For madnak/borodog/etc

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the affected people could still take their case to a reputable court and get a decision rendered. If the company doesn't want to show up because they think they'll lose, then the court can render the judgement and give it to the security/enforcement company.

[/ QUOTE ]

From where does the judge draw his authority?

[ QUOTE ]
Would the people working at the sweatshop be better off with no job at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point.

I was indicating that people seem to be willing to purchase products even if they dislike the ethics of the companies

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that a company could do every dispicable thing they can and if there wasn't a government, people wouldn't care? Why do you think companies have PR dept/firms?

[/ QUOTE ]


This isnt even close to what I said... FWIW, I think the AC ideas are, in many cases, very very good, and it may even be the best overall idea. I just think there are a few places that they need to conceed, and this is one of them (state run pollution limits), and the fact that you are twisting my words so much makes me believe it more.

Anyway, no, a company cannot do any despicable thing they want. But, without pollution limits, if a company pollutes and doesnt compensate the residents of the area, I see them outperforming non polluting companies to the point that pollution builts to problematic levels.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Would the people working at the sweatshop be better off with no job at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point.

I was indicating that people seem to be willing to purchase products even if they dislike the ethics of the companies


[/ QUOTE ]
You missed the point. Maybe people don't find it that objectionable to begin with.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
boro,

[ QUOTE ]
Factories belching smoke and dumping waste into streams is extraordinarily bad for business.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think this is the part of your argument with which I have some issues.


If, for example, a consumer is presented with 2 products A and B, with identical function, but since the manufacturer of A pollutes more heavily in its production, A costs 25% less, how do you feel most consumers are going to react?

[/ QUOTE ]

A) It seems you're neglecting the impact of people being harmed by pollution suing the polluters. You can't this re-internalizes the costs that the polluter is trying to externalize, and tends to negate any competitive advantage he may have gained.

B) It doesn't matter how most consumers react. All that matters is that some consumers investigate and choose products made by companies that pollute less. Why? Because a small fraction of the market is necessarily a larger fraction of a firm's share of the market. If your company has 40% of the market and could have another 10%, except those consumers are turned away by your smelly smoestacks and sludge pouring into the bay, that a 25% swing to you. Marginal groups can exert powerful selection pressure in the market.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the average consumer will conduct the research necessary, and will choose the lower polluting B?

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't matter in the slightest. Consider this. How many consumers research differing brands of, say, televisions before purchasing one? The majority, probably 90%, go to the store, look around and pick one with no research whatsoever. Why then do TVs keep improving? Because the 10% that do the research drives the market.

[ QUOTE ]
In general, I feel most consumers (and I will certainly include myself in this group) have some level of detachment from the ethics of the companies that make the products they buy. For example, I have some ethical problems with severe mistreatment of animals, but admit that I do absolutely no research into the food products I buy, and may very well be supporting one of these companies.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be a waste of time for you to do the research. The OCD consumers among us serve that function admirably.

[ QUOTE ]
It's for this reason that I have my doubts that polluting is bad for business.

(also, we've been down this road before, but to each consumer, the gain from A (money) is solely their benefit, but the cost (pollution) is spread over the entire population... im sure you know the logic of the rest of the argument, so I wont include it)

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem of course, is that even if you deny the fact that a few uber-consumers who do their research can drive the market to improvement, you have to explain the empirical fact that most major industrial pollution indices were already on their way down after WWII, but prior to the passage of any major anti-pollution legislation, even though this was a time of incredible industrial boom (I say industrial pollution indices because the smog problem of cities like Los Angeles is different, caused by massive government subsidization of the highway system; I believe smog continued to increase through the 1970s).

[ QUOTE ]
Im assuming at some level of pollution, consumers will begin to conduct the research needed, Im just not sure that that level of pollution is adequately low, since many forms of pollution arent *that* noticeable at dangerous levels (take ozone depletion for example)

[/ QUOTE ]

They had better be noticeable by somebody, or else how can you call them "dangerous"? Science is popular. The environment is popular. People like both. All you need is a significant fraction of consumers, as little as 10%, and you have selection pressure that will drive the market towards ever cleaner technology.

Not to mention the fact that there are incentives among class action attorneys to identify pollution problems, because they are (by definition) violations of property rights and actionable. Even if the damage to each individual is small, if enough individuals are involved, the damages can be large, which is a powerful incentive to run a clean business, and a fraction of those damages are a significant carrot for class action attorneys to identify such cases.

This last mechanism has been completely perverted in our current court system (see for example the asbestos hysteria, silicone breast implants, IUDs, toxic mold, etc), by the way, because such lawsuits are nothing more than shakedowns. This wouldn't happen in a free market court system because a) such cases would almost certainly be decided by scientific expert arbitrators rather than juries full of housewives and beauticians, and b) the system would almost assuredly be "loser pays."

