Geez, TJ, you sure don't have much leeway in your tolerable acceptance of other ideas if Bob Kerry is your radical environmentalist. Earth Liberation Front is a better example than Kerry for sure. I never understood why business and the environment were mutually exclusive. You mean to tell me that no one has figured out how to get rich off of protecting and preserving the environment in a country that prides itself on creative, innovative business initiatives??? If we pollute because it's easy and cheaper than cleaning up, that is the laziest damn thing I've ever heard. No wonder two-thirds of America is overweight. So much for the good ol' Protestant work ethic. The irony of all this is, of course, the fact that we control our own destiny. Industry only represents one part of the pollution equation. The huge chunk of pollution is on us from various forms of transportation. The conveninence is literally killing us.
Jeff, my point all along is that this is exactly *what is already happening*. Big oil companies, big power companies, and big energy transportation/storage companies are already getting rich *and* preserving the environment. My beef is that they are characterized by the environmentalist lunatic fringe (ELF) as destroying the environment, while the reality of it is that they are the ones doing the *most* for the environment and the community for that matter. Large power plants, large oil & gas drilling projects, and large coal mines are typically the largest tax paying entities in their respective counties, they are typically one of the largest employers in their respective counties, and they are typically one of the largest charitable donors in their counties. These entities help fund school systems, roads and infrastructure, and national parks conservation efforts through their existence. This is lost on the ELF. All they care to focus on is the pollution. This is wrong.
TJ: I agree that they are working in that direction. It's not that hard to see. My argument, and the argument of many on this side of the equation is that they could do much better. Oftentimes, industry chooses profit OVER the environment and that is a real problem. And this whole obsession with the lunatic fringe environmental movement is very Chicken Little-esque. There are plenty of wacko envirnomentalists out there, but when two-thirds of Americans say they think the government should place more emphasis on protecting the environment, I'm not sure how they all fit into that picture. I'm not talking about a NYT poll either. There was a Gallup poll done last year that I posted here that had remarkably similar numbers. That poll also had other reflections of the American people. Some of those numbers were diametrically opposed to what I believe (a majority support the death penalty for example), but I realize that we live in a place where compromises have to be made. I agree that companies are moving in the right direction for the most part, but I cannot agree that they are a bunch of environment-loving, earth friendly groups who care deeply about the environment. If they did, they would end air, water and ground contamination. The only reason they keep polluting is because they can and when they can't here any longer, they'll just go to Mexico or India or some place where the envirnomental restrictions are less. I just think it isn't as bad in either direction.
There is no coal in Mexico outside of a very small reserve on the other side of the border from Eagle Pass, TX. This coal is filthy and has poor fuel qualities. Coal in India would be completely uneconomical to ship to the US. Coal production isn't going anywhere. Aggregates production (sand, gravel, granite, limestone) isn't going anywhere either. It costs about $0.20/ton per mile to ship this stuff, making it completely uneconomical to transport long distances. Power production isn't going anywhere because power moves across transmission networks called grids. These grids don't link up to foreign countries. Energy is here to stay. The reason energy firms pollute is *economics*. Unless you'd like the government to jack up subsidies to these firms to sky high levels, or unless you'd like for the average working family to have their energy bills triple, then pollution is a necessary evil.
. The environmental improvements by the Energy and Extraction companies are due primarily to public pressure and regulations brought on by the work of the ELFs. Look at the standards twenty years ago -- way back in the early eighties, and compare them to today. Twenty years ago the companies were saying they were doing as much as they could reasonably do -- much better than twenty years before that. In twenty years time they'll look back at today to show how much they've improved. The ELFs ensure the environment is high on the agenda when economic decisions are made. They provide the motivation for better processes and improvements through lobbying for stronger regulations and rallying public support.
I disagree with much of what some of the ELF's stand for, but I'm glad they're there. Even their anti-capitalist retoric serves a purpose in highlighting some of the injustices absolute free markets may bring. Just as I wouldn't want them to have a free reign, I'm glad there's an active group not blinded by economics alone.
I like an example from Georgia. I don't even remember what the office was, but Max Cleeland was the inc. All of his political commercials were about things he has done in office (I don't know how true or good any of it was since I was not here for most of it and don't care about it now since I am leaving soon). Anyway, Cleeland is a Democrat, so his opponent (I don;t remember his name - they all have wierd names like Zell and Saxby - Max is normal so I remember it) ran nothing but "Cleeland doesn't care about defense/terrorism/military spending, etc" ads. Cleeland = former marine w/ 1 arm and no legs Other guy = draft dodger Cleeland lost. Unless I missed something, he lost because of the defense/military angle. That, to me, is an example of politics over ideaology...but who cares. I just find the whole thing disturbingly funny. Don't know if it is worse than the govenor losing because he reduced the role of the Confederate flag in the Georgia flag.
