|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 28, 2009 1:04:21 GMT
"the most potent top down approach to bringing about change and that is voting with your dollars" That's not top down, it's bottom up and it doesn't work. You would need a significant number of people to do it for it to work and that just isn't going to happen. It's like people who waste their votes on weird fringe parties at elections. I am curious Socold. Are you from Britian? The reason I am asking is that you don't understand at all the power ONE person has in the USA. ONE person started the revolution a few hundred years ago. ONE person wrote most of our consitution. ONE person started the climate thing here. And.....ONE person can stop the charade. We believe in the power of one to grow into the power of the masses.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 28, 2009 1:29:59 GMT
"the most potent top down approach to bringing about change and that is voting with your dollars" That's not top down, it's bottom up and it doesn't work. You would need a significant number of people to do it for it to work and that just isn't going to happen. It's like people who waste their votes on weird fringe parties at elections. I am curious Socold. Are you from Britian? The reason I am asking is that you don't understand at all the power ONE person has in the USA. ONE person started the revolution a few hundred years ago. ONE person wrote most of our consitution. ONE person started the climate thing here. And.....ONE person can stop the charade. We believe in the power of one to grow into the power of the masses. Those are examples of top down change issued by people who found themselves in a position of power. In Britain we've had centuries of one person issuing changes - the King or Queen. Bottom up change cannot be attributed to any particular person, it's a simultaneous change in behavior by just about all. For example if wind and solar energy suddenly became ridiculously cheap, everyone would start installing it. Human psychology. But as it stands today that isn't the case and there is no widespread felt advantage with installing it, so that's why most people won't do it. A single person going ahead and doing it anyway out of principle will not cause bottom up change to happen.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 28, 2009 1:43:12 GMT
I am curious Socold. Are you from Britian? The reason I am asking is that you don't understand at all the power ONE person has in the USA. ONE person started the revolution a few hundred years ago. ONE person wrote most of our consitution. ONE person started the climate thing here. And.....ONE person can stop the charade. We believe in the power of one to grow into the power of the masses. Those are examples of top down change issued by people who found themselves in a position of power. In Britain we've had centuries of one person issuing changes - the King or Queen. Bottom up change cannot be attributed to any particular person, it's a simultaneous change in behavior by just about all. For example if wind and solar energy suddenly became ridiculously cheap, everyone would start installing it. Human psychology. But as it stands today that isn't the case and there is no widespread felt advantage with installing it, so that's why most people won't do it. A single person going ahead and doing it anyway out of principle will not cause bottom up change to happen. Socold: bottom up change is happening IN the US. We are not used to the King and Queen thing here. I live in an area of class 4-5 wind. You can hardly drive and not see a wind tower with a turbine on top. Sure, some have stopped turning, but there are us who have already asked the owners how much can I buy that tower for? It boils down to economics. Can I produce some power for a less cost than I can buy it? If the price is right....yes. And taking inflation into account, the economics is there for a new one that I am going to build myself if I can't buy that used one. Yes, I have an advantage. I own land, I have tools, and I also have the mechanical ability to make that tower function. We all know that electricity is going to only increase in price. IF cap and trade passes in the US, I will have to make that tower work, as all that I have read is showing my input costs going up over 23%...and there is NOT that margin in farming. Going to be a lot of hungry people, and a tremendous amount of social unrest if that passes. The social costs of passage of control of carbon are going to be huge.........and will change the world as we know it.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 28, 2009 1:57:02 GMT
"the most potent top down approach to bringing about change and that is voting with your dollars" That's not top down, it's bottom up and it doesn't work. You would need a significant number of people to do it for it to work and that just isn't going to happen. It's like people who waste their votes on weird fringe parties at elections. Whether its bottom up or top down probably depends upon your world view. In the free enterprise system the buyer is the top tier. In a heavily regulated system its the producers who are the top tier and consumers have no choices they have to buy what they are offered. Its also a bald-faced lie thatl it does not work. One has to be an ostrich with his head buried deep in the sand to not know that. One example is Walmart sells only certified fish, not because they have to, it costs more for them to do so; but they say they do it because it is good for business. Thats just one of tens of thousands of examples. You may have just fallen off the turnip truck but still its hard to imagine how you don't know that.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 28, 2009 9:41:12 GMT
What proportion of lines in Walmart are "ethical"?
As it happens, I disagree with both of you. Sometimes actions of a few people build up into an effective movement (eg. Fairtrade goods and, recently, the use of reusable shopping bags in UK supermarkets, as a small example). Sometimes, you need governments to make (and enforce which is the hard part) rules about environmental standards - eg. energy "efficiency" of new houses which is really hard for consumers to judge, but despite heavy lobbying by the building industry, standards have been improved.
