[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll go ahead and get to the punchline. He's going to do some sort of cost/benefit "scorecard" that shows that there's money to be made by blowing the earth up and getting the iron out of the core for scrap. But it will leave out a crucial piece of information - the VALUE to the OWNER of leaving the resource INTACT.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the corporate value of leaving the ANWR intact?

[/ QUOTE ]

They will have it tomorrow?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even companies that have a vested interest in the longevity of a resource cannot be relied upon for its preservation. Look at the fishing industry all across the EU.

People want to get rich quick.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if we as consumers are interested in preservation, we should align "getting rich quick" with preservation. This is assuming your basic premise, that "getting rich quick" drives all business decisions, is true.

Works for me. I'd pay 5 extra cents on every dollar spent on cod fillets to go to preservation. Wouldn't you? I'll answer for you, since you care about preservation: "5 cents, heck make it 30."

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesnt matter how much you and I spend on cod. We are basically spending extra money for that particular company to not fish so much or let younger fish go. If other companies do not want to fish with regulations (and they have proven they don't), then the problem of overfishing will remain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who owns the fisheries again? I must have missed that part.