[ QUOTE ]

Also, if you are going to reply with the argument that, since pollution was on its way down, the market will keep pollution low, then Im curious as to your thoughts on the current max-level pollution laws (ie. limits on emissions of certain chemicals)

[/ QUOTE ]

These laws are bloody terrible. They create some arbitrary level of pollution (violation of property rights, i.e. damages that are suffered by people) that is "Ok." This is terrible, because it essentially creates a right to pollute. They create a "market" in pollution, where dirty companies can simply buy up the right to pollute from companies that don't pollute. In a free market, any degree of pollution and any degree of harm that is detectable is actionable; hence there is always selection pressure to drive toward "zero emission" technologies.

[ QUOTE ]
Specifucally do you agree that one of the following must be true:

a) The market equilibrium is lower than the laws set as a max, and therefore the laws do nothing

or

b) the equilibrium is higher, and therefore you advocate that we should accept a higher level of emissions than laws allow now

[/ QUOTE ]

The "market equilibrium" is zero emissions, in theory. In practice, I suppose the market equilibrium can't be said to be any lower than the threshhold of detectibility.

An argument can also be made that if the transaction costs of the class action suit are of order the potential damages, no one would bother. This isn't much of an argument, however, since the transaction costs of a class action suit are very small, but I suppose it could raise the "equilibrium" out of the noise.

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: perhaps a better realworld example is the use of sweatshops by companies like Nike and Walmart. The use of near slave labour should be 'bad for business,' (I have my doubts that people are any more against pollution of their air than they are of sweatshops in other countries) but there seems to be a huge difference between buying shoes and supporting sweat shops in the minds of the consumer.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a terrible example, since "sweat shops" and "near slave labor" are good for everyone, there is no analog to the victims of pollution.

The alternative to "near slave labor" in "sweatshops" is short, brutal lives as subsistence farmers, beggars, thieves, or prostitutes.

But yes, union anti-third world labor competition propaganda has a significant effect in the market, raises average consumer prices, as well as the number of third world children who end up dead, working at backbreaking labor on a subsistence farm waiting for a drought to wipe out their families, or sold into sexual slavery.

Yay unions.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, the affected people could still take their case to a reputable court and get a decision rendered. If the company doesn't want to show up because they think they'll lose, then the court can render the judgement and give it to the security/enforcement company.

[/ QUOTE ]

From where does the judge draw his authority?

[/ QUOTE ]

His reputation for providing fair judgements.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would the people working at the sweatshop be better off with no job at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point.

I was indicating that people seem to be willing to purchase products even if they dislike the ethics of the companies

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that a company could do every dispicable thing they can and if there wasn't a government, people wouldn't care? Why do you think companies have PR dept/firms?

[/ QUOTE ]


This isnt even close to what I said... FWIW, I think the AC ideas are, in many cases, very very good, and it may even be the best overall idea. I just think there are a few places that they need to conceed, and this is one of them (state run pollution limits), and the fact that you are twisting my words so much makes me believe it more.

Anyway, no, a company cannot do any despicable thing they want. But, without pollution limits, if a company pollutes and doesnt compensate the residents of the area, I see them outperforming non polluting companies to the point that pollution builts to problematic levels.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that "pollution limits" are essentially the government sayingyou have the right to pollute (i.e. harm innocent people and their property) up to some arbitrary level set by bureaucrats. That's a terrible idea, and it would never happen in the market.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
B) It doesn't matter how most consumers react. All that matters is that some consumers investigate and choose products made by companies that pollute less. Why? Because a small fraction of the market is necessarily a larger fraction of a firm's share of the market. If your company has 40% of the market and could have another 10%, except those consumers are turned away by your smelly smoestacks and sludge pouring into the bay, that a 25% swing to you. Marginal groups can exert powerful selection pressure in the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

...

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't matter in the slightest. Consider this. How many consumers research differing brands of, say, televisions before purchasing one? The majority, probably 90%, go to the store, look around and pick one with no research whatsoever. Why then do TVs keep improving? Because the 10% that do the research drives the market.

[/ QUOTE ]


If we assume that 90% of the market does no research, then that means they have no idea that of two competing products, one pollutes a lot more than the other. Therefore, it seems likely that a very very large % of the population will purchase the cheaper, polluting product.

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the fact that there are incentives among class action attorneys to identify pollution problems, because they are (by definition) violations of property rights and actionable. Even if the damage to each individual is small, if enough individuals are involved, the damages can be large, which is a powerful incentive to run a clean business, and a fraction of those damages are a significant carrot for class action attorneys to identify such cases.