Usually change is implemented more effectivvely if the aims of the government build on the wishes of the people, which is why lobby firms spend so much money telling people lies.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 28, 2009 10:41:31 GMT
What proportion of lines in Walmart are "ethical"? According to their customers at least effectively better than the competition. As it happens, I disagree with both of you. Sometimes actions of a few people build up into an effective movement (eg. Fairtrade goods and, recently, the use of reusable shopping bags in UK supermarkets, as a small example). Sometimes, you need governments to make (and enforce which is the hard part) rules about environmental standards - eg. energy "efficiency" of new houses which is really hard for consumers to judge, but despite heavy lobbying by the building industry, standards have been improved. Usually change is implemented more effectivvely if the aims of the government build on the wishes of the people, which is why lobby firms spend so much money telling people lies. I agree that the government has a role in truth in advertising. Requiring adequate disclosure is a hallmark of changes in the retail marketplace and financial markets. Truth in science from academia and government institutions is most definitely still lacking. . . .witness Piltdown man like frauds being perpetrated in Yamal trees, bristlecone pines, upside down proxies, and Mannian multivariate analysis. I believe people will make the right choice in a democracy if provided honest information. You bring up energy standards for housing. Its my opinion housing is overregulated, raising the cost of housing as a result and limiting home ownership. However, I do agree the government has a robust role in disclosure about housing quality. This goes to mandatory helmets for motorcycle riders on the theory that society has to pick up their medical bills. As well intentioned much of this is I see it as a threat to our freedoms. One has to question whether housing energy standards save any energy. Certainly it saves homestead energy, but such standards raise the cost of housing substantially forcing people so to speak "into the system" which is a huge energy expender. Fact is in most places all you need for heat is a good wool blanket and a dry place protected from the wind. The government's legitimate role in these areas is in ensuring accurate information from anybody acting on the appearance of authority and in only prohibiting acts known to be contrary to the public health and safety. And the final point is individual efforts in bringing about change is not at all unusual. Its all around us. The American revolution probably rode on one man's shoulders, in that if that man was not there the revolution would not have been successful. In fact it probably was dependent upon a lot of individuals in that if any of them were not there the revolution would not have succeeded. Some are easy to identify others are completely anonymous. But thats how it works. . . .hypocrites never contribute anything. . . .it always boils down to action. Leaders lead by example, not words.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 28, 2009 12:33:30 GMT
Perhaps this is an example which works better in the UK than the US where cost of a house is not related to cost of build, but to location and size, where the cost of insulation is small compared to the building costs (we tend only to buy brick built houses), where the cost of heating is a large fraction of income for some people, and where these less-well-off people often rent their houses so have little control over insulation standards of their house.
I've led by example by spending money on insulation on the properties I rent out, and hope that while I can't benefit by raising rents (because tenants don't think about standards), I do benefit because my tenants don't move on so quickly because the house is cold and damp or because they need to run away from the debts they've incurred with the gas supplier.
|
|
|
Post by nemesis on Oct 28, 2009 15:26:43 GMT
May I be permitted at this juncture to bring up the 'light bulb' issue. The Government, in its wisdom is forcing the CFL eco light bulbs on us in an effort to cut CO2. These bulbs are heavily subsidised, shipped all the way from China and contain mercury which will no doubt in time leach into the water table when people casually dispose of them. I do not care much for the so called expertise of the government to determine what is best for me, limiting my options and distorting true markets with subsidies.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 28, 2009 16:25:54 GMT
May I be permitted at this juncture to bring up the 'light bulb' issue. The Government, in its wisdom is forcing the CFL eco light bulbs on us in an effort to cut CO2. These bulbs are heavily subsidised, shipped all the way from China and contain mercury which will no doubt in time leach into the water table when people casually dispose of them. I do not care much for the so called expertise of the government to determine what is best for me, limiting my options and distorting true markets with subsidies. Even before subsidies, CFLs are far far cheaper than incandescents because they last longer and use less electricity. Most bulbs are shipped from the far east (I have a friend who works for Osram) - to replace 1 CFL you need to ship at least 5 incandescents. Shipping is a filthy business, as is generating all the extra energy required to power the incandescent. The pollution comfortably outweighs a few mg of mercury even if the bulb is not properly disposed of. Furthermore, I've lived in my current house over 5 years and only had to replace two bulbs. In what area of life would more convenience and lower energy costs for the same result lead to people complaining so much...?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 28, 2009 16:51:33 GMT
May I be permitted at this juncture to bring up the 'light bulb' issue. The Government, in its wisdom is forcing the CFL eco light bulbs on us in an effort to cut CO2. These bulbs are heavily subsidised, shipped all the way from China and contain mercury which will no doubt in time leach into the water table when people casually dispose of them. I do not care much for the so called expertise of the government to determine what is best for me, limiting my options and distorting true markets with subsidies. Even before subsidies, CFLs are far far cheaper than incandescents because they last longer and use less electricity. Most bulbs are shipped from the far east (I have a friend who works for Osram) - to replace 1 CFL you need to ship at least 5 incandescents. Shipping is a filthy business, as is generating all the extra energy required to power the incandescent. The pollution comfortably outweighs a few mg of mercury even if the bulb is not properly disposed of. Furthermore, I've lived in my current house over 5 years and only had to replace two bulbs. In what area of life would more convenience and lower energy costs for the same result lead to people complaining so much...? CFL's are a no brainer. Reduced long term costs, reduced energy costs, and reduced time to change bulbs.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 28, 2009 17:11:56 GMT
Sigurdur, It's nice to agree sometimes
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 28, 2009 17:28:52 GMT
Yes it is, and such an easy subject to agree on....
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 28, 2009 17:54:37 GMT
Yes it is, and such an easy subject to agree on.... CFLs are saving me more than a $1,000 a year. You will have to wrench them from my cold dead hands.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 28, 2009 17:58:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nemesis on Oct 28, 2009 18:39:33 GMT
Also: www.ceolas.net/#li2xThere are several health and environmental concerns and generally not quite as good as they are purported to be. What happens when the government subsidies are removed ? Basically, I dont like the light they emit and would rather have the choice.
|
|