The Top Ten Things Environmentalists Need to Learn
January 29th, 2008
|
| Share |
This came out a lot longer than I expected. However, this is also what is becoming an increasingly large portion of this website. Maintaining the environment is a critical issue especially as evidence of accelerated global warming mounts and as energy becomes more of an issue than it has in recent past. Unfortunately, many of those who claim to be working for enviornmental improvements lack an understanding of a few basic concepts which are absolutely critical to accomplishing anything.
I often find myself in arguments over economics versus environmentalism. This becomes a very difficult situation because the immediate accusation is that I care only about money and need to realize that sacrifices must be made for the good of the planet. I am also told that wind or solar is the answer and the costs and reduction of energy output is acceptable. These ideas that it is okay or honorable to make such sacrifices are overly simplistic and lack a true understanding of the forces at work. To use a phrase I have come to like, they are “Not even wrong.”
Thus, the top ten list…
10. Go after pollution sources with the highest benefit/cost ratio, not those which are most noticeable – If you are attempting to make a difference in the world, you should start with the largest problems with the simplest solutions and the least cost in remedying.
For example, underground coal fires produce as much CO2 as all the light cars and trucks in North America and most of those in
Similarly, aviation accounts only a small portion of CO2 emissions and there are no apparent alternatives to hydrocarbon fuels for aircraft which do not result in huge tradeoffs. The funds spent on attempting to develop and deploy hydrogen fueled aircraft or some other alternative are very high and there would be tradeoffs in the capabilities and economics of operation. Therefore, it is not wise to invest much effort or funds in such a pursuit.
9. It is always best and often vital to utilize existing infrastructure and capabilities when implementing new methods or technologies. – Any concept for producing more environmentally friendly systems must deal with the realities of the currently deployed infrastructure and the existing manufacturing and maintenance capabilities in place. Those which utilize these assets to the fullest will be the most successful and any which require retooling or major upgrades MUST be capable of doing so in an incremental manner which uses established capabilities wherever possible.
This is important in the context of things like transportation. It is entirely unreasonable to expect that there will be widely deployed hydrogen filling stations or other support facilities in the foreseeable future. Even if the ultimate goal is to establish such facilities, it is necessary that any technologies being implemented must be capable of compatibility with what currently exists in the midterm. For example, plug in hybrids which may be a stepping stone toward future electric-based vehicles but work well with existing technology.
Similarly, it is better to work with manufacturing, refining and distribution technologies that are already available as well as the existing skills of workers. It is better to deploy clean synthetic hydrocarbons, for example, than ethanol on a wide scale because ethanol cannot be pumped through existing petroleum pipelines due to it’s tendency to bind with water.
8. “Natural” “Organic” and “Bio” do not mean “good.” - Some of the most toxic substances known are natural. Furthermore there are times when using an artificial or engineered solution to a problem is far better than using a traditional low-tech or natural approach. Using synthetic substances, engineered approaches and technology can often improve the efficiency of an activity and therefore reduce the need for resources and the overall impact.
For example: a farm which utilizes insecticides and artificial fertilizers to grow a given amount of crops on ten acres may be far better for the local ecosystem than a farm which uses organic methods but requires twice the land be cleared. A common organic farming method for pest control is to import predator insects like lady bugs, however, importing large numbers of these insects may be considerably more disturbing to the local food chain and ecosystem than using a measured amount of an artificial pesticide.
”Nature” was not designed to provide mankind with food, energy and other needs in the most efficient, reliable and sustainable manner. Therefore, engineered or artificial approaches may have better overall outcomes.
7. Plans for the future should not be made on the most optimistic predictions and should consider the most pessimistic reasonable predictions – If you are formulating a plan for providing energy you cannot base it on the assumption that there will be an overall decrease in energy usage. Rather, one must assume that energy needs will continue to grow as they always have, if not faster.
