Why is the climate change debate a political one in the United States?

[kilofoxtrot]

Man can effect nature. The dust bowl of the thirties was exacerbated by farmers failing to apply dryland farming methods to prevent wind erosion (the Aeolian processes) caused the phenomenon.




Now fast forward to today..... humanity dumps 29 gigatons of excess carbon into the atmosphere every year. Combine that with deforestation and you get global warming.

KCH & Hydro.... where does the carbon go?

Amamba... I guess we are just screwed.

 

[Amamba]

That doesn't make sense, what the hell does this have to with jobs?

Posted via the iMore App for Android

You obviously ignored all of my previous posts.

Let me try it again.

A developed country is at a competitive disadvantage from the start because it's more expensive to manufacture things there than in a developing country.

The energy costs and the environmental standard compliance costs are a big part of the overall cost structure. Of course labor costs, workplace safety measures, taxes, local and federal codes all contribute, as well. We want our manufacturers to pollute less, pay better wages, create a safe work environment, it all costs money. Then we go to the Walmart and buy cheap Chinese stuff to save a few bucks.

To greatly reduce pollution levels in the developed countries vs what we have today, we'd need to adapt much more stringent pollution standards. Which would mean billions of additional investments into domestic factories. Which drives up the cost of the product to the point it can no longer compete with cheaply produced foreign stuff. Which forces companies to close the shop in the US and open another plant in China.

Before any company starts making any new product, they do a business case study. I've been involved in quite a few of these. The study involves several scenarios comparing costs of manufacturing across different countries. In the end, the companies want to maximize profits, and they absolutely must make profits to survive. It's not easy to make the business case for keeping manufacturing here even today. We could build a whole new plant in China for what it costs us to re-tool just a part of the existing plant in the US. I've often seen Mexico lose a product they used to build for years to China or Thailand, and you'd think they are so much cheaper than us.

Now, the environmental standards have been steadily tightening for decades and for most part the companies learned to live with it. But a radical decrease in pollution levels vs the current ones, which is what the paper bag guy seems to suggest, will be so expensive and disruptive, you'd see plants closing all over the States and moving abroad.

And over there, the environmental protection is a joke. I've seen some dirty plants here and in Mexico, but I've never seen anything like China. You could film a sci fi movie in some of the smaller provincial manufacturing towns, it was that bad. And the worst places also tended to be closed to foreigners (probably due to military installation or use of prisoner labor) so I am sure I only saw the tip of the iceberg. My last trip there was in '07 but I doubt that much had changed.

So in the end, trying to do the right thing by severely tightening the environmental regulations will only result in plants closing and moving to the developing countries. Since they are already bad polluters, this will result in the net increase of global pollution. And the lost jobs will drive a massive recession in the developed world. Because contrary to the popular view, the US still has a large manufacturing base, that's millions of manufacturing, engineering, research jobs plus the businesses that sell to the people working there.

Now, the only way the radical changes could happen globally, is by forcing developing countries to follow the same rules. But they won't do it. China is actually trying to reduce their pollution levels, but they must remain the low cost manufacturer to stay competitive, so they are doing a little at a time, and largely targeting major cities. It will be decades, if ever, before they reach current US levels. And imposing tariffs on goods manufactured in "dirty" countries won't happen either. The West has neither the power nor will to do that, and even if we were able to, this would only trigger a global recession.

It would take a global dictatorship to drastically reduce pollution. Contrary to what Hydro and his friends think, the UN ain't it. The UN is a huge and largely ineffective world golf club where countries get together to discuss their business, with enormous bureaucracy, which is largely impotent by itself. The real power lies with Security Council, which can impose sanctions and start wars. This is the governing body in which five permanent members, the US, UK, France, China and Russia have veto powers. China and Russia are not in cahoots with the US. Quite on the contrary. Our relationship with Russia is at all time low since Cold War ended, and our relationship with China is cool at best. France is traditionally very independent and unpredictable. So no, no new World Order or Black Helicopters, at least not via UN.

Sorry for the long post.

 

[A895]

You obviously ignored all of my previous posts.

