After the Hideous Light Bulbs
In my last article, I urged everyone to say no to the hideous looking fluorescent light bulbs the environmentalists plan to force on us in the name of fighting global warming and “saving the planet.” I described the light bulbs as an entering wedge for further demands adding up to the sacrifice of our entire standard of living.
Here’s the kind of demands the environmentalists have in store to follow our acceptance of the light bulbs, if we should be so foolish.
Give Up Clothes Dryers and Power Lawn Mowers
From The International Herald Tribune, February 23, 2007, p. 2:
In most of Europe and North America, when we wash our clothes—and we wash them a lot—people frequently toss the load into an energy-eating tumble dryer.… Largely because of this habit, a T-shirt in its lifetime will require the use of 1,400 grams, or 50 ounces, of fuel, produce 450 grams of waste that goes to landfill and send 4 kilograms, or 9 pounds, of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, according to a recent Cam¬bridge University study. If the owner were to wash that T-shirt in warm (40 degrees Celsius, 104Fahrenheit) rather than hot (60 degrees Celsius) water, and hang it out to dry, the car¬bon dioxide emissions created by that shirt would be reduced by 85 to 90 percent.An average-power lawn mower produces as much emissions in an hour as eight cars going 89 kilometers, or 55 miles, per hour. Use a manual mower.
So get ready to say goodbye to power lawn mowers and to clothes dryers. Be assured that washing machines and countless other things will follow. The article in question itself describes many other sacrifices, including containers for hot cups of coffee and cardboard packaging. The author appears to think she’d get by just as well carrying her coffee everywhere in her own mug. And she lauds Zurich, where “people carry their new televisions home with¬out a box: naked appliances, delivered in the most eco-friendly package.”
Give Up Fresh Hot Water and Central Heating
On January 6, 2007, The New York Times published an article titled “The Land of Rising Conservation,” which I previously commented on in this blog. The theme of the article was that Japan is the model country of energy conservation, pointing the way for the United States on the basis of the use of the latest technology. Indeed, the subtitle of the article, in the print edition, was “Japan Offers a Lesson in Using Technology to Lessen Energy Consumption.” Here is what the article had to say on the subjects of fresh hot water and central heating:
Mr. Kimura says he, his wife, and two teenage children all take turns bathing in the same water, a common practice here. Afterward, the still-warm water is sucked through a rubber tube into the nearby washing machine to clean clothes. Wet laundry is hung outside to dry or under a heat lamp in the bathroom.In other words, in addition to bathing in other people’s bathwater and then washing your clothes in it, expect to freeze in winter. And you should also expect to end up in a house the size of those in Japan, or smaller. Whatever you do, be sure to remember that Mr. Kimura is “solidly middle class.” Otherwise you might think that he’s pathetically poor and that you will be too if you have to reduce your energy consumption to his level.The different approach is also apparent in the layout of Mr. Kimura’s home, which at 1,188 square feet is about the average size of a house in Japan but only about half as big as the average American one. The rooms are also small, making them easier to heat or cool. The largest is the living room, which is about the size of an American bedroom.
During winter, the entire family, including the miniature dachshund, gathers here, which is often the only room heated. Like most Japanese homes, Mr. Kimura’s does not have central heating. The hallways, stairwell and bathrooms are left cold. The three bedrooms have wall-mounted heaters, which are used only when the rooms are occupied, and switched off at night.
The living room is kept toasty by hot water running through pipes under the floor. Mr. Kimura says such ambient heat saves money. He says the energy bill for his home is about 20,000 yen ($168) a month. Central heating alone would easily double or triple his energy bill, he says.
“Central heating is just too extravagant,” says Mr. Kimura, who is solidly middle class.
The government has tried to foster a culture of conservation with regular campaigns like this winter’s Warm Biz, a call to businesspeople to don sweaters and long johns under their gray suits so that office thermostats could be set lower.
Give Up Toilet Paper, Elevators, and Most of the Rest of the Modern World
On April 23, Cheryl Crow, the well-know singer was quoted in Britain’s The Register as saying: "I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required."
Ms. Crow has reportedly since claimed that she was merely joking. Be that as it may, her proposal follows logically from ideas that permeate the environmental movement. It follows from the belief in the need to reduce consumption as a means of reducing the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which emissions allegedly cause global warming. It also follows from the doctrine of the alleged intrinsic value of nature undisturbed by man. If the trees from which toilet paper is ultimately made are intrinsically valuable and thus must not be disturbed, it follows that man should not have toilet paper.
