I posted a video link on facebook:
The Green Regulation Machine: Saving the Planet or Killing Jobs? www.youtube.com
"When Dwayne Whitney started his trucking business decades ago he had only one truck. Today he has eighteen and 20 employees. But that's about to change. "The State of California says my trucks are killing people," says Whitney. "What do you say to that?" In a few years, new air quality regulations..."
B.R.: What compromise do you propose that will curb our carbon footprint while retaining or expanding jobs?
Me: Meaning no disrespect, but the extreme environmental movement has marched lockstep against capitalism with no compromise at all. The only party that needs to compromise is the ones who have yet to compromise.
B.R.: Seeing as their goals have been largely reduced or rejected, I'd say they've compromised quite a lot.
Me: To lose a battle is not the same thing as compromising.
R.W.: Truth, Ben. Environmentalists talk in PARTS per BILLION and try to scare us into throwing money at a fictitious problem. And these people get these sweet gigs for themselves where they are their own regulators. This guy Enstrum is losing his job because he blew the whistle on the faulty science, the FAKE Scientist that wrote the report, and the two people who oversee the process, who also work for the University .. They control their own funding! They work for the government agency that hands out grants to the universities. It's all very incestuous. I don't want to breath dirty air, and I don't want my children to breath dirty air. But really, how DIRTY is it. Sounds pretty clean to me be all these reports except from the people who want to write more laws. This is not about "Carbon footprint" as it pertains to how MUCH energy are we using. These trucks will burn the same amount of diesel. It has to do with how much is exhausted. And according to many legitimate scientists, it is so much better than it used to be and it is now within tolerable limitations. AS a former truck driver, I can tell you that the WAY they implement these new regulations is also a problem. They don't wait for the end of a trucks useful life, they make the trucker modify or replace his current fleet and that puts him out of business. California is in debt more than any other state, and it is because businesses are LEAVING the state, because of idiots like these people who make the rules, and that leaves the state without all that tax revenue.
B.R.: I agree with you that the changes should be step-by-step so that people don't lose their entire livelihoods. I'm all for a moderate shift year by year that keeps us going in the cleaner direction, rather than a crazy shift that uproots guys like this. But if we're going to start throwing the book at people who "get these sweet gigs for themselves where they are their own regulators", shouldn't we also include the oil and auto executives who sit on regulatory boards and block anything that goes against their interests? Talk about "controlling your own funding". Furthermore, can you show me factual data of the BILLIONS of dollars per year that the environmental leaders are reaping in profits? If you're going to accuse one side of having special interests, shouldn't you take into consideration that there are exponentially larger corporations in America that do everything they can to halt all changes that will put a dent in their earnings?
R.W.: The thing about conservatives is that we don't like corporation where EVER it is. But a trick of the left seems to be when they are caught abusing the system they say oh, ya?! What about evil corporations. Let's not change the subject. If you want to talk about something else we can save that for another post. This thread is about this situation and the explanation that "EVERYBODY does it" will not suffice. Corporations may fight against the rules that are not in their favor, but they do not MAKE the rules. Politicians do. "CARB" does. And CARB is corrupt and those rules effect millions of people and cost BILLIONS of dollars. And when it comes to pollution, most people who work for corporations LIVE in the area that corporation is located in. So they are not keen on polluting themselves.
B.R.: Then let's drop that and see if you can answer my original question: What compromise do you propose that will curb our carbon footprint while retaining or expanding jobs?
R.W.: I go back to truth. Truth from the scientists and truth from the politicians and truth from the evil corporations. Getting that is key because only THEN can we argue over what the best corse of actions is. IS it worth a Trillion dollars to reduce the arsenic in pressure treated lumber from 4 parts per billion to 3? Well, what are the TURE dangers of leaving it at 4? is there any evidence to say it is harmful at all? We know arsenic is bad in and of itself but if it's locked inside the wood... The world is full of dangeous things. We need to treat those things with respect and when an accident happens as it always does, have we taken as many precautions as possible and are we prepared when those accidents happen. There was an oil spill in the gulf. Our reaction was to stop drilling but then we just gave Brazil rights to drill in the gulf but America can't. There is a Nuclear problem in Japan. Do we shut down all plants, or do we learn and move forward? Even the cave men polluted. Archeologist find their trash 1000's of years later. You pollute. You use electricity that was generated from a damn most likely which destroyed the habitate of countless animals. I agree that we have to try and limit our impact but we have to accept that we ARE going to make an impact. Every living thing does. A bird just crapped on my car...