Let me try it again.

A developed country is at a competitive disadvantage from the start because it's more expensive to manufacture things there than in a developing country.

The energy costs and the environmental standard compliance costs are a big part of the overall cost structure. Of course labor costs, workplace safety measures, taxes, local and federal codes all contribute, as well. We want our manufacturers to pollute less, pay better wages, create a safe work environment, it all costs money. Then we go to the Walmart and buy cheap Chinese stuff to save a few bucks.

To greatly reduce pollution levels in the developed countries vs what we have today, we'd need to adapt much more stringent pollution standards. Which would mean billions of additional investments into domestic factories. Which drives up the cost of the product to the point it can no longer compete with cheaply produced foreign stuff. Which forces companies to close the shop in the US and open another plant in China.

Before any company starts making any new product, they do a business case study. I've been involved in quite a few of these. The study involves several scenarios comparing costs of manufacturing across different countries. In the end, the companies want to maximize profits, and they absolutely must make profits to survive. It's not easy to make the business case for keeping manufacturing here even today. We could build a whole new plant in China for what it costs us to re-tool just a part of the existing plant in the US. I've often seen Mexico lose a product they used to build for years to China or Thailand, and you'd think they are so much cheaper than us.

Now, the environmental standards have been steadily tightening for decades and for most part the companies learned to live with it. But a radical decrease in pollution levels vs the current ones, which is what the paper bag guy seems to suggest, will be so expensive and disruptive, you'd see plants closing all over the States and moving abroad.

And over there, the environmental protection is a joke. I've seen some dirty plants here and in Mexico, but I've never seen anything like China. You could film a sci fi movie in some of the smaller provincial manufacturing towns, it was that bad. And the worst places also tended to be closed to foreigners (probably due to military installation or use of prisoner labor) so I am sure I only saw the tip of the iceberg. My last trip there was in '07 but I doubt that much had changed.

So in the end, trying to do the right thing by severely tightening the environmental regulations will only result in plants closing and moving to the developing countries. Since they are already bad polluters, this will result in the net increase of global pollution. And the lost jobs will drive a massive recession in the developed world. Because contrary to the popular view, the US still has a large manufacturing base, that's millions of manufacturing, engineering, research jobs plus the businesses that sell to the people working there.

Now, the only way the radical changes could happen globally, is by forcing developing countries to follow the same rules. But they won't do it. China is actually trying to reduce their pollution levels, but they must remain the low cost manufacturer to stay competitive, so they are doing a little at a time, and largely targeting major cities. It will be decades, if ever, before they reach current US levels. And imposing tariffs on goods manufactured in "dirty" countries won't happen either. The West has neither the power nor will to do that, and even if we were able to, this would only trigger a global recession.

It would take a global dictatorship to drastically reduce pollution. Contrary to what Hydro and his friends think, the UN ain't it. The UN is a huge and largely ineffective world golf club where countries get together to discuss their business, with enormous bureaucracy, which is largely impotent by itself. The real power lies with Security Council, which can impose sanctions and start wars. This is the governing body in which five permanent members, the US, UK, France, China and Russia have veto powers. China and Russia are not in cahoots with the US. Quite on the contrary. Our relationship with Russia is at all time low since Cold War ended, and our relationship with China is cool at best. France is traditionally very independent and unpredictable. So no, no new World Order or Black Helicopters, at least not via UN.

Sorry for the long post.

The issue is that those big decisions are for people that aren't any of us so your question couldn't possibly be answered. But even Obama himself has said that we need to do something about Global Warming. What can we do? Something. And something is better than nothing.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

 

[hydrogen3]

KCH & Hydro.... where does the carbon go?

carbon dioxide is removed by trees, plants and the Ocean...

 

[hydrogen3]

But even Obama himself has said that we need to do something about Global Warming. What can we do? Something. And something is better than nothing. Posted via the iMore App for Android

"Obama him self said we need to do something. And something is better than nothing"!?! SERIOUSLY!?!

