I looked at the lead in but did not read the whole article. Yes, I think the "Greenies" have made political mistakes. I'm going to write in generalities so please grant me some latitude. I assume the "Greenies" are sincere and want to conserve a good environment. If, to the contrary, the "Greenies" are merely using environmental concerns for other purposes -- to secure themselves a job, to make money, to build an empire, etc. -- they don't fit into my discussion.
Who doesn't want a good environment? Who wants to live in industrial poison? Nobody. We have done many things heretofore that address environmental improvement -- banning DDT, removing lead from gasoline, outlawying Freon. What is needed is not alarmist, distorted, misleading information intended to coerce us to take certain actions thought desirable by the "Greenies." Therein lies the problem the cited article seems to address. The "Greenies" have a credibility problem brought on by their conscious use of misinformation and rhetorical tricks. It is the story of the boy who cried "Wolf!" one too many times.
There are trade-offs involved and uncertainties involved. The whole "global warming caused by CO2 emissions from human beings burning fossil fuels" debate is very much the subject here. They have pushed us hard on this stuff for years, and now just about the time they appear to be gaining some traction in the public policy arena we are starting to see some cracks in their story -- not one, not two, but swarms of cracks. This really damages their credibility. Why should we believe them?
The science is immature and they cannot quantify what may happen. Their models do not predict what we have observed over the last 10 years (declining average temperatures relative to the previous 20 years). One of their own arch bishops -- the director of the East Anglia University Climate Research Center (or some such name) -- has said that the temperatures MAY have been just as hot during the medieval warming epoch 1000 AD to 1200 AD. Don't know. See, that's one of those "immature science" things.
I guess I do not have a problem with well-meaning greenies as long as there are no government mandates. Once they become political in driving their initiatives, they become a viable target for scorn, derision, and yes, even honest criticism.
ANd we can see that 'honest criticism' (or even mild disagreement) seem to bring the roaches out of the woodwork....
I guess I do not have a problem with well-meaning greenies as long as there are no government mandates. Once they become political in driving their initiatives, they become a viable target for scorn, derision, and yes, even honest criticism.
ANd we can see that 'honest criticism' (or even mild disagreement) seem to bring the roaches out of the woodwork....
I'm not sure what you mean by "no government mandates." A common problem is that companies make profits while damaging common non-owned assets. If the government does not mandate emissions standards, why would companies invest money in curtailing emissions? I assume you are referring to something else.
Perhaps you mean government throwing money at special projects such as ethanol supplemented fuel, electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, etc. Indeed, this government activity can have deleterious effects and create odd distortions. For example, it is hard to argue that ethanol production is not a mature technology and requires government support to nuture it through a fragile period of infancy. Government subsidies in this area, to the contrary, cost money out of our pocket to prop up an uncompetitive energy source (that is, ethanol without government subsidy would be unprofitable and hence vanish here in the US) and at the same time drives up food prices because of land taken out of production of food crops to produce ethanol. A trifecta of government foolishness!!!
The government should not pick economic winners and losers. Sure, maybe they get lucky some times and develop "tang", but if you look at the money spent across the board on all such initiatives, the price tag for the winners looks pretty steep. I also want to point out that the government happens to be a pretty bad picker of winners and losers in technology. If you were relying on them to pick horses at a horse race, you would quit betting pretty promptly.
One of the strengths of our economic system is that there are a lot of entrepreneurs who get excited about pet projects and a lot of venture capitalists who are greedy and anxious to invest in the next big thing. As an example, this process may lead to 10 projects being invested in and moved forwards, 9 projects failing miserably, and the remaining 1 project succeeding extraordinarily, perhaps creating a new industry that we in the US have the head start on and reap economic rents for years until the copier economies do it cheaper and faster. In a centrally controlled economy, a board of "experts" would choose one pet project and run with that. When the project fails, it is the people's money that is lost. Having picked only one project, there is no solution developed. In our system, the losses are owned by the venture capitalists alone and there is the parallelization of working on a problem. I have heard of people talk about having three software development teams work concurrently but independently to develop software for the same set of requirements; keep the best solution; throw away the two lesser solutions. There is merit in such an idea . . . but what company follows this path? It is seen as foolish to knowingly embrace funding two by definition loser projects. Clearly there is some wisdom in this approach, though it may be difficult to sell to the board of directors. The wisdom is related to understanding and appreciating human failure and the limits of human activities. The mistake of management is to assume success.
I'm not sure what you mean by "no government mandates." A common problem is that companies make profits while damaging common non-owned assets. If the government does not mandate emissions standards, why would companies invest money in curtailing emissions? I assume you are referring to something else.you assume correct...I am talking about mercuric lo-voltage light bulbs, Im talking about electric cars...I'm talking about all the material things that go along with 'greenie' mentality which, unless government mandates, they will always be a matter of personal choice.
Perhaps you mean government throwing money at special projects such as ethanol supplemented fuel, electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, etc. Indeed, this government activity can have deleterious effects and create odd distortions. For example, it is hard to argue that ethanol production is not a mature technology and requires government support to nuture it through a fragile period of infancy. Government subsidies in this area, to the contrary, cost money out of our pocket to prop up an uncompetitive energy source (that is, ethanol without government subsidy would be unprofitable and hence vanish here in the US) and at the same time drives up food prices because of land taken out of production of food crops to produce ethanol. A trifecta of government foolishness!!!and again...bullseye ! Initiatives are all out there for people to invest in, to participate and develop..on a voluntary basis. But when our bum-in-chief gets incandescent light bulbs outlawed, and replaced with bulbs that while costing less to run, require a hazmat response in case of breakage....well then I'm against it.
The government should not pick economic winners and losers. Sure, maybe they get lucky some times and develop "tang", but if you look at the money spent across the board on all such initiatives, the price tag for the winners looks pretty steep. I also want to point out that the government happens to be a pretty bad picker of winners and losers in technology. If you were relying on them to pick horses at a horse race, you would quit betting pretty promptly.It is not the place of government to tell it's people how to live or what life choices to make.
One of the strengths of our economic system is that there are a lot of entrepreneurs who get excited about pet projects and a lot of venture capitalists who are greedy and anxious to invest in the next big thing. As an example, this process may lead to 10 projects being invested in and moved forwards, 9 projects failing miserably, and the remaining 1 project succeeding extraordinarily, perhaps creating a new industry that we in the US have the head start on and reap economic rents for years until the copier economies do it cheaper and faster. In a centrally controlled economy, a board of "experts" would choose one pet project and run with that. When the project fails, it is the people's money that is lost. Having picked only one project, there is no solution developed. In our system, the losses are owned by the venture capitalists alone and there is the parallelization of working on a problem. I have heard of people talk about having three software development teams work concurrently but independently to develop software for the same set of requirements; keep the best solution; throw away the two lesser solutions. There is merit in such an idea . . . but what company follows this path? It is seen as foolish to knowingly embrace funding two by definition loser projects. Clearly there is some wisdom in this approach, though it may be difficult to sell to the board of directors. The wisdom is related to understanding and appreciating human failure and the limits of human activities. The mistake of management is to assume success.
The capitalist model is the one that we have followed here for 200 years. The efforts of private enterprise are those that will determine the increase in quality of life for Americans, and you are correct in that government involvement in such matters are just like a tip at the racetrack...they're just another bookie tellin' you what to lay your money down on, but in the case of govt, they don't give you the choice you have in the private market.
Greenies are a tither.