[/ QUOTE ]


This one is, imo, the big one. Im quite certain that market demand cannot, by itself, keep pollution below an acceptable level (lets just not argue, and assume there is an acceptable leve).

But, its a lot easier to say "we'll just charge them" than to actually do it


- How are we seeing how much one company pollutes... do people go in and check, and, if so, who/what gives them that right

- How do we decide what something like general smog type air pollution is worth

- How/Who decides how much something like ozone depletion is worth? (spread over many generations)



[ QUOTE ]
The "market equilibrium" is zero emissions, in theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Long term, perhaps (it assumes that we will always be able to find a 0 emission alternative to a demanded good, which I would bet is at least debatable... though I will admit ignorance on that subject). But not short term. Even if there was a way to get these class action suits going, there are still going to be products demanded that require some pollution.



[ QUOTE ]
This is a terrible example, since "sweat shops" and "near slave labor" are good for everyone, there is no analog to the victims of pollution.

The alternative to "near slave labor" in "sweatshops" is short, brutal lives as subsistence farmers, beggars, thieves, or prostitutes.

But yes, union anti-third world labor competition propaganda has a significant effect in the market, raises average consumer prices, as well as the number of third world children who end up dead, working at backbreaking labor on a subsistence farm waiting for a drought to wipe out their families, or sold into sexual slavery.

Yay unions.

[/ QUOTE ]


Since multiple people have commented on it, my point about sweat shops wasnt about them being bad, but more just illustrating that people are willing to purchase things despite having huge problems with what they are supporting (Im assuming that the average people would have more problem with purchasing sweatshop clothes than than a product from a company that pollutes their air, though I do have no way to back it)

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd appreciate it. The best counter argument seems to be that the states may have got it right here, but usually get it wrong (I think this was at the heart of borodog's answer).

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much. I've been thinking about it over the last couple days and it's just too complicated to cover in full, because it involves so many different aspects of AC and of government.

One thing to consider is that AC gives people what they want. Government gives people what they say they want - and usually it limits their choice. Most of the time it's just, "choose a politician" rather than even "yea or nay on this proposition." But even if it were the latter, the same thing would apply. Special interest groups and extremists are a major driving force, and wars are waged over indifferent moderates who just need to feel slightly more "yea" than "nay" for action to be taken. And that just scratches the surface of the convolution of course.

Also nobody knows what the program is costing them - typically people think about issues in terms of "would it be nice to have such-and-such?" rather than "would the benefits of such-and-such outweigh the costs?"

And since people have low time preference, especially where future generations are concerned, and also since the effects are distributed in a strange way, people aren't willing to pay much to reduce global emissions or enact similar legislation. People are much more likely to go buy SUVs, or get a new house built, or something along those lines, because there's a concrete immediate benefit.

Also it takes time for change to happen in AC. I think when government tries to "force" a very fast change, there are upheavals and stresses that typically make it a bad idea. But if closing the "time gap" means saving all humanity, or some such thing, then that changes.

But the government is also responsible for destruction - global emissions could destroy all life on earth. So could nuclear war. Which is more likely to happen? Yes, a lot of it really is just the particular confluence that has made the interests of government coincide (momentarily) with the interests of the natural environment.

Also, what's at the core of the issue is that we know governments are helping to solve certain problems. What we don't know is how AC would do relative to the governments. We really don't know - it's possible that things might be worse under AC. But then, it's also possible things might be better. I think some things would be worse, the hole in the ozone perhaps - but I think overall the problems (environmental and otherwise) caused by government outweigh the problems that happen under AC.

The only real danger with AC is the global thermonuclear war type of situation. As an AC society realizes something is a problem, it is very efficient at "solving" that problem. So the danger is if the problem reaches critical mass before the people have even recognized it as a problem. The ozone hole might be described as one of those, or it might not. But "critical mass" in these terms just isn't that big a deal. Once again I think things like nuclear weapons are much more likely to cause a "point of no return." And inefficiency certainly doesn't help.

BUT, I'll grant it's theoretically possible that such a situation could occur in which AC would doom the human race, while government would preserve it. In reality I don't like looking at things in such a way - "AC" and "government" as alternate strategies - but it's useful to the examples. Anyhow, of course for any two strategies some strategies will yield better results than other strategies. But only when certain assumptions are made about the "field" to which these strategies are being applied. So my belief is basically that AC is the best solution we have currently available to the range of possible "fields" or problems we may have to deal with based on what we currently know.

Basically, AA is a better hand than 72o, even though the flop could come 777. Sorry about the poker analogy, but it works here.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
B) It doesn't matter how most consumers react. All that matters is that some consumers investigate and choose products made by companies that pollute less. Why? Because a small fraction of the market is necessarily a larger fraction of a firm's share of the market. If your company has 40% of the market and could have another 10%, except those consumers are turned away by your smelly smoestacks and sludge pouring into the bay, that a 25% swing to you. Marginal groups can exert powerful selection pressure in the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

...