Good heavens man what's Obama, going to do?? Slap a carbon tax on people or corporations in the U.S.? That will ship more jobs to China and that makes perfect sense, right? Yes do something...Anything.. Hey Obama,, How about we tell the WHO and the U.N. to go to hell. How about we secure our borders and regain our sovereignty.

I now understand the Libertarian point of view on climate change.. Libertarians think Pollution and climate change are one and the same..There not Pollution and climate change are two different issues. Globalist!

 

[hydrogen3]

You obviously ignored all of my previous posts.

Let me try it again.

A developed country is at a competitive disadvantage from the start because it's more expensive to manufacture things there than in a developing country.

The energy costs and the environmental standard compliance costs are a big part of the overall cost structure. Of course labor costs, workplace safety measures, taxes, local and federal codes all contribute, as well. We want our manufacturers to pollute less, pay better wages, create a safe work environment, it all costs money. Then we go to the Walmart and buy cheap Chinese stuff to save a few bucks.

To greatly reduce pollution levels in the developed countries vs what we have today, we'd need to adapt much more stringent pollution standards. Which would mean billions of additional investments into domestic factories. Which drives up the cost of the product to the point it can no longer compete with cheaply produced foreign stuff. Which forces companies to close the shop in the US and open another plant in China.

Before any company starts making any new product, they do a business case study. I've been involved in quite a few of these. The study involves several scenarios comparing costs of manufacturing across different countries. In the end, the companies want to maximize profits, and they absolutely must make profits to survive. It's not easy to make the business case for keeping manufacturing here even today. We could build a whole new plant in China for what it costs us to re-tool just a part of the existing plant in the US. I've often seen Mexico lose a product they used to build for years to China or Thailand, and you'd think they are so much cheaper than us.

Now, the environmental standards have been steadily tightening for decades and for most part the companies learned to live with it. But a radical decrease in pollution levels vs the current ones, which is what the paper bag guy seems to suggest, will be so expensive and disruptive, you'd see plants closing all over the States and moving abroad.

And over there, the environmental protection is a joke. I've seen some dirty plants here and in Mexico, but I've never seen anything like China. You could film a sci fi movie in some of the smaller provincial manufacturing towns, it was that bad. And the worst places also tended to be closed to foreigners (probably due to military installation or use of prisoner labor) so I am sure I only saw the tip of the iceberg. My last trip there was in '07 but I doubt that much had changed.

So in the end, trying to do the right thing by severely tightening the environmental regulations will only result in plants closing and moving to the developing countries. Since they are already bad polluters, this will result in the net increase of global pollution. And the lost jobs will drive a massive recession in the developed world. Because contrary to the popular view, the US still has a large manufacturing base, that's millions of manufacturing, engineering, research jobs plus the businesses that sell to the people working there.

Now, the only way the radical changes could happen globally, is by forcing developing countries to follow the same rules. But they won't do it. China is actually trying to reduce their pollution levels, but they must remain the low cost manufacturer to stay competitive, so they are doing a little at a time, and largely targeting major cities. It will be decades, if ever, before they reach current US levels. And imposing tariffs on goods manufactured in "dirty" countries won't happen either. The West has neither the power nor will to do that, and even if we were able to, this would only trigger a global recession.

It would take a global dictatorship to drastically reduce pollution. Contrary to what Hydro and his friends think, the UN ain't it. The UN is a huge and largely ineffective world golf club where countries get together to discuss their business, with enormous bureaucracy, which is largely impotent by itself. The real power lies with Security Council, which can impose sanctions and start wars. This is the governing body in which five permanent members, the US, UK, France, China and Russia have veto powers. China and Russia are not in cahoots with the US. Quite on the contrary. Our relationship with Russia is at all time low since Cold War ended, and our relationship with China is cool at best. France is traditionally very independent and unpredictable. So no, no new World Order or Black Helicopters, at least not via UN.

Sorry for the long post.

The U.N. Charter gives the Security Council the authority "to maintain or restore international peace and security," and to enforce the will of the council on a state that has broken the peace. Use of military force by the council for these purposes was foreseen by the founders of the United Nations. Indeed it was seen almost half a century ago as an essential element in the world order that the United Nations was intended to establish.