As a result, it is not surprising that opposition to the use of toilet paper has appeared elsewhere, and in the even more extreme form of a total cessation of its use, and that it has been accompanied by a very wide, almost general rejection of the goods of modern capitalism, including elevators, freezers, television sets, and much, much more. This rejection is the subject of the recent New York Times article “The Year Without Toilet Paper” (Metropolitan Edition, March 22, 2007, p. F1).
The article is about a well-to-do, well-connected young couple living on lower Fifth Avenue in New York City and currently dedicating their lives to achieving “No Impact” on their environment. To be sure their motivation may at least partly be to promote the husband’s forthcoming book on the subject. But such would not be the motivation of the book’s readers, who presumably will want to learn for themselves how live without making an impact on the environment. And it does not seem to be the major part of their motivation either. For example, the wife is quoted as saying that after she saw Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” she “`felt like everything I did in my life was contributing to a system that was really problematic.… If I was a student, I would march against myself.’”
I must quote at length from the article to show the scope of what this couple has given up in the name of their environmentalist philosophy:
DINNER was the usual affair on Thursday night in Apartment 9F in an elegant prewar on Lower Fifth Avenue.… A visitor avoided the bathroom because she knew she would find no toilet paper there.… Meanwhile, Joseph, the liveried elevator man who works nights in the building, drove his wood-paneled, 1920s-era vehicle up and down its chute, unconcerned that the couple in 9F had not used his services in four months.
Welcome to Walden Pond, Fifth Avenue style.… Colin Beavan, 43, a writer of historical nonfiction, and Michelle Conlin, 39, a senior writer at Business Week, are four months into a yearlong lifestyle experiment they call No Impact. Its rules are evolving, as Mr. Beavan will tell you, but to date include eating only food (organically) grown within a 250-mile radius of Manhattan; (mostly) no shopping for anything except said food; producing no trash (except compost, see above); using no paper; and, most intriguingly, using no carbon-fueled transportation.…Since November, Mr. Beavan and [his two-year old daughter] Isabella have been hewing closely, most particularly in a dietary way, to a 19th-century life.… right now that means lots of apples and root vegetables, stored in the unplugged freezer…Olive oil and vinegar are out; they used the last dregs of their bottle of balsamic vinegar last week.… The television, a flat-screen, high-definition 46-incher, is long gone…. The dishwasher is off, along with the microwave, the coffee machine and the food processor. Planes, trains, automobiles and that elevator are out, but the family is still doing laundry in the washing machines in the basement of the building. (Consider the ramifications of no-elevator living in a vertical city: one day recently, when Frankie the dog had digestive problems, Mr. Beavan, who takes Isabella to day care—six flights of stairs in a building six blocks away—and writes at the Writers Room on Astor Place—12 flights of stairs, also six blocks away—estimated that by nightfall he had climbed 115 flights of stairs.) And they have not had the heart to take away the vacuum from their cleaning lady, who comes weekly (this week they took away her paper towels).… Toothpaste is baking soda.… (Nothing is a substitute for toilet paper, by the way; think of bowls of water and lots of air drying.)
This is the kind of life implied by environmentalism and its demands for limits on carbon dioxide emissions. If total, global emissions are fixed, while population increases, per capita emissions must necessarily decline, and along with them the energy production that gives rise to them and the products whose production and use depend on that energy production. If, in addition, emissions in today’s third-world countries increase, those in first world countries must decrease, with the result of a further per capita decline in the first world countries. Add to that the effect of progressive reductions in the volume of global emissions until they are merely a fraction of what they were in the year 2000 or 1990, which is what the environmentalists want to achieve, and there can be no other outcome but the most radical decline in the standard of living of the first world countries. Thus, if the environmentalists have their way, one can expect to personally experience the kind of deprivations described in the various news stories presented above.
Such a life of impoverishment is a life that the environmentalists who are striving to bring it about certainly deserve to achieve—but just for themselves, not for anyone else.
This article is copyright © 2007, by George Reisman. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.capitalism.net is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved. George Reisman is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics.
Comments (23)
Phil R
Either the predictions are correct that anthropogenic global warming will have disastrous effects, or they are not.
If they are correct, what do you propose that I do when I discover that the pollutants your lifestyle generates as you enjoy your property interferes with my ability to enjoy my own property?
