3/31/2010

Climate Deal Postponed

Unfortunately, this article is blocked unless you subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, but the preview for it pretty much gives away the point. With lackluster results in regard to the Copenhangen summit, apparently the environmentalists are waiting until 2011 before trying to persuade the world to adopt their environmentally-friendly policy ideas. I think the whole idea of adopting policy to reduce “greenhouse gasses” and the like is unnecessary and ultimately dangerous to the state of our economy. Aside from generally making many types of businesses much more inefficient and expensive, other unintended side-effects could take place. Smaller businesses may find it harder to compete (similar to how Sarbanes-Oxley significantly lowered the number of businesses going public since its creation because of the higher costs associated with compliance), and of course personal freedoms will be stepped upon. Though I don't have any specific data to cite, I couldn't see this kind of legislation helping, in any way, the state of our economy.

5 comments:

Tyler said...

I read this article on why the Copenhagen conference failed this year. They list five main reasons Nation-states are far too self-serving, Democracies are too ill-equipped and irresolute to deal with pending crises, Isolationist and avaricious China, The powerful corporatist mega structure and Weak consensus on the reason for global warming. I felt this was a good article to read. It made me more aware on why this is such a difficult task, getting everyone to agree on the same green standards. It just seems to me that there is no way they are going to get every country to agree on the same set of environmental standards in the near future to come. Each country is in a different stage of its developing life. My biggest concern is the countries that are still in the developmental phase. They need different resources and they don’t have the same access to resources as developed countries do.

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/dvorsky20100110/

Victoria said...

In a certain way, I completely agree with what Logan says. I am agreed that taking care of the environmental problem is going to be expensive and is going to cause some small businesses to close due to due to the high expense. On the other hand I think in the long run our grandchildren’s grandchildren would be happy for what we have done. In the short run it is very expensive and of course inefficient for us in how we are living now, but in the future this investment is going to save lifes, make people healthier (because of the reduction of contamination) so people are going to spend less money in health care and the population is going to be better off.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/greenhouse/

Matthew said...

I do not know if this is the article, but finally people are talking about how this will decrease jobs. We need to open our eyes. We need to worry about jobs first. Yes, we do need to do a better job of taking are of our environment, but we need to do it at a pace that is sustainable. We have destroyed a lot of jobs where people want to work and we are not giving them options in where they can work. This is all coming from a bunch of individuals who wish that we all lived back in the time where life was good. As professor Tufte pointed out this was back when we were all 5 or 6. This is ridiculous, we need to stop this nonsense. Anywho, I am glad that California of all places is finally taking a step back and seeing what this is doing to us.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304620304575165843688369042.html?KEYWORDS=Greenhouse+Gases

Dr. Tufte said...

Ahem.

How to reply to this concisely. Hmmm.

Logan: why is no result out of Copenhagen "lackluster"? So much of how we define success about environmental issues is about whether we do something, not whether we do the right thing.

Let's fill in the blanks of Tyler's 5 points: aren't nations supposed to be self-serving, democracies aren't as good as other government types, the Chinese are just plain bad, firms would be better if they weren't corporatist, mega, and structured, and we'd be better off with a better reason for global warming (not knowing whether it is factual or not). This list sounds absurd when you put it this way. I don't think that's Tyler's fault: this is typical analysis of global issues.

Victoria: would you feel the same way about rich people that you feel about your grandchildren? Because honestly, they're going to be richer than anyone you know.

Matthew: jobs are the last thing we want to worry about. Jobs suck. What we should be worried about is well-being. Jobs do not make us better off. The things that jobs buy make us better off. If this sort of action is going to reduce jobs, it's because it's going to reduce consumption opportunities produced by other folks' jobs first. So, this is really all about you having less stuff in a smaller house.

I'm done now. ;)

Dr. Tufte said...

Ahem.

How to reply to this concisely. Hmmm.

Logan: why is no result out of Copenhagen "lackluster"? So much of how we define success about environmental issues is about whether we do something, not whether we do the right thing.

Let's fill in the blanks of Tyler's 5 points: aren't nations supposed to be self-serving, democracies aren't as good as other government types, the Chinese are just plain bad, firms would be better if they weren't corporatist, mega, and structured, and we'd be better off with a better reason for global warming (not knowing whether it is factual or not). This list sounds absurd when you put it this way. I don't think that's Tyler's fault: this is typical analysis of global issues.

Victoria: would you feel the same way about rich people that you feel about your grandchildren? Because honestly, they're going to be richer than anyone you know.

Matthew: jobs are the last thing we want to worry about. Jobs suck. What we should be worried about is well-being. Jobs do not make us better off. The things that jobs buy make us better off. If this sort of action is going to reduce jobs, it's because it's going to reduce consumption opportunities produced by other folks' jobs first. So, this is really all about you having less stuff in a smaller house.

I'm done now. ;)