 

[A895]

carbon dioxide is removed by trees, plants and the Ocean...

There is no way in hell, nature can take that much carbon dioxide. It is sitting in our air polluting our atmosphere.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

 

[A895]

"Obama him self said we need to do something. And something is better than nothing"!?! SERIOUSLY!?!

Good heavens man what's Obama, going to do?? Slap a carbon tax on people or corporations in the U.S.? That will ship more jobs to China and that makes perfect sense, right? Yes do something...Anything.. Hey Obama,, How about we tell the WHO and the U.N. to go to hell. How about we secure our borders and regain our sovereignty.

I now understand the Libertarian point of view on climate change.. Libertarians think Pollution and climate change are one and the same..There not Pollution and climate change are two different issues. Globalist!

I forgot Obama is the no no word in this forum. Also, who the hell is a Libertarian? That is the issue with this forum you and others generalize and then try to throw people in a group. I am an independent. I hold no political affiliation.

And where is your objective source that climate change has nothing to do with pollution itself?

Posted via the iMore App for Android

 

[hydrogen3]

I forgot Obama is the no no word in this forum. Also, who the hell is a Libertarian? That is the issue with this forum you and others generalize and then try to throw people in a group. I am an independent. I hold no political affiliation.

And where is your objective source that climate change has nothing to do with pollution itself?

Posted via the iMore App for Android

You and others have ignored scientific paper and facts posted.

1. the earth has not warmed in the last 17-20 years.

2. The arctic ice cap in expanding.

3. The Oceans are cooling.

independent means you arent registered to a political party. Libertarian is both an ideology and a party, which means i can be registered to the libertarian party(and not be independent), or i can be independent and vote for candidates with libertarian values..

 

[A895]

You and others have ignored scientific paper and facts posted.

1. the earth has not cooled in 17-20 years.

2. The arctic ice cap in expanding.

3. The Oceans are cooling.

independent means you arent registered to a political party. Libertarian is both an ideology and a party, which means i can be registered to the libertarian party(and not be independent), or i can be independent and vote for candidates with libertarian values..

No, by independent I mean I don't agree fully with any long standing parties ideals. As a matter of fact, once I get my career right when I graduate, I intent fully to be a political myself or be involved in government in some way.

If you want change to happen, not only can you vote for people, you can participate in government yourself. That is the beauty of a democracy.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

 

[Amamba]

The U.N. Charter gives the Security Council the authority "to maintain or restore international peace and security," and to enforce the will of the council on a state that has broken the peace. Use of military force by the council for these purposes was foreseen by the founders of the United Nations. Indeed it was seen almost half a century ago as an essential element in the world order that the United Nations was intended to establish.

Every permanent member of the council has veto powers. And every member of the council deeply mistrusts everyone else. US and UK are the only two members who can unite for the common cause. China and Russia , Russia and US, US and China - there's plenty of bad blood and fierce competition there. And France is fiercely independent and always ready to give a finger salute to other members just to show that it can.

No World Government there, far from it. More like a can full of spiders. In a way, it's a balanced system that's best in preserving the status quo. No concerted effort can be undertaken against one member of Security Council by other members, precisely because it's the way it was designed from the start. And the UN doesn't have it's own armed forces. The "UN Peacekeeping Force" units are all part of national forces that are doing some job for UN - but they answer, first and above all, to their Commanders-in-Chief, not to the UN. Any attempt to substitute the current US government by some "UN New World Order Thingamajingy" can not, by definition, happen without US Government - and US Armed Forces - being behind it. And even if the US Gov't and US Armed Forces ever decide to basically mount an anti-constitutional coup in the US - which is what you seem to be so afraid of - they don't need the UN (i.e. China / Russia etc) for this. They are not suicidal. It would be a purely domestic, American coup.

The issue is that those big decisions are for people that aren't any of us so your question couldn't possibly be answered. But even Obama himself has said that we need to do something about Global Warming. What can we do? Something. And something is better than nothing.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

Before you graduate, you may want to take a reading comprehension class No offense.

