Monday, March 14, 2005
Bush's Toxic Market Solution to Pollution
Industry in America wants to freely pollute without government interference. In an ongoing example of corporate hubris, Bush is proposing "vouchers" for mercury pollution. Check it out, here.
So, a business could buy up other businesses levels of acceptable mercury pollution. In essence, a major mercury polluter that has billions of dollars could buy up pollution rights, and in turn not do anything to reduce mercury pollution.
There's a definite bait and switch going on here. The Bush adminstration can look like they're doing something to curb pollution, and method sounds perfectly democratic by letting the free market decide how to solve the problem of pollution.
Bush has proposed a similar strategy in regard to solving carbon emissions problems around the globe. Let the US businesses buy up Monrovia's acceptable level of carbon emissions, and all is fair, right? It's a free market solution. Wow! Why didn't someone come up with such a solution before?
The reason nobody but the neo-cons came up with such a solution before is because its a farcical and cynical approach to solving the problem of carbon emissions. Bush adds insult to injury by trying the same trick in regard to mercury pollution.
Who are the major polluters of mercury and carbon dioxide? Primarily Coal fired electric plants. By reducing regulation on mercury and CO2 emissions, the US can build more coal electric plants. That in turn would help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The US has lots of coal, and the Vice President's home state is loaded with the stuff.
Now, why won't the voucher system work? Am I just being a nattering negative nabob? The reason it won't work is due to the fact that there is little to no incentive for a polluting company to reduce the amount it pollutes.
If I'm a utility company that provides electricity and I use coal to generate power, all I have to do is buy up other companies pollution credits. The more I buy, the more freely I can pollute without government restriction.
But wait! What about the cost? Won't that make a business unprofitable?
Heck, no.
The utility company will raise its prices on the consumer. The utility company in turn will blame the government for having such harsh restrictions on industry, which costs community jobs and raises the price for electricity. Pro-industry politicians will work to lower EPA restrictions, if not remove the EPA altogether.
Also, if for some reason Democrats take control of government and refuse to cave in to corporate energy lobbyists, and uphold or increase restricitions on polluting, the industry that holds the most pollution credits will make bundles of dough. The reason I say this has to do with supply and demand.
There's a finite supply of energy credits. This will mean that there will be a certain market value for pollution credits. If restrictions increase, the value of pollution credits will increase. Whoever owns them could sell them at a high price. Essentially, whoever owns the most pollution credits will have a monopoly on pollution.
Basically, it'll be a win-win situation for polluting industries. More restrictions mean more money and higher prices, which will bring in higher profits. Less pollution restrictions mean lower overhead costs in regard to buying/purchasing pollution credits, and means more profits.
How can industry lose?
The real losers are going to be communities living within range of a polluting industry. Higher pollution means more birth defects, more cancer, lung disease, heart disease, and a multitude of other illnesses. Who'll be mostly effected will be the poor who will live too close to such industries, since the cost of housing will be cheapest in the polluted areas.
Just think as Republicans call the system a success, what other kinds of polluting/toxic things could they just let the free market take care of? Hmm... radiation vouchers, pesticide vouchers, organic chlorine vouchers, organic waste vouchers... why the list could go on.
I can't see any practical American, or any environmentalist cozying up to such a farce of a system. The only people that love it are the industry lobbyists, and the Kool-Aid drinking rabid right. Most Americans I know like living in clean and healthy environments.
I can't imagine Dick Cheney or George Bush wanting to drink water contaminated with mercury, or letting their children drink from such water. Do they even bother to consider the consequences of their actions, or are they just evil dimwits? How do they sleep at night? Ignorance is truly bliss.
The only way we'll stop this is if we can get the word out about what a sham Bush's plans are. Somehow, we have to get the word out. The question is, how?
Industry in America wants to freely pollute without government interference. In an ongoing example of corporate hubris, Bush is proposing "vouchers" for mercury pollution. Check it out, here.
So, a business could buy up other businesses levels of acceptable mercury pollution. In essence, a major mercury polluter that has billions of dollars could buy up pollution rights, and in turn not do anything to reduce mercury pollution.
There's a definite bait and switch going on here. The Bush adminstration can look like they're doing something to curb pollution, and method sounds perfectly democratic by letting the free market decide how to solve the problem of pollution.
Bush has proposed a similar strategy in regard to solving carbon emissions problems around the globe. Let the US businesses buy up Monrovia's acceptable level of carbon emissions, and all is fair, right? It's a free market solution. Wow! Why didn't someone come up with such a solution before?
The reason nobody but the neo-cons came up with such a solution before is because its a farcical and cynical approach to solving the problem of carbon emissions. Bush adds insult to injury by trying the same trick in regard to mercury pollution.
Who are the major polluters of mercury and carbon dioxide? Primarily Coal fired electric plants. By reducing regulation on mercury and CO2 emissions, the US can build more coal electric plants. That in turn would help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The US has lots of coal, and the Vice President's home state is loaded with the stuff.
Now, why won't the voucher system work? Am I just being a nattering negative nabob? The reason it won't work is due to the fact that there is little to no incentive for a polluting company to reduce the amount it pollutes.
If I'm a utility company that provides electricity and I use coal to generate power, all I have to do is buy up other companies pollution credits. The more I buy, the more freely I can pollute without government restriction.
But wait! What about the cost? Won't that make a business unprofitable?
Heck, no.
The utility company will raise its prices on the consumer. The utility company in turn will blame the government for having such harsh restrictions on industry, which costs community jobs and raises the price for electricity. Pro-industry politicians will work to lower EPA restrictions, if not remove the EPA altogether.
Also, if for some reason Democrats take control of government and refuse to cave in to corporate energy lobbyists, and uphold or increase restricitions on polluting, the industry that holds the most pollution credits will make bundles of dough. The reason I say this has to do with supply and demand.
There's a finite supply of energy credits. This will mean that there will be a certain market value for pollution credits. If restrictions increase, the value of pollution credits will increase. Whoever owns them could sell them at a high price. Essentially, whoever owns the most pollution credits will have a monopoly on pollution.
Basically, it'll be a win-win situation for polluting industries. More restrictions mean more money and higher prices, which will bring in higher profits. Less pollution restrictions mean lower overhead costs in regard to buying/purchasing pollution credits, and means more profits.
How can industry lose?
The real losers are going to be communities living within range of a polluting industry. Higher pollution means more birth defects, more cancer, lung disease, heart disease, and a multitude of other illnesses. Who'll be mostly effected will be the poor who will live too close to such industries, since the cost of housing will be cheapest in the polluted areas.
Just think as Republicans call the system a success, what other kinds of polluting/toxic things could they just let the free market take care of? Hmm... radiation vouchers, pesticide vouchers, organic chlorine vouchers, organic waste vouchers... why the list could go on.
I can't see any practical American, or any environmentalist cozying up to such a farce of a system. The only people that love it are the industry lobbyists, and the Kool-Aid drinking rabid right. Most Americans I know like living in clean and healthy environments.
I can't imagine Dick Cheney or George Bush wanting to drink water contaminated with mercury, or letting their children drink from such water. Do they even bother to consider the consequences of their actions, or are they just evil dimwits? How do they sleep at night? Ignorance is truly bliss.
The only way we'll stop this is if we can get the word out about what a sham Bush's plans are. Somehow, we have to get the word out. The question is, how?
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Interesting quote from Air America...
If you read something in a newspaper, why do you believe it? Sigh... why don't we emphasize teaching of history or civics anymore?
If you read something in a newspaper, why do you believe it? Sigh... why don't we emphasize teaching of history or civics anymore?
