:) There are free market solutions to the environment!

[MaC]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7773650/site/newsweek/

even if you disagree with me, I hope you find this an interesting read.

[Gabu]

A free market solution to something is generally regarded as the case where the natural tendency of the free market is to solve the problem simply through people pursuing their own self-interest.  People actively working against their own self-interest for the greater good is not exactly what I'd call a "free-market solution", unless your definition of "free-market solution" is a very broad one that means "anything done by something that isn't the government".

[MaC]

that is what I mean.  Well, to be more specific-without coercion.  A company can force laborers to work for 4 cents an hour in third world countries and have nothing to do with the government, but it's not 'free market'.

By the way, how is he working against self-interest?

[Gabu]

By the way, how is he working against self-interest?

It would likely be much cheaper to simply forget about the future, enabling him to make much more money, which is what would occur in the true "free market" situation found in a textbook.

I don't think anyone but the most deluded souls actually expect the government to fully solve the environmental problems facing the world all by itself.  It will never truly be solved until companies can successfully do business without causing the environmental problems that they currently do, instead of simply making things "less bad" as stated by the guy in the article.

That said, however, the government can certainly greatly help the process along by providing some research funding and by providing incentives for companies to produce more ecologically friendly methods and products, both of which would probably be strongly opposed by libertarians.  There is also the issue, as well, that this will not happen in a day, and the government making things "less bad" is certainly better (environmentally speaking) than the government just letting companies run the globe into the ground.

[MODU]

I have no issues with what that guy is envisioning.

[MaC]

By the way, how is he working against self-interest?

It would likely be much cheaper to simply forget about the future, enabling him to make much more money, which is what would occur in the true "free market" situation found in a textbook.

I don't think anyone but the most deluded souls actually expect the government to fully solve the environmental problems facing the world all by itself.  It will never truly be solved until companies can successfully do business without causing the environmental problems that they currently do, instead of simply making things "less bad" as stated by the guy in the article.

That said, however, the government can certainly greatly help the process along by providing some research funding and by providing incentives for companies to produce more ecologically friendly methods and products, both of which would probably be strongly opposed by libertarians.  There is also the issue, as well, that this will not happen in a day, and the government making things "less bad" is certainly better (environmentally speaking) than the government just letting companies run the globe into the ground.

When does the government help research ecologically friendly products and methods?  All it does is punish those who break environmental laws-which as said in the article are arbitrary.  If the law says that there's a limit on the amount of mercury going into the water supply, all it's doing is setting a quota for the company to go just under and still be legal.  It's still polluting.

[MaC]

ah, it's always the best posts that nobody comments on.

[MODU]

ah, it's always the best posts that nobody comments on.

hehehe . . . maybe we are all waiting to hear the response. 

[MaC]

ah, it's always the best posts that nobody comments on.

hehehe . . . maybe we are all waiting to hear the response. 

I'm waiting for jfern to come in and call me stupid for not supporting excessive environmental regulations after reading this article (or something to that effect)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, Calvin Coolidge's free market ideas did end up helping the environment in the early '30s, although perhaps not in the ways he intended.

Anyways, if the government is involved, it's not really "free market", is it?

[Alcon]

Well, Calvin Coolidge's free market ideas did end up helping the environment in the early '30s, although perhaps not in the ways he intended.

Anyways, if the government is involved, it's not really "free market", is it?

Obviously, you haven't gotten the memo.

If something is good, it's the free market.

Puppies, candy canes, killer T-cells, and Saturday afternoons are all direct results of the free market and nothing else.

[MaC]

Calvin Coolidge was never in power in the 1930s.

Of those things listed, only Saturday afternoons were brought about by the free market.  Puppies were a direct result of the holocaust.  The others, not too sure.

[muon2]

ah, it's always the best posts that nobody comments on.

hehehe . . . maybe we are all waiting to hear the response. 

In that case let me take a shot. First of all to imply that the Federal government does nothing for reserach in environmentally products and practices is ignorant.

When does the government help research ecologically friendly products and methods?  All it does is punish those who break environmental laws-which as said in the article are arbitrary.

Argonne Laboratory is a hotbed of government-funded research with technology transfer as a key mission.Two years ago I was funded to work on developing technologies for elimination of nuclear waste.

As for the article, I think it's great that there are entrepreneurs who can make the pitch to business and show them how being green saves money. It's also great that there are businesses that see how they can get out of a regulatory cycle by switching to wholly new technologies. Unfortunately, the article does not address those businesses that cannot afford, or lack the vision, to make the up-front investment for the long-term gain. These environmental technologies do often have large short-term costs that many businesses are unwilling to bear. That leaves a role for government.