For the last time, I am not asking any questions. I am trying to show you the answers. No drastic measures will be taken, regardless of what Obama or anyone else says. Obama likes to tell his supporters what they want to hear, remember all that talk about the Change, closing Guantanamo, being the most transparent administration ever ? He reneged on most of his promises so far, and is actually far worse than any President since Nixon in the way he is attempting to control and manipulate the press. Don't listen to everything he says. U.S. simply is in no position to do this. Objectively. For the reasons I outlined above. There will be a continuous push for tighter emission standards and more renewable energy sources, but it will be slow, steady and evolutionary.

P.S. According to your profile you're a finance student; did they stop teaching macroeconomics in college ? Honestly I'd think that you, out of all people, should have better understanding of the way the global commerce works, or should grasp the simplest idea that nothing is ever free and every product out there has to remain competitive (or be a monopoly) to survive.

 

[A895]

Every permanent member of the council has veto powers. And every member of the council deeply mistrusts everyone else. US and UK are the only two members who can unite for the common cause. China and Russia , Russia and US, US and China - there's plenty of bad blood and fierce competition there. And France is fiercely independent and always ready to give a finger salute to other members just to show that it can.

No World Government there, far from it. More like a can full of spiders. In a way, it's a balanced system that's best in preserving the status quo. No concerted effort can be undertaken against one member of Security Council by other members, precisely because it's the way it was designed from the start. And the UN doesn't have it's own armed forces. The "UN Peacekeeping Force" units are all part of national forces that are doing some job for UN - but they answer, first and above all, to their Commanders-in-Chief, not to the UN. Any attempt to substitute the current US government by some "UN New World Order Thingamajingy" can not, by definition, happen without US Government - and US Armed Forces - being behind it. And even if the US Gov't and US Armed Forces ever decide to basically mount an anti-constitutional coup in the US - which is what you seem to be so afraid of - they don't need the UN (i.e. China / Russia etc) for this. They are not suicidal. It would be a purely domestic, American coup.



Before you graduate, you may want to take a reading comprehension class No offense.

For the last time, I am not asking any questions. I am trying to show you the answers. No drastic measures will be taken, regardless of what Obama or anyone else says. Obama likes to tell his supporters what they want to hear, remember all that talk about the Change, closing Guantanamo, being the most transparent administration ever ? He reneged on most of his promises so far, and is actually far worse than any President since Nixon in the way he is attempting to control and manipulate the press. Don't listen to everything he says. U.S. simply is in no position to do this. Objectively. For the reasons I outlined above. There will be a continuous push for tighter emission standards and more renewable energy sources, but it will be slow, steady and evolutionary.

P.S. According to your profile you're a finance student; did they stop teaching macroeconomics in college ? Honestly I'd think that you, out of all people, should have better understanding of the way the global commerce works, or should grasp the simplest idea that nothing is ever free and every product out there has to remain competitive (or be a monopoly) to survive.

You went from broad sweeping "questions" to criticizing me to criticizing Obama. That is the issue I have with the right they are always either are criticizing Obama about something or offer no actual solutions.

Obama worse as Nixon? No person objectively can say that, which is how I know your comments are tainted in bias.
And where does economics come into play in this discussion?

Posted via the iMore App for Android

 

[Amamba]

You went from broad sweeping "questions" to criticizing me to criticizing Obama. That is the issue I have with the right they are always either are criticizing Obama about something or offer no actual solutions.

You clearly missed the whole point. Multiple times.

Obama worse as Nixon? No person objectively can say that, which is how I know your comments are tainted in bias.

No, Obama is like Nixon's twin. Both abused the power of their office and broke the law. One had his goons break into the Democratic Party headquarters, another used IRS against conservative organizations. Both attempted to manipulate the media and avoided non-scripted press conferences, although Obama is admittedly much better at this. I support neither party.

And where does economics come into play in this discussion?

Posted via the iMore App for Android

Thank you for a good laugh. Good luck with getting that degree.

 

[A895]

You clearly missed the whole point. Multiple times.