If wanted to drive a large vehicle, too big for the carrying capacity of my driveway, such that it scrapes against the siding of your house, damaging it, I'm sure you would agree that I would be violating your property rights.
If the worst-case projections are correct, and the sea level rises appreciably, what recourse do landowners have when their property is destroyed by the volitional human actions of people whose enjoyment of their own property generates pollution?
Either massive changes in consumption patterns are necessary to ensure the survival of human beings or they are not. (I happen to suspect not.) If you believe they are not, though, then you should focus on arguments that they are not. If you believe that they may be necessary, but should be addressed via the market rather than the state, then you should focus on the arguments against state action.
If you simply really don't like the idea of those sorts of changes of lifestyle (and I certainly don't either), then it is incumbent on you to point out why they are unnecessary, not simply that they are unpleasant. In your haste to condemn people who seek to control others' lives, your writing seems to ignore the effects of a certain sphere of human activity on the property rights of other humans for no reason other than that the word "environment" is invoked. This smacks of evasion.
There is a very practical, freedom-loving reason for any human being to be concerned about the state of the environment: one's life and property are embedded in it.
Published: May 8, 2007 2:10 PM
Robert Brazil
Environmentalism is the perfect excuse for totalitarianism.
First, the claim is made that human activity is ruining the planet and, left unchecked, will lead to a doomsday scenario. The science is not actually conclusive (far from it), but the "precautionary principle" is invoked -- in a nutshell, "we" (i.e. our rulers) can't take any chances because the risks are too great.
Peaceful, voluntary solutions (market solutions) are out of the question because liberty itself is the culprit, according to environmentalist dogma.
All of your most basic daily activities -- driving to work, using a computer, even breathing -- can be cited as contributing to global warming or other environmentalist bogeymen (they conveniently change whenever necessary). Thus, every detail of the individual's life is open to regulation by the central authority.
This is like Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine but on a much grander scale (applied to every person) and without the attendant risk of being discredited in its application (by the absence of WMD, for example; the absence of climate armageddon will be cited as a success).
I hate it, but I have to admit it's a brilliant plan. Brilliantly evil.
Published: May 8, 2007 4:03 PM
Hascat
Apparently I'm already an environmentalist!
I always use the warm cycle instead of the hot when doing laundry. I can mix lights and darks without colors bleeding and my electric bill is lower.
I don't have a lawn now, but when I do someday, I'm going to xeriscape it so I don't have to mow anything. I mowed tons of lawns as a teenager to earn spending money. I really have no desire to do it as an adult.
Heating is actually the biggest expense in my building, almost a third of our association budget. We do what we can to keep that cost down. I don't think it's unreasonable for anyone else to do the same.
I always prefer stairs to elevators when I have that option. It's just good exercise.
I can't give up toilet paper, though.
Don't be so down on these ideas, George. Some of them are pretty good for your wallet and your health.
Published: May 8, 2007 4:08 PM
Bill Vernon
I don't so much care about reducing my carbon foot print per se. I care about saving money. By eliminating certain areas of my carbon footprint, I can save a lot of money over time and often get more exercise in the process.
Published: May 8, 2007 4:33 PM
Axel Riemer
All right. Since we're all smart people here (except me, as I prepare to fail my last final, and by last final I mean ever), and we don't want to be evasive, can someone define "the environment."
I just want to know what it is I am saving. Like my health. I really want to preserve my good health, not just 'my health'. As we've read several times this month, we must agree on a common definition to have any sort of peaceable argument.
let the games begin!
Published: May 8, 2007 5:15 PM
Mark Humphrey
Phil R. apparently believes that CO2 production by people could conceivably threaten his peaceful enjoyment of his property. And so, he compares this imaginary example of CO2 externalities to sideswiping another's car with one's own carelessly parked vehicle.
However, this comparison of unproven C02 externalities with negligent fender bending doesn't add up.
First, to justly charge Smith with damaging Jones' car, Jones must prove that Smith was responsible--that he directly caused the damage. Similarly, for Jones to charge Smith with raising sea levels by mowing his lawn and using his automatic washing machine, Jones must prove Smith's responsibility, in this case by explaining and proving a chain of cause and effect of the utmost complexity. Although some fashion-conscious Austrian/libertarians seem eager to credit Greens with having largely proven the case for anthropological global warming, all that has been proven to date is that this hypothesis is highly unlikely. Until the day arrives that Jones can prove that anthropological co2 emissions melt ice caps and raise sea levels, Jones will have to find someone else to blame. Perhaps he can sue the tobacco companies.
