. Nothing in this world exists without both positive and negative aspects.

No we don't need more carbon taxes.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
...
Do you think they are not part of their communities? Don't shop at the local grocery, pay the utilities, play on the little league baseball team, swim in the local lakes, breathe the air.
You try to make 'industry' this giant unthinking behemouth that has no concern for it's existence....

You forget that these giant corporations are global in scope. They care little what happens to the local environment. China is a good example. It is cheaper to make things in China period. You are right, it is all about money and people will not pay the price for environmental, health, or safety concerns unless they are forced.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
You forget that these giant corporations are global in scope. They care little what happens to the local environment. China is a good example. It is cheaper to make things in China period. You are right, it is all about money and people will not pay the price for environmental, health, or safety concerns unless they are forced.

I agree with one exception, I would change 'forced' to 'convinced'.

I've seen a lot of environmental clean up in the last decades. I know that most of that effort was because we were convinced that we did in fact cause the mess and had to clean it up. The Cuyahoga River doesn't burn anymore and the L.A. smog is not a daily feature on the evening news.

I'd say most people are convinced that we have climate change. Fewer are convinced we have caused it, and fewer still think a tax can fix it.

We will take action if action is possible, but we are beyond believing that we can buy our way into heaven.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with one exception, I would change 'forced' to 'convinced'.
I've seen a lot of environmental clean up in the last decades. I know that most of that effort was because we were convinced that we did in fact cause the mess and had to clean it up. The Cuyahoga River doesn't burn anymore and the L.A. smog is not a daily feature on the evening news.
I'd say most people are convinced that we have climate change. Fewer are convinced we have caused it, and fewer still think a tax can fix it.
We will take action if action is possible, but we are beyond believing that we can buy our way into heaven.

Only because the government made laws that corrected the problems.
We buy products from China because they are cheaper. We do not refuse to buy them because they are harming the environment. The reason the government is not imposing restrictions on Chinese imports today is because of the favors to Congress for reelection funds. Corporatism is gaining a bigger and bigger foothold in America. We need to honor environmental and humanitarian considerations.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
You are right, it is all about money and people will not pay the price for environmental, health, or safety concerns unless they are forced.

He is not right. As to money, the basic equation is that people will not set themselves AHEAD of others in altruistic fashion. They don't mind paying if everyone ELSE also pays. But they will not put themselves at RELATIVE disadvantage. Neither heads of corporations in the marketplace or consumers at the store.

This has been demonstrated in psychology studies.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
He is not right. As to money, the basic equation is that people will not set themselves AHEAD of others in altruistic fashion. They don't mind paying if everyone ELSE also pays. But they will not put themselves at RELATIVE disadvantage. Neither heads of corporations in the marketplace or consumers at the store.
This has been demonstrated in psychology studies.

I suppose I should have said "unless all are forced to."

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
I suppose I should have said "unless all are forced to."

Why do you say 'forced'? Fact is that most will probably *want* to do the 'right thing' in the expectation of better security and stability in the future.

But they cannot do it unless all do it. That is why we HAVE government in my opinion. To create laws that trade off long term benefits against short term benefit. Taking the 'long view'. We have plenty of forces that look after the short term picture. Too many..

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you say 'forced'? Fact is that most will probably *want* to do the 'right thing' in the expectation of better security and stability in the future.
But they cannot do it unless all do it. That is why we HAVE government in my opinion. To create laws that trade off long term benefits against short term benefit. Taking the 'long view'. We have plenty of forces that look after the short term picture. Too many..

There are always those who do not care and must be forced.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
There are always those who do not care and must be forced.

One does not ignore the criminals, cranks, outlaws and sociopaths. Those who are characterized by the fact that they *must* be 'forced' to respect rights and act responsibly. However, these groups are small and contribute little to civilization or governance.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
One does not ignore the criminals, cranks, outlaws and sociopaths. Those who are characterized by the fact that they *must* be 'forced' to respect rights and act responsibly. However, these groups are small and contribute little to civilization or governance.

I am not sure how small the selfish folks are in numbers. I believe there are a lot of them.

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, aka:

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

This occurred when land life was limited to insects and plants so there were no species TO drive to extinction.

http://www.topix.com/forum/in/pune/TTREHEPOBC...

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

With calving you don't get more than a small difference in the endpoint. You don't 'calve' a chunk of ice 2.7 square miles in extent.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

LessFactMoreHype wrote:

According to YOUR theory, no car can be charged with hitting a pedestrian unless the pedestrian is already dead or too crippled to move.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not sure how small the selfish folks are in numbers. I believe there are a lot of them.

What could be more selfish than wanting to take other peoples money, so you're right that number is not small.

It is one thing for a person who has worked hard to attain the things he has to want to keep and protect those possessions, including money. I don't think that is selfish.

It is entirely different for another person to decide to take from the earner that which he has earned. that's selfish, actually that's government sanctioned theft.

You are not entitled to anything. You had the opportunity, the education, and you decided to take the easy way thru this life. Now you are envious of those who worked harder and achieved more.

You want to see 'selfish' go look at the man in the mirror, he represents millions of envious non producers.