No, Obama is like Nixon's twin. Both abused the power of their office and broke the law. One had his goons break into the Democratic Party headquarters, another used IRS against conservative organizations. Both attempted to manipulate the media and avoided non-scripted press conferences, although Obama is admittedly much better at this. I support neither party.




Thank you for a good laugh. Good luck with getting that degree.

You aren't being clear, that's my issue. And now you insult my intelligence as a tongue in cheek saying "good luck getting that degree".

Yeah, you are very reasonable person.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

 

[Amamba]

You aren't being clear, that's my issue. And now you insult my intelligence as a tongue in cheek saying "good luck getting that degree".

Yeah, you are very reasonable person.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

I have been perfectly clear. I honestly don't think anyone else did not understand the points I was making. I tried to explain to you, time and again, that economics have everything to do with this issue. It's all driven by economics. Since you are describing yourself as a finance student, your inability to grasp the economic implications that define the scope and pace of the reaction to the Global Warming in the US and elsewhere is, quite frankly, very surprising. Hopefully this will change as you continue your education and gain more real life experience. Hence, good luck.

 

[A895]

I have been perfectly clear. I honestly don't think anyone else did not understand the points I was making. I tried to explain to you, time and again, that economics have everything to do with this issue. It's all driven by economics. Since you are describing yourself as a finance student, your inability to grasp the economic implications that define the scope and pace of the reaction to the Global Warming in the US and elsewhere is, quite frankly, very surprising. Hopefully this will change as you continue your education and gain more real life experience. Hence, good luck.

One, you weren't clear immediately, I reread your previous posts to make sure I wasn't being daft. Why do you think the only way to manufacturing pollution is to push it all in to other countries? That is the only thing that I got from your previous posts and you also mentioned an ultimatum that I don't think at all are the only outcomes. Maybe that's why I didn't think you weren't being clear.


And FYI, you are speaking down to me a bit, you can cut that out.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

 

[Amamba]

One, you weren't clear immediately, I reread your previous posts to make sure I wasn't being daft. Why do you think the only way to manufacturing pollution is to push it all in to other countries? That is the only thing that I got from your previous posts and you also mentioned an ultimatum that I don't think at all are the only outcomes. Maybe that's why I didn't think you weren't being clear.

Because even without a push for a drastic decrease in pollution levels, it's already hard to justify building a product in the US when the same product can be built far cheaper in China, Vietnam or Malaysia.

Now, say there's a decree by which the US has to cut it's pollution levels by 30% over the next 3 years.

All cars have to be 30% more efficient. All power plants have to produce 30% less waste. All agricultural machinery... you get the drift.

So, the cost of transportation, the cost of energy, the cost of food, the cost of manufacturing all go up - drastically - in a short amount of time. (Because you are pushing for a drastic cut in emission levels - after all, a slow evolutionary process has been underway for some time and you are saying it's not enough).

Any reduction in pollution levels comes at a cost. And the closer you are to the limits of current technology, the more expensive it gets. The higher the pace of reduction, the more expensive it gets. A country, just like a company, can actually price itself out of the market, making domestic manufacturing simply unable to compete because of high structural costs. The costs of environmental compliance are a large part of it. And if you expect drastic changes in a short time, be prepared to see drastic cost increases.

So, the companies that today have hard time competing with products cheaply manufactured in 3rd world countries, simply won't be able to compete at all. They will either fold or move their remaining manufacturing plants overseas. Resulting in (a) millions of jobs lost in the US, with subsequent recession, and (b) the increase in manufacturing output in 3rd world countries (which pollute much more than we do), which in turn will cause (c) increased overall global pollution.

Or to make it simple - you make a thingy in the US, it costs $30 and produces a pound of soot. You make the same thingy in China, it costs $25 and produces two pounds of soot. It's already hard to compete. Now, the government dictates that any thingy you produce must only result in half a pound of soot, pushing the cost of production to $35. You can't compete and move production to China. So, where in 2014 there was a US produced thingy and a Chinese produced thingy with combined pollution of 3 pounds of soot, in 2024 there's no US produced thingies, two Chinese produced thingies, and 4 pounds of soot. A victory for the humanity ? Hardly. Unless you can force China to cut their emission and raise their costs, you're screwed.