Second, even if it could be proven that anthropological CO2 emmissions did cause rising sea levels, and by what amount of increase compared with natural forces, Jones would still be required to prove the quantifiable extent of Smith's contribution to Jones' property damage. If Smith's contribution to warming temperatures turned out to be insignificant, so that the damages attributable to Smith by Jones were in turn insignificant, about the scale of "air pollution" represented by the use of a backyard barbeque, or even much less, then Jones has no case against Smith. Happily, however--from Mr. Smith's perspective (and mine)--Jones now owes a considerable sum of money to his attorney, whom he hired to harrass Smith.
Third, since we're exploring the legal possibilities under a regime that, as is proper and good, consistently defends private property rights, consider some alternatives available to firms that resent financial persecution by Greens bent on their destruction. Assume that Greens sue Enterprise Electric for buring coal, thereby threatening an increase in sea water levels by some modest amount. To spare itself the financial burden of appearing in court, Enterprise, in league with other large national business entities, (and perhaps joined by angry local businesses) could voluntarily refuse to sell services to the plaintiff. Because individuals and firms have a morally defensible interest in protecting themselves against legal harrassment, such a boycott would be just and its scale could be large. A large-scale commercial boycott of trouble makers could contribute a great deal to ending nuisance suits by phobic--often greed-driven--Greens.
Of course, if it ever turned out that something like serious co2 externalities really did exist-- not in Green propaganda, but in fact--then boycotting would fail as it lost public support. Such externalties could be properly and effectively resolved peacefully, through the intelligent application of private property into new realms that became scarce under new conditions. For example, if industrial pollution threatened clean water for agricultural irrigation in some region, water rights holders would possess rights not only to a particular quantity, but also with respect to some demonstrably necessary level of quality. Similarly, if co2 production were ever proven seriously harmful, plaintiffs might establish private property rights to new realms--perhaps to atmospheric conditions above private land holdings. And large-scale companies might establish property rights in other emerging realms of scarcity, for the purpose of putting into motion new physical processes designed to offset the side effects that resulted from their other productive activities.
Worrying about exactly how courts might deal with such vague and unproven externalities strikes me as a big waste of time. For no one has ever proven that rising co2 levels yield warmer global temperatures, nor that higher temperatures would on balance be undesireable. I doubt they ever will.
Finally, it pays to distinguish between one's friends and one's enemies. Hardcore Greens don't want to defend private property or "rationalize" free enterprise. They want to destroy those institutions by attacking them at their root. This is why they trumpet the unproven dangers of man's carbon production, which for the present is essential to production and prosperity. Of course, many naive Green followers foolishly believe they're merely supporting clean air and clean water; they don't understand the destrutive consequences of Green policy.
Published: May 8, 2007 7:06 PM
Paul
Who washes clothes with hot or warm water anyway? I set my washing machine to "tap cold." There are also CFLs in the basement of my house.
Published: May 8, 2007 7:47 PM
Dennis
"Although some fashion-conscious Austrian/libertarians seem eager to credit Greens with having largely proven the case for anthropological global warming..."
Mark Humphrey: bravo regarding your choice of words and their implications. Unfortunately, the fashion-consciousness applies to some other issues as well. The lure of power, prestige, and funding is tremendous.
Published: May 8, 2007 8:43 PM
Robert Brazil
"I hang dry my cotton because it is cheap. I use CFLs because they are cheap."
So others should be forced to do this because you choose to do it? If so, then on what principle?
"According to Reisman, the environment is irrelevant. Heavy metals are good for you, and if you complain of cancer, then you ary a pussy. If you live near a river and it floods, how dare you blame it on development ruining the topsoil and watersheds."
Point to where Reimsan said any of this. Quotes would be nice.
According to my reading, Reisman is against people being forced to do without basic amenities because the environmentalists have them banned. And unlike your claims about Dr. Reisman, evidence can be provided supporting the contention that many prominent environmentalists do want to ban these amenities.
For that matter, many environmentalists want to prohibit people from having children.
"...can someone define 'the environment.'"
The environment, according to the greens, means anything that isn't human or created by humans. Since, you know, we all came from another planet and don't belong here.