Similarly, no plans for the future should ever be based on the assumption that it will be possible to do something better/faster/cheaper than it can now based on future technologies. One cannot, for example, create say “We’ll just have to develop a more efficient solar cell that is ten times cheaper than what we have now.” There is no guarantee that such research and development in such an area will be fruitful.
”Hope for the best but prepare for the worst” is generally the best policy. Any statement like “Well we won’t need to plan for that because in ten years we’ll be at the point where we’ll only need half as much oil” should be viewed with extreme skepticism.
6. Simply attacking an environmentally damaging activity is not effective unless a better alternative of similar or better economics and usefulness is presented – Protesting a coal fired power plant is, in and of itself, useless, because the plant is necessary to provide electricity. It is even worse to oppose coal, oil and hydroelectric because those are all major sources of electricity. If one wants to phase out something like coal there must be an alternative presented. It is always more effective to promote the alternative than to oppose what exists. If the alternative is accepted, the existing activity being opposed will go away on its own.
It is important that the alternative be reasonable, not speculative and capable of replacing what exists with minimal sacrifice in general. Any alternative which provides additional non-environmental benefits, such as cheaper energy, improved capabilities or better performance (in the case of a vehicle) will aid greatly in promoting the alternative. If such benefits can be presented the likelihood of success is extremely high.
5. Taxation, price increases and caps on energy are inherently regressive and cause great damage. – Regressive means that it has a greater impact on the lower classes than the upper classes and also affect upward mobility and general quality of life. Increasing the price of energy does not mean simply mandating a price or taxing it directly. Any measures which limit energy production will cause an increase in price due to market forces. This includes carbon taxation and carbon capping without providing a variable alternative. Mandating the use of energy technologies which are limited in output or are expensive will likewise increase prices.
High priced energy is a huge burden on the lower classes to a degree much higher than the upper class. Energy is a fundamental expense to living, both directly in the form of heating, transportation and electricity and also indirectly in how it affects production of all goods and services. The price makes up a much larger proportion of the spending of those with less. Thus, an increase in the price of energy DOES NOT make all people conserve energy in an equal manner nor does it prevent frivolous use of energy.
Joe billionaire still fuels up his yatch and barely notices that he spent five dollars a gallon on marine diesel instead of two, but poor families go cold because they cannot afford heating oil at twice the price. In the end, those with the money to adopt cleaner and more efficient technology and with the excesses which can be cut are the least likely to do so. The more likely outcome of higher energy prices is a move to alternative energy sources which offer a lower cost, even if doing so results in more pollution instead of less. An example would be the wood burning stove boom during the 1970’s oil crisis or waste oil burners.
This increases the class divide, as any shortage of such an important commodity will. It causes more poverty and limits upward mobility. The overall reduction in quality of life affects nearly all sectors including health and any burden on the economic system will only make government social programs more burdened.
4. It is unreasonable to expect the general public will accept major reductions in living standards or comfort and convenience. Simply put, it won’t happen – There is no point in debating the ethics of driving a big car and taking vacations versus making sacrifices to sustain the environment, because history shows that the public has a very limited tolerance for any measures which directly affect their comfort, convenience and other wants. Therefore, if you want people to drive a car which is environmentally friendly, it must not be a glorified golfcart. It cannot lack air conditioning and be small, slow and lacking in capacity. People will not accept that kind of sacrifice in general.
Because they will not move to environmentally friendly options voluntarily, the next thing which generally is proposed is to mandate very strict limitations on the use of anything from incandescent light bulbs to air conditioners to big engines. The problem is that this will not generally be accepted if there is not an equally viable alternative. People will either skirt the regulations or they will put pressure on politicians to change them. In a democracy, the politicians will always be forced to bow to the will of the people on any matter which is universally disliked.
(They want their damn bread and circus and you’d be a fool to try to talk them into living without them.)
3. Depending on continuous heavy subsidies is not sustainable. – Subsidies exist for a reason and are not always a completely bad thing. They are designed to do things like maintain a strategic capability which is not normally profitable or to stimulate a sector which is important to a country and might now develop on it’s own.
