|
|
#41
09-18-2007, 09:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ 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. 
|
|
#42
09-18-2007, 11:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
In other words, it's fine for me to make a giant assumption for the sake of argument that "state ownership and private ownership is largely indistinguishable", but for you to concede that a corporation would probably have drilled in ANWR by now is an impossible counterfactual. [/ QUOTE ] Its counterfactual because the businessmen are not lobbying to BUY ANWR, but are lobbying to lease a small portion of it. When they are done drilling the land that is left is still under ownership of the US government. Of course they want to drill on someone else's property, but that doesn't mean that the way they would treat another's land is the same as they would treat their own land. [ QUOTE ] Since that point, and especially since 1950, I submit that the American government has actually managed the environment pretty well. [/ QUOTE ] What's your standard (and background?). Most people don't have a clue about the disturbing nature of government property in many places. Atomic bomb tests are ignored (I mean, does anyone want to live in the desert? not counting phoenix and vegas of course). I have responded here a couple of times to Iron's similar claims about the government not being so bad at cleanup with references to Paducah Kentucky, where the remediation company I used to work for had a project delayed by 6 months while they found a site that was sufficiently CLEAN enough for us to run a pilot test. The site was so damn fouled up that the majority of it was inaccessible for a company that specialized in cleaning industrial waste (the wells drilled there were 2-3x deeper than any other they had drilled before and they went through carbon chambers faster than on any other site). Second on the list of disgusting places was a government owned landfill in colorado, third a military base in WA. This is a common theme in remediation work, government sites are the largest and dirtiest.
|
|
#43
09-18-2007, 11:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ 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."
|
|
#44
09-18-2007, 12:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ 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.
|
|
#45
09-18-2007, 12:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ 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 ] You don't seem to be understanding my point. You basically just said "Yes, of course thats right, but it is completely wrong." If I am willing to pay 5 cents more, what does that mean? It means I have a preference for preservation. I am not going to pay 5 cents more for preservationless cod, so this other company of yours is going to be screwed. The only companies that will thrive are the ones that pander to the consumers, i.e. the ones with the "preservationist" seal on the box. Unless of course you think there is a huge market of consumers who don't care about preservation, and would buy the 95 cent cod instead of the dollar cod. In which case, I'd ask you why you think laws and regulations are a good idea, since most people apparently oppose them.
|
|
#46
09-18-2007, 12:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ 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.
|
|
#47
09-18-2007, 12:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
Who owns the fisheries again? I must have missed that part. [/ QUOTE ] The Cod LDO !!! and since they keep jumping into the net obv they want to get in my belly. case closed.
|
|
#48
09-18-2007, 03:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Who owns the fisheries again? I must have missed that part. [/ QUOTE ] The Cod LDO !!! and since they keep jumping into the net obv they want to get in my belly. case closed. [/ QUOTE ] They should be free to associate with the lemon juice and tartar sauce on my plate, after all.
|
|
#49
09-18-2007, 03:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
Unless of course you think there is a huge market of consumers who don't care about preservation, and would buy the 95 cent cod instead of the dollar cod. [/ QUOTE ] That's a good point, I mean it's not like there's a big market for SUVs or anything. Allowing people to decide via their dollars what objective truths are important seems a little dangerous. Cody
|
|
#50
09-18-2007, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Thank God for state intervention protecting and regulating our lan
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Unless of course you think there is a huge market of consumers who don't care about preservation, and would buy the 95 cent cod instead of the dollar cod. [/ QUOTE ] That's a good point, I mean it's not like there's a big market for SUVs or anything. Allowing people to decide via their dollars what objective truths are important seems a little dangerous. Cody [/ QUOTE ] Objective truths? Having cod in ten years is OBJECTIVELY better than eating a bunch of cheap cod now?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