Now, I hope I made myself clear enough, as we seem to be running in circles.

And FYI, you are speaking down to me a bit, you can cut that out.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

 

[A895]

Because even without a push for a drastic decrease in pollution levels, it's already hard to justify building a product in the US when the same product can be built far cheaper in China, Vietnam or Malaysia.

Now, say there's a decree by which the US has to cut it's pollution levels by 30% over the next 3 years.

All cars have to be 30% more efficient. All power plants have to produce 30% less waste. All agricultural machinery... you get the drift.

So, the cost of transportation, the cost of energy, the cost of food, the cost of manufacturing all go up - drastically - in a short amount of time. (Because you are pushing for a drastic cut in emission levels - after all, a slow evolutionary process has been underway for some time and you are saying it's not enough).

Any reduction in pollution levels comes at a cost. And the closer you are to the limits of current technology, the more expensive it gets. The higher the pace of reduction, the more expensive it gets. A country, just like a company, can actually price itself out of the market, making domestic manufacturing simply unable to compete because of high structural costs. The costs of environmental compliance are a large part of it. And if you expect drastic changes in a short time, be prepared to see drastic cost increases.

So, the companies that today have hard time competing with products cheaply manufactured in 3rd world countries, simply won't be able to compete at all. They will either fold or move their remaining manufacturing plants overseas. Resulting in (a) millions of jobs lost in the US, with subsequent recession, and (b) the increase in manufacturing output in 3rd world countries (which pollute much more than we do), which in turn will cause (c) increased overall global pollution.

Or to make it simple - you make a thingy in the US, it costs $30 and produces a pound of soot. You make the same thingy in China, it costs $25 and produces two pounds of soot. It's already hard to compete. Now, the government dictates that any thingy you produce must only result in half a pound of soot, pushing the cost of production to $35. You can't compete and move production to China. So, where in 2014 there was a US produced thingy and a Chinese produced thingy with combined pollution of 3 pounds of soot, in 2024 there's no US produced thingies, two Chinese produced thingies, and 4 pounds of soot. A victory for the humanity ? Hardly. Unless you can force China to cut their emission and raise their costs, you're screwed.

Now, I hope I made myself clear enough, as we seem to be running in circles.

My issue is that manufacturing pollution isn't the only pollution that is hurting the environment. That is part of it, yes. But not enough to focus all of environmental efforts to go there, especially since so many companies already are going green.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

 

[Amamba]

My issue is that manufacturing pollution isn't the only pollution that is hurting the environment. That is part of it, yes. But not enough to focus all of environmental efforts to go there, especially since so many companies already are going green.

Posted via the iMore App for Android

But manufacturing plus transportation plus energy probably accounts for over 80% of pollution. And they are interconnected - you can't raise the cost of energy or transportation without impacting manufacturing in a major way. And if you only concentrate on household pollution, how much are you really going to accomplish ? It's like you have a house with leaky roof, cracked foundation and rotting walls, installing a new screen door won't really make much difference.

I am not advocating inaction, quite the opposite. The environmental standards need to keep tightening, and the existing laws must be enforced. But it's a gradual process.

 

[A895]

But manufacturing plus transportation plus energy probably accounts for over 80% of pollution. And they are interconnected - you can't raise the cost of energy or transportation without impacting manufacturing in a major way. And if you only concentrate on household pollution, how much are you really going to accomplish ? It's like you have a house with leaky roof, cracked foundation and rotting walls, installing a new screen door won't really make much difference.

I am not advocating inaction, quite the opposite. The environmental standards need to keep tightening, and the existing laws must be enforced. But it's a gradual process.

Of course it is and I am not advocating immediate solutions, my point is that there are a large number of people who flat out Deny climate change or as evidenced by hydro they think it is a political agenda involving people from around the world. Because there is so much political involvement in climate change that, that gradual change is even more smaller.

Posted via the iMore App for Android