However, when it comes to energy and development, a subsidy cannot be a tow-line, but only a jump start. In other words, it must be for the purpose of establishing a capability which will have value and returns on the initial expenditure. Paying to keep something going for years when it has shown disappointing results is a complete waste. It is not economically sustainable and has low benefit.
It also should be pointed out that “creating jobs” is not an economic benefit if those jobs are entirely based on expenditures which do not result in a tangible payback and rely on direct funding to exist. “Creating 1000 jobs” is not a good thing if the way they were created is by paying 1000 people to do something useless. The sustainability and overall effect must be considered.
2. Every little bit does not help. – There is absolutely no point in perusing technologies or methods which do not have the potential for actually making an ecological difference, especially if doing so will expend funds, energy or other resources without any significant return. Even in cases where there is little overall investment, simply harping on the most insignificant overall issues will at least draw attention away from what credible solutions exist.
In the end, it is not really going to matter if there is .00001% les Co2 in the air in a century. Those technologies which have limited potential are best abandoned to cut losses as soon as it becomes apparent how limited they are. Campaigns against things like iPhones are idiotic, considering the massive discharges of waste by other parts of the electronics industry and other industries in general. Putting a solar panel on your roof might make you feel good but that’s about all it does. Saying “someone has to start” or “if everyone would do it” or “every bit helps” does not count for much when you know that everyone *will not* do it and “every little bit” helps a very very little bit.
1. Sacrificing the needs of an economy for the environment will destroy both. - This is overall and far and away one thing which environmentalists seem to entirely lack any understanding of. There are a lot of claims that sacrifices must be made economically or that “the price of damaging the environment cannot be measured in dollars. We need to consider that cheap power has hidden costs to earth.”
The major problem with this is that the economic health of a society affects nearly all aspects of the society. For example, during times of recession, crime rates tend to rise, health generally deteriorates, general public moral is far less. The effects are far reaching both broadly and individually. When the economy does well, more people have good paying jobs with benefits. More people have healthcare coverage and those who do not are generally more able to pay for healthcare. More people go to college and education in general improves. There are more funds for donation to charities and the government has far more of a taxbase from which to spend.
The impact on the environment is also effected by this for several reasons. It has been said that “environmentalism is a luxury” and this is actually true in many circumstances. In a poor country cars blow out more exhaust because owners are not as prone to good upkeep of the engine and exhaust system. Recycling does not exist in such countries because the funds are not available and the demand for more raw materials is lacking, thus making it less financially motivating to recover materials.
In general, people become far less concerned with the environment when they see that their own lives and the lives of those close to them are not very good. A person does not buy highly efficient lightbulbs or a hybrid car in such circumstances. If they cannot afford oil to keep warm, they will not insulate their home but rather are more likely to start cutting down trees for fuel. They may even buy a simple stove and start to burn garbage for fuel.
An economy is not healthy when it is stagnant. It must not only be growing to be healthy, but to be prosperous it should have the highest possible growth rate while maintaining sustainable funds and keeping inflation in relative check. Only under such circumstances will the government and private organizations have the funds and the ability to tackle environmental issues. The flip side of this is that it means an increase in consumption and in consumerism in general. This equates to more potential for environmental impact.
The key, in the end, is to find ways to keep a robust and healthy economy while promoting good environmental policy. Doing so will increase standards of living, decrease poverty, increase environmentally positive projects and benefit all aspects of life and ecology.
Added (2/5/08):
Having gotten a lot of attention on this article I’ve added a couple of follow-up posts which related to this and which I might suggest checking out. You may also want to check other parts of this blog filed under “environment”.
Agree or disagree your comments are welcome and will not be removed – at least as long as the discussion is factual and substantive. Railings, flaming and profanity are not desired, however. However, although descent is welcome, don’t expect not to be refuted, taken to task or otherwise countered. Feel free to do the same. This is obviously a contentious issue. Any discussion, even if heated, is positive if it stimulates thought and education.
