Frank wrote:
If you, through some global warming inspired program were offered the
opportunity to insulate your home better, buy an energy star fridge,
freezer and stove and set up your home to use less energy and save
more money, would you take it and would the reason for the program
matter much to you?

... I am, btw, a mostly coherent high wattage 510 nm green. It's a
less expensive way to live once you get onto it.

Of course I do these things. Saving the environment is coincidental,
saving money is paramount.
My preference is for the free market to drive this issue. We all want
a clean environment and conservation but a lot of us don't want it
shoved down our throats.

The trouble with that approach is that by the time the free market is
hurting enough to do something very significant changes will have taken
place which will be hugely expensive to fix (if it is possible at all) and
they will cause immense human suffering along the way.

The free market corporation aims to maximise profit within the law (except
for a minority who disregard the law part). In this country they are
compelled to act that way by law, it is improper conduct for Directors to
not seek to maximise profit if the action is lawful.

As an example of this tension between profit and environment under the law
consider the way the free market has dealt with the environmental effects of
the mining industry. It has very often taken the view that it is fine to
protect the shareholders' profits by taking the short term view and if that
craps all over the landscape well that is unfortunate. Government
regulation and public opinion have been the factors that have made miners
begin to take care of the environment and to take the longer view because if
you are taking the short view protecting the environment cuts into profits.
In the case of weak goverments that are too beholden to corporate power to
legislate against their interests this situation is able to produce
environmental disasters, and has done so.

I am not saying that corporations are any more greedy and likely to take the
short view inappropriatley than the individual. We are all capable of
thinking that way, of taking the personal profit against the common good.
The corporation is an accurate and powerful proxy for these faults in the
individuals who own shares, buy products and run the boardrooms, that is all
of us.

The timing and the consequences simply do not permit the free market
approach in the case of climate change. Therefore regulation is essential.

David

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Frank wrote:
If you, through some global warming inspired program were offered the
opportunity to insulate your home better, buy an energy star fridge,
freezer and stove and set up your home to use less energy and save
more money, would you take it and would the reason for the program
matter much to you?

... I am, btw, a mostly coherent high wattage 510 nm green. It's a
less expensive way to live once you get onto it.

Of course I do these things. Saving the environment is coincidental,
saving money is paramount.
My preference is for the free market to drive this issue. We all want
a clean environment and conservation but a lot of us don't want it
shoved down our throats.

The trouble with that approach is that by the time the free market is
hurting enough to do something very significant changes will have taken
place which will be hugely expensive to fix (if it is possible at all) and
they will cause immense human suffering along the way.

What kind of immense suffering are you talking about.

aluckyguess wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Frank wrote:
If you, through some global warming inspired program were offered
the opportunity to insulate your home better, buy an energy star
fridge, freezer and stove and set up your home to use less energy
and save more money, would you take it and would the reason for
the program matter much to you?

... I am, btw, a mostly coherent high wattage 510 nm green. It's a
less expensive way to live once you get onto it.

Of course I do these things. Saving the environment is
coincidental, saving money is paramount.
My preference is for the free market to drive this issue. We all
want a clean environment and conservation but a lot of us don't
want it shoved down our throats.

The trouble with that approach is that by the time the free market is
hurting enough to do something very significant changes will have
taken place which will be hugely expensive to fix (if it is possible
at all) and they will cause immense human suffering along the way.

What kind of immense suffering are you talking about.

It depends on the degree of the problem and how fast it happens which
depends on what action we take and when.

It could be low islands and some coastal areas being flooded, increased crop
failures in marginal areas and minor changes of range of insect and
microbial pests.

It could be wholesale flooding of occupied land, rapid desertification,
continuous famine, mass displacement and wars following from these and
population depletion bringing about economic collapse.

David

In article , says...
aluckyguess wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Frank wrote:
If you, through some global warming inspired program were offered
the opportunity to insulate your home better, buy an energy star
fridge, freezer and stove and set up your home to use less energy
and save more money, would you take it and would the reason for
the program matter much to you?

... I am, btw, a mostly coherent high wattage 510 nm green. It's a
less expensive way to live once you get onto it.

Of course I do these things. Saving the environment is
coincidental, saving money is paramount.
My preference is for the free market to drive this issue. We all
want a clean environment and conservation but a lot of us don't
want it shoved down our throats.

The trouble with that approach is that by the time the free market is
hurting enough to do something very significant changes will have
taken place which will be hugely expensive to fix (if it is possible
at all) and they will cause immense human suffering along the way.

What kind of immense suffering are you talking about.

It depends on the degree of the problem and how fast it happens which
depends on what action we take and when.

It could be low islands and some coastal areas being flooded, increased crop
failures in marginal areas and minor changes of range of insect and
microbial pests.

It could be wholesale flooding of occupied land, rapid desertification,
continuous famine, mass displacement and wars following from these and
population depletion bringing about economic collapse.


And in some places it's already happening.

For instance, there's no "could be" to the people of Tuvalu.

On Feb 7, 9:44*pm, "David Hare-Scott" wrote:
Frank wrote:
If you, through some global warming inspired program were offered the
opportunity to insulate your home better, buy an energy star fridge,
freezer and stove and set up your home to use less energy and save
more money, would you take it and would the reason for the program
matter much to you?

... I am, btw, a mostly coherent high wattage 510 nm green. It's a
less expensive way to live once you get onto it.

Of course I do these things. *Saving the environment is coincidental,
saving money is paramount.
My preference is for the free market to drive this issue. *We all want
a clean environment and conservation but a lot of us don't want it
shoved down our throats.

The trouble with that approach is that by the time the free market is
hurting enough to do something very significant changes will have taken
place which will be hugely expensive to fix (if it is possible at all) and
they will cause immense human suffering along the way.

The free market corporation aims to maximise profit within the law (except
for a minority who disregard the law part). *In this country they are
compelled to act that way by law, it is improper conduct for Directors to
not seek to maximise profit if the action is lawful.

As an example of this tension between profit and environment under the law
consider the way the free market has dealt with the environmental effects of
the mining industry. *It has very often taken the view that it is fine to
protect the shareholders' profits by taking the short term view and if that
craps all over the landscape well that is unfortunate. * Government
regulation and public opinion have been the factors that have made miners
begin to take care of the environment and to take the longer view because if
you are taking the short view protecting the environment cuts into profits.
In the case of weak goverments that are too beholden to corporate power to
legislate against their interests this situation is able to produce
environmental disasters, and has done so.

I am not saying that corporations are any more greedy and likely to take the
short view inappropriatley than the individual. We are all capable of
thinking that way, of taking the personal profit against the common good.
The corporation is an accurate and powerful proxy for these faults in the
individuals who own shares, buy products and run the boardrooms, that is all
of us.

The timing and the consequences simply do not permit the free market
approach in the case of climate change. *Therefore regulation is essential.

David

Not that I don't believe in some regulation, e.g. you should not be
able to build in a 100 year flood plain.
It's a regulation in our northern county in Delaware but not in
southern county along the beach. One of these days a class one
(smallest) hurricane will hit them causing billions of dollars worth
of damage to buildings that were not there 50 years ago.
State meteorologist (censured by the Dem. governor) said we should not
fight mother nature but get out of her way.