T_J...your statement that the big industries are the ones doing the most to prevent containable pollution/environmental damage by virtue of their investment in clean-ups, paying taxes, employing etc. is flawed in many ways, most notably in the following; It is akin to saying that the tobacco industry is doing the *most* to prevent tobacco-related diseases because they A) Have those warnings posted on cigarette packs..who else does that? B) Are large employers/tax payers, and where does the money come from to treat lung cancer patients but from taxes? The first point is specious, in that they are possibly doing the most to clean up their own mess, but it is their mess to begin with...Were you to eliminate both the environmental damage caused by those corporations and the benefit of their contribution to cleaning it up, I daresay the environment would take that deal... The second part doesn't make any sense because it is an inevitability due to the nature of the system and their role in it, not by virtue of their intent or priority. What are their options? To make the profits they seek without paying taxes, or without employing anyone? I suggest that they do each as much as possible, and the day a way is found to eliminate the need for either is the day they adopt such a means of fullfilling their priority: making as much profit as possible. Big Tobacco has the same priorities, and are the same ones who have had the most awareness of the addictive/damaging nature of their product for the longest, yet fought tooth and nail to deny any such link existed, let alone pay for the 'clean up' or agree to the sanctions imposed when it became public knowledge...It's the nature of the beast, or are you really suggesting that the it's a different animal when it comes to the environment?
Cleeland lost, and was painted that way, because he voted against the homeland defense bill to satisfy his political base of unions....it's politics...but maybe opposite of how you see it.
Great post. I'm sure the people in Spain would agree with TJ about how great the energy companies are for the environment! Jeff also has a great point. If corporations really inherently cared about the environment, they would be leading change to ensure profit and a safe environment. As it is they don't.
I saw it exactly as the ads showed it - that Cleeland was against fighting terrorism and against helping Bush and the military. That is all that was ever said, nothing about unions. Not knowing anything about Georgia politics, I knew nothing of facts, and still know nothing except what the ads showed - which was my point. Even your comments feed haven's point - a guy like Cleeland lost because of the Bush/terrorism angle...that clearly was the only issue that our ignorant, one track mind voters seem to understand (so Republicans could emphasize it and look good for once because their head guy was leading the charge while Democrats could do nothing but look dumb, like they always).
i'm not saying that ads said he pandered to unions...but he did. and people knew he voted against the homeland security bill. there was a big deal made about that. and right now people are seeing national defense and the war on terrorism as one and the same. they have good reason to feel that way given the fact we faced a massive attack on civilians just over a year ago. you call them ignorant...i just call them scared. like my wife's lifelong democrat friend said on 9/11..."i didn't vote for bush..but i'm sure glad he's in office today." i'm not disagreeing with haven's point about it being more about politics than ideology...
I agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence. The problem is that we already subsidize energy companies (and industry) through the effects of pollution on air quality, drinking water, preventable asthma, acid rain, crop depletion, etc. Until we find a way to measure the true costs of energy and the pollution generated and force that into the accounting, we will continue to pay for it in ways that may not affect the books of energy companies or the energy bills of consumers, but which do burden society significantly. We're paying for it one way or another and will continue to do so.... it's just a question of how we figure and assign the true costs. And I disagree with the notion that pollution is a necessary evil. It's a damn tough problem no doubt, but to say we can't do anything about it is not so and cultivates a defeatist attitude. There are many examples of remediation and control of pollution. We have lots of bright people working on this and technology is available and getting better. It's a matter of political will, public involvement, and education. It also requires that people at all levels accept changes in the current routine. Difficult, yes. But so was going from a primarily agrarian society to one based on industry. We've done tougher things before. T_J, it looks to me like you're on the wrong side of history on this one. Economics and societal pressures will drive this even though there will be tremendous opposition. It won't happen all in one fell swoop, but will be incremental over decades. (Think of all the kindergartners currently learning about recycling and clean water. Think about what happens when climate change becomes more quantifiable and we start seeing dramatic effects from the changes.) If you're smart, you hedge your bets today and look for ways to exploit new technologies and trends.
Well, yeah, that is what I said - defense/terrorism is the big, only issue right now. I was not saying voters were ignorant for thinking it was important, you misunderstand. I am saying that they are ignorant for blindly following the rhetoric and only thinking of that one issue - when so many more should be considered. I don't care how they vote, I just would like elections to be about more than one thing. As far as the friend, he sounds like an idiot (don't take that literally, by the way). If he truly was a lifelong Democrat, then shouldn't he think "his" party could handle it? Shouldn't he be one of the people talking about Gore's military experience and lifelong support of defense spending, or something?
why? so she could blindly follow the rhetoric, even if it's not how she feels?? i don't think she thought that gore would suck in that role...just thought that bush would be better.
Actually, it may effect the books and we may be able to measure it. The Greater Houston Partnership, not exactly an anti-industry organization considering many of its primary members are companies with refineries and plants in and around Houston, commissioned a study a little over a year ago. The study found that businesses in the city of Houston lose about $1 billion per year due to employee sick days directly attributable to smog and other forms of airborne pollutants. If the Sierra Club would have done the study, it would be one thing. But, this is a group supported directly by Exxon, Enron, Dynegy, El Paso Oil, Phillips, Texaco and on and on. Shortly after they released their findings, they along with the local Sierra Club and the real estate developers of Houston announced jointly that they would sponsor an initiative to plant over 1,000,000 trees in Houston's center and promote lowering pollution through higher vehicle emission standards statewide and tighter controls on industrial pollution. Just the site of these three groups on stage together must've been enough to drop temperatures in hell by 20 or 30 degrees. The problem is that it took $1 billion in average annual losses to get anyone in industry to care in the first place. That's what I find so difficult to understand.
I'd feel a little better about all this industry concern if their lobbyists didn't spend so much time and money trying to weaken and repeal the Community Right to Know Act.