Sources of Greenhouse Gas and a Quick Math Lesson
Stuff “Environmentalists” Should be (more) Concerned About
Does Every Little Bit Really help?
“Green Groups” Give Me Deja Vu
Also, since there has been a lot of discussion of nuclear energy resulting from this, here are some previous posts with relevant information:
Ten Myths About Nuclear Energy
Greenpeace On Nuclear Science
A Graphic Illustration of Nuclear Energy Potential
What is Spent Fuel? – I’m most proud of this one as it addresses an issue most people know very little about. The issue of nuclear “waste” and methods for dealing with it.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 29th, 2008 at 11:32 am and is filed under Bad Science, Education, Enviornment, Good Science, History, Not Even Wrong. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
May 19th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
And how do you fit the soon to be 9 billion people on earth into small widespread communities?
How will organic farming produce enough food for 9 billion people?
What would the environmental consequenses be if 9 billion people burn biofuels to produce energy?(hint 2 million people already die each year because of biofuels).
Your idea would mean mass starvation and the death of a very large fraction of the human population. The idea that widespread communities are more environmental friendly than large cities is missguided.
Quote Comment
May 19th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Green Is The Color Of Life said:
You know fifty years from now in 2058, when the dren has already hit the fan, people will be looking back on these feeble ideas and how ideology stood in the way of making the sort of decisions that were needed then, and you and your kind will be judged most harshly.
You may wish to live in the Dark Ages, the bulk of the population doesn’t ,and solutions to our problems have to take this into account.
Quote Comment
May 19th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
How about this: We also get the population to stop growing by telling people not to have so much sex and generally favor abstinences?
It is about as likely and credible a plan as the idea of convincing everyone to live in small communes of mud huts.
Quote Comment
June 6th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Interesting and full of common sense… but unfortunately I believe we need a little bit more than common sense when it comes to big and complex issues.
It si true: many environmentalist are lacking hosts of information, nevertheless we ARE facing an energy crisis.
One point not to ignore is about those interests around the already established energy sources, mainly oil. It is pretty logical to think that if there are a lot of people making megabucks thanks to the oil, they will try to block any initiative to switch to other energy sources.
So it is not only common sense, there are interests in the middle. Reasonably behaving, we should start to prepare for the switch and make it as smooth as possible, trying to gradually replace oil with some other thing, studying which “some other thing” it could be (solar, steam, electricity, you name it) and requalifying all industries involved in those energies to drop, so that they can become new energy industries.
But then what are we doing with those guys from Shell, Exxon, etc? No matter how smoothly you plan it switching to an alternative energy source will obviously cost money; and we must do it, so… who’s gonna pay?
Old question.
Quote Comment
June 6th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
The people who want to switch to an alternative energy source will pay for it.
And if their source is better, they will make a profit.
Quote Comment
June 6th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Jack Celliers said:
‘We need more than commonsense’ has always been one of those buzz-phrases that sets off my B.S. detector. It usually means ‘I have a plan, but you have to suspend commonsense to buy into it.’ Given that the commenter is an unrepentant Marxist-Leninist, I can imagine what that plan would be.
Quote Comment
June 7th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Michael Ejercito said:
Could be. Sadly you need money to invest, investment in a good idea which will go against powerful interests.
I’m not saying it is not possible, I only think that the energy crisis needs to become much more serious to make anyone run the risk.
Quote Comment
June 7th, 2008 at 9:53 am
DV82XL said:
Well, that comment before this one was at least a rational answer. But this one is not a rational answer. In fact it’s not an answer at all. It’s simply a B.S. detector buzzing (and you know: that needs no rational justification) and pointing to the unrepentant Marxist-Leninist.
So you know: if an unrepentant Marxist-Leninist says something (“it’s raining”, for instance), you don’t even have to think wether he’s right or wrong, less to prove anything. Just say your infallible B.S. detector is buzzing! That will solve the problem.
You know, with this kind of “answers” I will hardly ever repent about being a Marxist-Leninist.