Published: May 8, 2007 8:53 PM
Ohhh Henry
Naked appliances, oh my. A huge metal, glass and plastic television that's going to burn megawatt-hours of electricity in it's lifetime, but to show that they love the planet they carry it home without the cardboard box that weighs 5 ounces and comes from renewable trees. How do they think the TV gets delivered to the store - packed in a giant cotton bag with 20 other TVs?
But you do have to admire the sheer self-denial of the Japanese family - limiting their desire for a pet to a single miniature weiner dog.
I remember going through this kind of nonsense the last time eco-loonies were running riot - in the 1970s. Anyone else remember the "have a bath with a friend" campaign?
Not coincidentally, this was also the last time that inflation was a serious problem.
Published: May 8, 2007 9:06 PM
Johnny Kramer
In addition to all of the other negative things that can be said about the global warming hysteria, it demonstrates an incredible ignorance about coming advances in technology:
http://snipurl.com/1j9li
While some of the global warming people may truly be well-intentioned, I suspect that most of them aren't really passionate about this cause; what they're really passionate about is controlling the lives of others through force.
Ever since I began learning about nanotechnology and strong (human level and beyond) artificial intelligence, I've been predicting that, if its promises are realized -- which will likely be in the next 15-20 years, any of the hardcore environmentalists of today who are still around won't go away; they'll just find another cause that allows them to indulge their totalitarian impulses.
Published: May 8, 2007 10:46 PM
Sol Rosenberg
What about the "impact" from the "no impact" guy having his book printed and distributed? Does he think little fairies will deliver it to bookstores instead of carbon-belching trucks?
Published: May 8, 2007 11:25 PM
Walt D.
There is a common economic fallacy that runs through all of the environmental arguments - failure to consider the complete industrial process.
An electric car running in LA is not a zero pollution vehicle. The electricty to charge the batteries comes from a grid that uses coal-fired plants that belch polution into the atmosphere and natural gas plants that produce CO2. Also, you have to consider the production and disposal of the lead and the sulfuric acid in their multiple battery packs. (I'm not saying that it will not produce less polution in LA. But if we are worried about the atmosphere, it does not matter whether the polution is produced in LA or Utah -this is also a major flaw in the Kyoto Protocol.
I have a friend who does not want to use disposable diapers, because they end up in landfills. However, she fails to take into account the gas used by the diaper service that picks up the diapers, or the cost of producing the laundry detergent, or the cost of heating the water or the cost of treating the sewage produced by washing the diapers.
Recycling is another environmental movement fraud. About the only thing that is worth recycing is aluminum cans. From an economic point of view, the behavior of street people is a good indicator. If street people do not collect items out of the trash, it is a sure sign that their recycling is non-economic.
Published: May 9, 2007 1:05 AM
Tokyo-Tom
Dr. Reisman, why do you content yourself to mocking the many idiots who are consumer greenies? It's like pulling wings off of flies - in this case, flies that could be either liberals or "crunchy cons" who, as their incomes have risen and living standards improved, want to spend some of their income on uninformed and quite probabbly misguided efforts to "do good" (while some of course are evil, misanthropic environazi/commies).
Why not attack more substantial environmentalists, like:
- Amory Lovins? http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Climate/C97-13_ClimateMSMM.pdf
http://www.natcap.org/images/other/HBR-RMINatCap.pdf
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/lovins.pdf
- Stephen Hayward?
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.22934/pub_detail.asp
- Silicon Valley?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29valley.html?ex=1327726800&en=1fb690beb9ee5a0e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
- Companies like DuPont? (which reported last year that it had reduced its GHG by 60% from 1990 levels, and reduced its total energy consumption by 6% while production increased 41%, for over $2 Billion in savings since 1991 vs. “business as usual) http://www.ncleg.net/documentsites/committees/LCGCC/Meeting%20Documents/4%20April%202006/William%20Bailey.pdf
Having too much fun with you "Dino-Mises" Club?Just curious.
Published: May 9, 2007 1:30 AM
rob
FWIW, I have always hated power mowers. I despise the noise. Manual mowers might require a bit more labor to use but the quiet operation and reduced maintenance more than offset the additional muscle fiber recruitment.
Unfortunately the disruption of quiet weekends by the aural carnage of these grass chewers has become an American institution. I will always remember the evil irony of having my neighbor coming over to complain about my kids playing too loud mere hours after he completed his weekly sunrise John Deere workout.