B.R.: That sounds like a good plan. I tell you what, if you and I can find ways to make a difference toward that plan of accurate data from both sides of the conflict, then I think we should actually work together on it. Is there anything you think can be done from the ground up, since neither you or I are scientists, politicians, or oil/auto corporate leaders?
Me: Once again, when extreme environmentalists are willing to compromise, then compromise will happen.
I reject the premise that reducing our carbon footprint is something desirable, something government ought to do, or something that has anything at all to do with pollution.
There is no evidence that turning this task over to government will yield any kind of positive result.
B.R.: do you agree that carbon emissions are too high? Do you agree that the US needs to gradually be on a road toward difference forms of fuel than oil?
Me: I do not agree that carbon emissions are too high, because no one has shown us what level of carbon emissions are "just right."
Oil is a commodity. Its use is the source of our prosperity and lifestyle. At some point in the future we may run out, or other forms of energy will supplant it. The free market will bring about those changes perfectly, as it always does.
B.R.: Okay, so that's as far in the compromise as you're willing to come, is to say that there's no clean air problem, there's no pollution problem, there's no risk involved in letting our oil resources run out, there's no additional action needed to create additional energy solutions. Am I right?
Me: We are discussing carbon emissions. I did not say anything about clean air or pollution.
Nor did I say there was no risk in letting the market determine the economic viability of various forms of energy. However, we already know there is risk when government dictates the process. That's what the video is about.
You assume that the action that needs to be taken is government action. Why?
Me: And for some reason you assume I'm unwilling to compromise. Let me put it another way. The American people have accomodated every dictate of the government regarding the environment, because government carries the force of law. I am saying that all of the compromise has come from one side of the issue, and we who have compromised have had to live with the economic burden those compromises have brought us.
B.R.: Precedent. Recycling is commonplace because the government made an enormous push for it in the 20th century. Composting is increasing in Seattle in large part because it's required in many districsts, and the government provides us with the bins and pickups to make it possible. Why in the world would oil companies and the auto industry make significant changes without being required to? And why would this trucker and other similar small businesses make significant changes without the security of knowing that their government is behind them?
B.R.: I don't assume you're unwilling to compromise; in fact, I'm trying to find common ground. I'm not aligned with a political party and I don't work for the government; I've simply lost patience and sympathy with anyone from any side of any significant issue who tears down any kind of progress without proposing an alternative solution.
Me: So if I may paraphrase you, anything government does is ok with you, because it's for our own good. Government should be able to place any burden it wants on the people since, government provides good things like security. Have I got this right?
What do you mean by progress? The truck driver in the video is obviously not progressing. What version of progress do you want the government to enforce?
I did propose an alternative: the free market. It solves every problem without the need of a nanny government deciding what is good for us.
B.R.: No, your paraphrasing is convenient and inaccurate. I'm saying that when it's clear enough that a national problem has a solution (improving the economy through saving money by reusing and recycling, improving the carbon emissions of automobiles by gradually changing the required levels), then it's the duty of our government to lead the charge of that solution. That solution is what I mean by progress. The truck driver could progress if he evolved his business in his own time in his own way, but if he changes nothing, then he's willfully ignorant. One question about the free market: what do you think it will take for the free market to change the way automobile emissions are decided? How will that happen without the government's affect? This is not a rhetorical question, I actually respect your opinion and want to hear what you think it will take.
Me: Thank you for your kind words.
You mention that this national problem has a solution. But I asked you before what level of carbon emission decrease we need. At what point is it deemed a success?
Indeed, in any social engineering enterprise the government has engaged in, has there ever been success, i.e. mission accomplished, for solving hunger, or poverty, or racism? Is Iraq a success by any measure? What about healthcare? Has anything the government has done regarding social problems yielded a solution?
I'm focusing on your idea of a "national problem." Why is it government's duty to solve national problems? Obesity is a national problem. Do you support government monitoring of everyone's diet? How about a mandatory exercise regimen? Making candy bars illegal?
What I'm after is, where do you draw the line? What is your benchmark?
No comments:
Post a Comment