Cheers!
Quote Comment
June 7th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Yes, well we have seen how effective Marxist-Leninist theory has been in dealing with these issues in the past, so you will excuse me if, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I don’t see it as providing any novel answers now.
I repeat what I said up thread; any set of solutions that require the suspension of commonsense I find suspect, irregardless of whatever the ideological roots.
Quote Comment
June 7th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
What sort of crisis existed when Thomas Edison sought alternative forms of illumination in defiance of the candlemaking interests?
Quote Comment
June 7th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Michael Ejercito said:
A small correction Mike…it was gas interests that were impacted by electric light. By the time of Edison’s 1879 lamp invention, gas lighting was a mature, well-established industry. The gas infrastructure was in place, franchises had been granted, and manufacturing facilities for both gas and equipment were in profitable operation. Perhaps as important, people had grown accustomed to the idea of lighting with gas.
Although they did at the beginning, work to suppress this new invention, they were smart enough to see the advantage of supplying several forms of energy. This is how the New York Gas Light Company, Manhattan Steam Company, and Edison Electric Light Company became the Consolidated Edison Company.
Capitalism found a solution. One wonders what the outcome would have been in a command economy.
Quote Comment
June 8th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Michael Ejercito said:
None, that’s precisely the point.
The problem in late capitalism is that you have huge amounts of money concentrated in small portions of population. USA is by far the most energy-consuming country. When something as vital as energy is at stake it is not so easy to avoid colliding with some interests.
Edison introduced a new way of dealing with energy, but at the time the energy sources where not almost monopolized by a few countries/companies.
Quote Comment
June 8th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
DV82XL said:
You are bringing something that has nothing to do with the point, so that to prove you wrong I would have to branch too far from the main subject. Not interesting I guess.
To shorten up: common sense tells you that the Moon has a small coin’s size. Apparently true, but false in fact. So let’s say a Marxist-Leninist (and anybody with a hint of rational thought) will make you notice that common sense is OK for common life, complex issues require to go beyond.
You talked already about Marxism, my secret plans to rule the world, your special buzzer… why not Aquaman? Anything but the point.
Quote Comment
June 8th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Jack Celliers said:
Simply to clarify, let’s try to see if we agree in this point: candlemaking interests were certainly easier to defy at the time than oil-investors interests.
Quote Comment
June 8th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
DV82XL said:
Sorry, did not see this one, which is a very interesting point.
Nevertheless, I thing it lacks data. I wonder if for instance, gas prices were at the time as volatile as oil’s are being today, if they had the same impact in overall economy and prices, if gruesome wars were carried on for gas, etc. I don’t think so. I think it was a well-established industry, of course, but with much lower economic impact and concentration, and more important: in a different stage of economic and technical development.
Today’s economy is far more interdependent than yesterday, and more highly globalized. Today oil’s production is being bought in advance to speculate, there are funds able to move much faster. Simply the news about oil prices rocketing up make them rocket up, why? Because oil moves almost all. Thus it has a much larger impact on prices. Gas was used mainly to heat up, that’s only a very little part of what’s oil used for today.
That’s why I think it’s not an accurate instance.
Quote Comment
June 9th, 2008 at 1:40 am
@Jack Celliers
For someone that claims to be part of a worker’s movement, you have a poor grasp of its history. Gas in the days of Edison, was a manufactured gas that went by several names was made from coal feedstock. Coal was the fuel of the age, and yes wars were fought, at the pithead by the miners in what was the real beginning of the labor movement in the West.
Keep in mind that the motive power of choice for electrical generation was hydro at the time, consequently electricity was a real threat to coal’s supremacy in some areas, so the parallels are not that far off. The difference was that this was a time where Capitalism was considered an Ideal in its own right, and governments did not feel they had a duty to take a hand in directing the market.
As for a Marxist-Leninist being right time to time, what can I say except a stopped clock is also right twice a day.
