You know, I really don’t feel like talking about ‘Earth Hour,’ but I already said I will do so last week, so might as well.
I was just going to point out that people should be wary of things that have little evidence to back them up.
The media has been really biased against doubters of manmade global warming. I read a wires story a month or so ago, and it unequivocally said that even the admittedly little carbon dioxide emitted by humans into the atmosphere is the deciding factor that has led to Earth’s heating. Never mind that throughout prehistory such heating and cooling has been going on.
Since I was in third grade, I, along with those of my generation, have been taught that chlorofluorocarbons should not be used. Hell, even Andrew Clements was given more ‘environment-friendly’ sprays by Dr. Jeffcoate in ‘My secret identity.’ The idea of global warming has been so ubiquitous that it’s hard to believe all of this is political in nature.
***
Even if humans have led to the planet’s destruction, a ‘symbolic’ gesture such as switching off lights for one hour strikes me as corny, if not hypocritical. It’s the mentality of a serial killer resting on the Sabbath.
Forgetting the matter of global warming and focusing on individual pollution cases, people should be held liable for dirtying someone else’s property. If, and that’s an if, present laws or systems are incapable of administering justice in this regard, this only means a deficiency in defining property rights, and not an altogether deficient system. To my mind, this means redefining property not only horizontally but vertically, and considering communal ownership of waters and the air (soon enough, cities in air will yet redefine property rights).
***
When it comes to government measures to reduce pollution, the idea of a ‘pollution’ tax comes up. Never mind that the poor have little or no access to alternative energy sources. Coal is bad. Petroleum is bad. Ergo, the government must disincentivize such use.
The present VAT on oil goods may not have been legislated as a deterrent to pollution, but this can be pointed to as justification of its retention. A problem with this manner of thinking is that 1. It assumes that politicians will actually reduce pollution with such collections and 2. It deprives consumers of their ability to demand the energy they need.
Alternative sources won’t come about just because of government restrictions on traditional energy. What is needed is a lot of private investment in so-called ‘renewable’ energy. The RE Law’s provisions on tax incentives for RE firms is deficient in that ALL industries must be free of high taxes, so as to maximize investments by non-energy firms, if these investments are indeed lucrative.
***
Two months ago, I had a marathon of 'My secret identity.' Funny show. One episode, ‘Toxic time bomb,’ shows a company disposing of toxic wastes in a harmful manner. I always take defense of capitalism when discussing environmental issues.
I also remember an episode of ‘30 Rock’ entitled ‘Greenzo,’ where David Schwimmer as Greenzo is made to say “There's no such thing as global warming, the free market will protect the environment” or something similar, in a naive manner. I find Tina Fey to be really funny at times, but she is, like most intelligent people, a socialist.
It’s such attitudes to capitalism that ought to be corrected. People are of the idea that without government regulation, companies will run amok and harm the environment and deplete resources as quick as they could.
Let’s consider how government regulation is actually harmful. It creates standards that would prohibit a certain amount of pollution. The problem is that this is an imaginary safety net. The government does not stand to gain, or to lose, no matter how effective or ineffective it is. The result is not just bad quality control and less efficient manpower, but bribery and kickbacks to officials that further create an illusion of safe environmental practices and respect of other people’s property.
What we need is a completely free market wherein businesses seek favorable public opinion with regards to environmental matters, through environmental compliance certificates from private environmental groups, who in turn compete with each other for a reputation of reliability – this includes non-sensationalism –
and an assurance that those certified are environment-friendly. Unlike a government monopoly where its assurance, however gained, creates complacency in businesses, these private certifiers are less likely to all connive with one another, and instead would watch each other’s ‘regulating’ activities and be quick to expose anything fishy.
This is very similar to my opinion on the SEC.
I was just going to point out that people should be wary of things that have little evidence to back them up.
The media has been really biased against doubters of manmade global warming. I read a wires story a month or so ago, and it unequivocally said that even the admittedly little carbon dioxide emitted by humans into the atmosphere is the deciding factor that has led to Earth’s heating. Never mind that throughout prehistory such heating and cooling has been going on.
Since I was in third grade, I, along with those of my generation, have been taught that chlorofluorocarbons should not be used. Hell, even Andrew Clements was given more ‘environment-friendly’ sprays by Dr. Jeffcoate in ‘My secret identity.’ The idea of global warming has been so ubiquitous that it’s hard to believe all of this is political in nature.
***
Even if humans have led to the planet’s destruction, a ‘symbolic’ gesture such as switching off lights for one hour strikes me as corny, if not hypocritical. It’s the mentality of a serial killer resting on the Sabbath.
Forgetting the matter of global warming and focusing on individual pollution cases, people should be held liable for dirtying someone else’s property. If, and that’s an if, present laws or systems are incapable of administering justice in this regard, this only means a deficiency in defining property rights, and not an altogether deficient system. To my mind, this means redefining property not only horizontally but vertically, and considering communal ownership of waters and the air (soon enough, cities in air will yet redefine property rights).
***
When it comes to government measures to reduce pollution, the idea of a ‘pollution’ tax comes up. Never mind that the poor have little or no access to alternative energy sources. Coal is bad. Petroleum is bad. Ergo, the government must disincentivize such use.
The present VAT on oil goods may not have been legislated as a deterrent to pollution, but this can be pointed to as justification of its retention. A problem with this manner of thinking is that 1. It assumes that politicians will actually reduce pollution with such collections and 2. It deprives consumers of their ability to demand the energy they need.
Alternative sources won’t come about just because of government restrictions on traditional energy. What is needed is a lot of private investment in so-called ‘renewable’ energy. The RE Law’s provisions on tax incentives for RE firms is deficient in that ALL industries must be free of high taxes, so as to maximize investments by non-energy firms, if these investments are indeed lucrative.
***
Two months ago, I had a marathon of 'My secret identity.' Funny show. One episode, ‘Toxic time bomb,’ shows a company disposing of toxic wastes in a harmful manner. I always take defense of capitalism when discussing environmental issues.
I also remember an episode of ‘30 Rock’ entitled ‘Greenzo,’ where David Schwimmer as Greenzo is made to say “There's no such thing as global warming, the free market will protect the environment” or something similar, in a naive manner. I find Tina Fey to be really funny at times, but she is, like most intelligent people, a socialist.
It’s such attitudes to capitalism that ought to be corrected. People are of the idea that without government regulation, companies will run amok and harm the environment and deplete resources as quick as they could.
Let’s consider how government regulation is actually harmful. It creates standards that would prohibit a certain amount of pollution. The problem is that this is an imaginary safety net. The government does not stand to gain, or to lose, no matter how effective or ineffective it is. The result is not just bad quality control and less efficient manpower, but bribery and kickbacks to officials that further create an illusion of safe environmental practices and respect of other people’s property.
What we need is a completely free market wherein businesses seek favorable public opinion with regards to environmental matters, through environmental compliance certificates from private environmental groups, who in turn compete with each other for a reputation of reliability – this includes non-sensationalism –
and an assurance that those certified are environment-friendly. Unlike a government monopoly where its assurance, however gained, creates complacency in businesses, these private certifiers are less likely to all connive with one another, and instead would watch each other’s ‘regulating’ activities and be quick to expose anything fishy.
This is very similar to my opinion on the SEC.
No comments:
Post a Comment