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't matter in the slightest. Consider this. How many consumers research differing brands of, say, televisions before purchasing one? The majority, probably 90%, go to the store, look around and pick one with no research whatsoever. Why then do TVs keep improving? Because the 10% that do the research drives the market.

[/ QUOTE ]


If we assume that 90% of the market does no research, then that means they have no idea that of two competing products, one pollutes a lot more than the other. Therefore, it seems likely that a very very large % of the population will purchase the cheaper, polluting product.


[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point. They probably will. But a) you snipped the part where I explained that litigation drives companies not to pollute, and b) it doesn't matter. TVs still get better over time, don't they? Technologies will get cleaner over time because there is a significant fraction of the market that demands cleaner technologies. Now, if there were any significant fraction of the market demanding dirtier technologies, then you might have a problem. But that never happens.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the fact that there are incentives among class action attorneys to identify pollution problems, because they are (by definition) violations of property rights and actionable. Even if the damage to each individual is small, if enough individuals are involved, the damages can be large, which is a powerful incentive to run a clean business, and a fraction of those damages are a significant carrot for class action attorneys to identify such cases.

[/ QUOTE ]


This one is, imo, the big one. Im quite certain that market demand cannot, by itself, keep pollution below an acceptable level (lets just not argue, and assume there is an acceptable leve).

[/ QUOTE ]

We won't agree, because I don't believe there should be an acceptable level. It's a matter of principle. But we'll leave it lay.

[ QUOTE ]
But, its a lot easier to say "we'll just charge them" than to actually do it

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand your point.

[ QUOTE ]
- How are we seeing how much one company pollutes... do people go in and check, and, if so, who/what gives them that right

[/ QUOTE ]

What are they polluting? The problem with pollution is that it goes somewhere else, right? Onto someone else's property. That person will certainly give you permission to check to see if they property is being damaged.

[ QUOTE ]
- How do we decide what something like general smog type air pollution is worth

[/ QUOTE ]

How do we decide what anything is worth? You damage my property. I sue you. First, we have the chance to just negotiate compensation, a settlement. This is like a post-facto market price, if you wish. If we can't come to terms, we go to an arbitrator and abide by their decision.

[ QUOTE ]
- How/Who decides how much something like ozone depletion is worth? (spread over many generations)

[/ QUOTE ]

The market does.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The "market equilibrium" is zero emissions, in theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Long term, perhaps (it assumes that we will always be able to find a 0 emission alternative to a demanded good, which I would bet is at least debatable... though I will admit ignorance on that subject). But not short term. Even if there was a way to get these class action suits going, there are still going to be products demanded that require some pollution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you keep snipping the parts where I explain my position? The point of the market is that it tends to zero emissions over time, just like all technologies tend to higher efficiency over time. Pollution is waste, wastes have costs. Costs reduce profits. The only thing that prevents the mechanism from working as well as it could is that government externalizes pollution costs by sanctifying pollution and preventing tort action against it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a terrible example, since "sweat shops" and "near slave labor" are good for everyone, there is no analog to the victims of pollution.

The alternative to "near slave labor" in "sweatshops" is short, brutal lives as subsistence farmers, beggars, thieves, or prostitutes.

But yes, union anti-third world labor competition propaganda has a significant effect in the market, raises average consumer prices, as well as the number of third world children who end up dead, working at backbreaking labor on a subsistence farm waiting for a drought to wipe out their families, or sold into sexual slavery.

Yay unions.

[/ QUOTE ]


Since multiple people have commented on it, my point about sweat shops wasnt about them being bad, but more just illustrating that people are willing to purchase things despite having huge problems with what they are supporting (Im assuming that the average people would have more problem with purchasing sweatshop clothes than than a product from a company that pollutes their air, though I do have no way to back it)

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people certainly are. But you missed the point, I think. "Sweat shop labor" is not analogous. A significant fraction of the public demands cleaner technologies. Nobody is demanding dirtier technologies. Companies spend a lot of money on PR and charity for a reason, to earn the good will of the consumer base, even if it's only a fraction that care. Think of cleaner technologies like PR and charity. There is simply an incentive to be friendlier to the community that your competition is.

One thing that people don't understand is that the market, like evolution, works with even very small edges, incentives. Either one of these incentives alone (tort action or competition for consumer good will) would be sufficient to drive technology to ever lower levels of pollution. Luckily we have both. And the more people care about the environment, the more powerful both incentives become. As people's standards of living continue to rise, they have more attention to spare for things that would in previous centuries have been completely irrelevent to their lives, like pollution. A poor man cares less about the smokestacks next door than does a rich man.