Jack Celliers said:
You really have no idea at all where the largest concentration of capital is in the US right now. If you still think it is in the hands of a few rich people, you are, (like all a Marxist-Leninists) a century out of date.
I don’t debate with communists as a rule – yours is a passè ideology that has been shattered on the wheel of history, and therefore no longer is a enough of a threat for me to bother wasting time on.
I will not be responding further to you sir.
Quote Comment
June 9th, 2008 at 3:08 am
Jack Celliers said:
Well, that’s an interesting take on it. I happen to live in the USA and I am not exactly “rich” yet I own a car, a computer, a cell phone and even some purely entertainment items. Actually, almost everyone I know has a cell phone, and no they’re not all rich. Actually, being “poor” in the US usually means you own a television, which is, strictly speaking, a luxury item.
Not only that, but even the low income have electricity and between charities, food stamps and other social programs nobody here actually starves because of lack of food or money to buy it. The very idea that you could be “low income” in the US and still own a car, a cell phone and a television would likely leave many in other countries very confused.
Do you see bread lines? No. Food riots? No. Warlords hording bags of UN-issued rice? No.
now how about the idealist Marxist economy? Oh wait. They always seem to have that kind of crap going on.
Actually, here in the US there is a lot of talk about building a “fence” or “wall” to keep people out. That’s getting to be an issue that people worry about: All the people trying to get in here. Not from just Mexico either.
There actually was a pretty good border wall that they had in Germany for a while. Very effective. People died trying to get over or under or through it. That wall was not to keep people out of a country though, it was to keep people IN.
So say what you will about capitalism, but we don’t have walls here to keep our people from escaping.
When was the last time you heard of Cuban coastal patrols finding Americans clinging to rickety boats to get into the communist paradise there? No, I didn’t think so.
Quote Comment
June 9th, 2008 at 10:10 am
DV82XL said:
“I don’t debate with communists as a rule”
Funny statement after starting a debate! Thanks, I feel flattered about your breaking your rule so many times.
I simply point out that the energy map and the market situation at that time was very far from today’s, we are talking about more than one century. For a capitalism supporter you have a poor grasp on economy.
“You really have no idea at all where the largest concentration of capital is in the US right now. If you still think it is in the hands of a few rich people, you are, (like all a Marxist-Leninists) a century out of date.”
Funny you think I’m talking about USA, I’m talking about the whole world, not only USA.
The rest is simply personal statements (“you have no idea” “your ideology is passe”, bla bla bla) leading nowhere.
Have a nice day.
Quote Comment
June 9th, 2008 at 10:42 am
drbuzz0 said:
It’s really strange, as I stated above, to stumble on such a primitive way of thinking: “In USA you can live well, in Cuba people seeks to go to USA. Cuba is Marxist, USA is capitalism, so USA beats Cuba and you are so, so wrong!”
Let’s see: I said USA is by far the biggest energy consumer in the world, right? Then I am recognizing USA is a rich and powerful country. And of course many poor people want to go there… what a new! I wouldn’t paint USA in such a colorful way though: being a very rich country, the social gap is still much wider, and life standards are certainly lower than in less rich countries, let’s say Scandinavian ones (which have not a Marxist, but an aggressive social-democrat government, with high taxes and a state that actively regulates the market).
Still I can point out the way oil is managed in Norway, it is a very interesting policy about it.
But capitalism, alas, is not only USA. Are you familiar with the term “banana republic”? It was not created by any Marxist, but by an American humorist. It refers to the United Fruit Co., which simply put and took off governments in Honduras, as CIA put and took off governments all over the world.
So capitalism is also Honduras, and Mexico, and El Salvador, and Brazil, and many other countries in which hunger is an everyday issue. I’m only saying that in those countries the social gap is by far wider than in Cuba, a place I know pretty well, with a lot of infrastructure problems, economically tangled by USA (you can sell or buy from any state in the world, no matter if it is a dictatorship or not, but nobody can carry on any kind of commercial activity with Cuba and expect to do the same with USA. Try to buy Cuban cigars and go to the States).