I feel the same way about power tools. Giving up the sound of a crosscut sliding back and forth or an egg-beater dill gently lifting fibers out of a bore the 'efficiency' of a circular saw or power drill is just not something I will ever do.
Published: May 9, 2007 8:51 AM
cRaZy
Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot, among others, ought to be awarded the environmentalists highest honors. They cut human emissions more than anyone— a Chinese official recently pointed out that the one-child policy has lowered emissions.
The UN should ban all population migration unless it occurs from a high emission country to a low emission country. The US would not be allowed to accept any immigrants under this rule. Illegal immigrants would be charged with environmental destruction, punishable by the removal of a lung to reduce CO2 emissions, and their home government would be forced to pay a fine for allowing them to escape.
Published: May 9, 2007 10:46 AM
Hyrum Berg
I am glad that in the United States and in many other parts of the world people are still thinking enough so that they will see through the environmentalist movement that has replaced socialism and fascism.
www.myspace.com/berg125
Hyrum
Published: May 10, 2007 1:41 AM
Jonathan
Whether we like it or not we don't live in a libertarian world hence all property is not privately owned, e.g. air, water.
In the absence of ownership these resources will not be managed as well as if they were privately owned (I am assuming this is the libertarian view).
It seems to me entirely in keeping with libertarian values that absence of property rights leads to abuse of such property?
My objection to Reisman's piece is that he writes as though we were in a libertarian world and that the full costs of pollution are fully reflected in market prices. How can this be so when many variables are not privately owned?
The costs of polluting water and air are not borne by the polluters and the costs are diffused and impossibly complicated to calculate.
I am Austrian minded and extremely skeptical of anthropomorphic climate change (good piece to chew on for the alarmists here -http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book403pdf?.pdf) but think the arguments need to be much more reasoned than simply mocking people choosing to live primitive lifestyles based on pop-science.
Published: May 11, 2007 11:16 AM
Jonathan
Anthropological not anthropomorphic...what was I thinking!
Published: May 11, 2007 11:29 AM
Joe
What about the rolling blackouts in California? Regardless of whether or not they were related to or caused by pollution, the money lost because of businesses being unable to operate alongside the costs it took to repair, upgrade and make changes to the power grid were huge.
CFL's in and of themselves only make a small difference, I've noticed the difference on my electricity bill but if tens of thousands of people used CFL's in say, California, the strain on the grid would be lower and perhaps stymie these blackouts.
I'm not saying to force people to use them but there are a lot of advantages to them that are great, some last five years! But they are great, in my opinion, and worth looking at. Just because a few bad apples have put forth that they force people to use them, you shouldn't discredit the product itself until you try them out.
Just my 0.02
Published: May 11, 2007 6:09 PM
Michael A. Clem
TokyoTom has a valid point, but he's starting to sound like a broken record, too. Perhaps a real economist (unlike me) should have some ideas about how to tackle the environmental commons, but like anyone else they need some solid facts to go on.
For example, privatizing rivers and lakes is a simple and sure way of helping to environmentally protect said waterways. Privatizing the atmosphere is more difficult, not only because of the differing nature of it, but also because any real effects of human contributions to global warming are still quite difficult to measure, much less the actual harm any such global warming may cause.
Thus, until the evidence is clear, any market-oriented solution will sit on the shelf unopened until there's an actual market for it.
TokyoTom is asking for something equivalent to pollution control valves on automobiles when most people are still riding in horse-and-buggies.
We can still speculate on possible solutions, of course, but like any market situation, what most people will actually want and are willing to pay for is extremely difficult to predict without more information to work with.
What TokyoTom really wants isn't an economist but a visionary entrepreneur, preferably with psychic abilities.
Published: May 12, 2007 1:12 PM
Jane
Actually if the light bulbs are a good and convenient idea, that means there will be less resistance to the movement and a good feeling about it.
Published: August 11, 2009 9:19 AM
James
Energy efficient light bulbs are the easiest first step consumers and businesses can take towards reducing their energy consumption. Products have gotten light years better in the past few years and, in my eyes, indisputably better for 99% of applications. Both CFL and LED light bulbs run much cooler than incandescent bulbs, use energy much more efficiently, and do offer saving on your electricity bill. I am a vendor of energy efficient bulbs, so perhaps I am a bit biased, but I don't know why everyone doesn't switch today.
Published: September 29, 2009 2:45 AM