So USA is a powerful country… really? Didn’t notice it! Can you tell me all the points in the world’s map in which USA’s army has been involved in some kind of war? I think more than any other country. Is Irak a place in which USA has something to do with government? Oh… certainly, that’s why you can live so well in Irak! Is Saudi Arabia an ally that supports USA strategy in the region? Of course, a model of democracy. Was Saddam Hussein a good friend of the USA, armed by the USA? Yes he was. Are the Talibans and Osama Bin Laden those good guys who fought the Soviets, and were not so long ago armed and trained by the Americans (and praised in every stupid war movie, like Rambo III?).
But it’s OK, don’t you ever worry as long as you have your TV, which as you said, in many places in the world is a luxury item.
Quote Comment
June 9th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I’m starting to wonder if I should even continue this discussion because this is supposed to be a post about the methods for improving the enviornment and reducing emissions by targeting the sources with the most effective solutions. Yet communism keeps coming up and other various political discussions which are totally unrelated to the science, engineering and general enviornmental policy issues which was supposed to be the focus of this.
Anyways, I suppose the argument could be made that communism has less of a class divide. It’s been said that capitalism is an unequal distribution of wealth but communism is an equal distribution of poverty.
Quote Comment
June 9th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
How so?
Quote Comment
June 9th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Jack Celliers said:
Okay, but what you’re talking about is not an issue of capitalism. You’re talking about a big country artificially going in and taking over or pressuring a government to grant favoritism to a business. This would be an example of the USA deviating from free markets and is NOT inherent to the capitalist idea.
It’s ironic though, because the US and any capitalist society on its worst day cannot even hold a candle to the Soviet Union for exploiting countries, taking over and using them to their advantage. The Soviets turned all of Eastern Europe into one huge block of puppet governments. They took over Kazakhstan, exerted influence and supported regimes in Africa, the Middle East and fought a bloody war for control in Afghanistan.
No. The Taliban and Osama Bin Laden were never the good guys. The fact that any of the bad guys received any alliance or aid from the US or any other country in the West has to do with the fact that there was a much worse danger who had to be opposed and for this reason uneasy alliances were formed with those who were never liked.
There was once a time when the Soviets were an ally too. That was for the same reason. No, the US knew the Soviets were communist scum, but the fact that the Nazis posed a greater threat forced an alliance.
What’s so funny is you think people want to get into the US because it’s the most powerful country in the world. Power has nothing to do with it. The power of the country does not sit on the top as it does in communist countries. The Soviet Union was a superpower as well, and they had to keep their people in.
Other countries are far less powerful than the United States, countries like Brittan are less economically and militarily powerful, Canada has far less direct influence and little military by comparison, and the same with Australia. Yet people line up to get into Canada, Australia, Brittan and much of Europe. Why? It is simple. High standard of living. The opportunity to make good money. Good jobs. Stability. Safety.
If you look at the world you will find, almost without exception, that political corruption and a government that fails to protect liberties and promote enterprise is the reason why areas are economically depressed. This may be for a number of reasons, like internal war, but it is often the direct result of communism which universally and with zero exceptions will always degenerate to a fanciest oppressive system that destroys the lives and economic freedom of a nation.
Quote Comment
June 9th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
drbuzz0 said:
To think that a discussion involving a vital resource directly related with the economy should be a mere matter of “science” is ludicrous. If you want to develop an energy solution you certainly need investment. Taking into account how energy is consumed in the world, the huge rates consumed by the few rich and the tiny if ever part consumed by the many poor, you cannot avoid falling into politics. At least you have a good reason to.
“Anyways, I suppose the argument could be made that communism has less of a class divide. It’s been said that capitalism is an unequal distribution of wealth but communism is an equal distribution of poverty.[/”
Any other valuable and deep cliche?
Quote Comment
June 9th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Sorry: not “At least” but “Unless”.
Quote Comment
June 9th, 2008 at 5:35 pm