<p>
That would be great if the government could create benefits out of thin air. The only reason for the unacceptability of governmental provision of benefits is the fact that the government doesn’t give anything to anyone, per se. It *takes<a href=“the%20unacceptable%20part”>/i</a>, then “gives”.</p>
<p>benefits in the form of tax reduction. Why not? At least it would be a good cause and not a waste of money.</p>
<p>@halogen</p>
<p>By your logic, we should not be taxing anyone. Are you some sort of anarchist/hyperliberterianist or something?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>dude, stop trying to negate people for their opinions. That’s not the idea of this discussion</p>
<p>
Opportunity cost. What the government doesn’t take from one person, it takes from someone else.
Almost (minarchist). The actions the government may legitimately take are parallel to its enforcement of its policies. Fundamentally, the government is just an agency with the authority to injure and/or contain the human body and to seize property. Deriving from this, all it should do is protect people from being injured and/or imprisoned by others, and from having their property stolen by others.</p>
<p>This is why saving our environment is not the government’s responsibility. It is our responsibility.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was unable to parse that sentence.</p>
<p>Eh, well I’m not really interested in broad-spectrum debate on what the function of government is and what its limitations should be.</p>
<p>
I agree that this debate is beyond the scope of “saving our planet”, but my conclusion is that there are philosophical problems with governmental environmental measures. One need not be anti-environmental, nor ecologically apathetic, nor selfish to oppose such policies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That doesn’t really make sense in this situation because it basically says that a guy driving a hummer is p1ssed off because he didn’t get any benefit for being a pig.</p>
<p>
It basically says that the government is not about to cut its spending, so if one person’s takes are lowered, then another person’s taxes must be raised. Not having your taxes raised is not equivalent to receiving a benefit.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if public spending is cut, then I might be in favor of some form of selectivity towards tax cuts. I’m not entirely sure.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why it would be so hard to allocate a portion - even if it’s tiny - of federal spending on benefits for people who are environmentally friendly. It doesn’t have to be tax reduction, because according to you, we’d have to raise taxes on other people.</p>
<p>I thought my point was simple: reward people who are environmentally friendly. The way I see it, there are various approaches to this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yikes. Which socioeconomic classes do you think recycle the most? The least? Do you think it’s easier to recycle if you live in a suburban neighborhood with weekly recycling pickups and a Whole Foods Market nearby, or if you typically buy cheaper foodstuffs (bagged cereal, Ramen, any fast food, other non-recyclable items)? </p>
<p>Your idea is very likely to implicitly tax the working/lower class hard for the recycling done by the middle/upper class. It’s not unheard of (excise tax on cigarettes), but it’s not the type of agenda anyone really likes. You might as well give a tax credit to the wealhty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are many fiscal conservatives that are perfectly fine with redistribution of wealth, BTW. It’s the fact that you have to take so much more than you can give that’s the problem. </p>
<p>The problems between the more libertarian or at least fiscal conservatives and social liberals are starting to come up. That’s why you should let private bodies like the FASB have a bigger say. We shouldn’t be involving inefficient tax dollars before we’ve tried to see if green business is profitable. </p>
<p>Include long-term environmental impact on the balance sheet! Let us see the real costs of running an non eco friendly business. The market can respond if you give it data.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No… it’s the demise of the whole planet. I mean, it’s illegal to blow yourself up in public, right? It’s your choice to blow yourself up and be your own demise but it is NOT your right to take out a bunch of people with you, right? So why should this be any different? Just saying.</p>
<p>Every generation of humanity expresses similar concerns. What was a necessary resource a hundred or a thousand years ago is now a trivial matter, and what was once a trivial matter, or unknown, or thought worthless, is now an important resource.</p>
<p>It used to be that having lots of horses was important. Now it’s not. It used to be that horse poop was a major source of pollution. Now it’s not. It used to be that food had to be consumed quickly or salted or cured in some way, now we have refrigeration and mass transport. It used to be that space was a problem, then we started building multi-story dwellings.</p>
<p>Leaving aside particular concerns, there is simply no way to predict what technologies, institutions, and mechanisms will arise in the future to solve today’s problems. We often make things worse by trying to solve these problems.</p>
<p>As for resources themselves, if they get more scarce then their price will go up, which will result in them being used less, which will result in these resources staying around longer until substitutes can be found by profit-driven investors and inventors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless the price goes up so much that the majority of people cannot afford the resources they require (or think they require). Then people will turn to black markets and more sinister means of acquiring resources. I think we live in a culture that largely takes a lot of things for granted and has a bit of an entitlement complex.</p>
<h2>No… it’s the demise of the whole planet. I mean, it’s illegal to blow yourself up in public, right? It’s your choice to blow yourself up and be your own demise but it is NOT your right to take out a bunch of people with you, right? So why should this be any different? Just saying. ~ Romangypseyes</h2>
<p>So you’re comparing a person who blows themselves up in public (with a dangerous explosive device) to a person who doesn’t recycle?</p>
<p>Really?</p>
<p>That wasn’t the point. The point was that you don’t have the right to do whatever you want if you’re taking out other people with you. One is immediate, one is slow. What is the difference between one that is taking out a few people at once and one that could kill everyone slowly?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Investing in many world-wide exchanges are very effective, so you’re taking them for granted. Investors use financial reports to make decisions. Financial statements, as they currently stand, aren’t giving investors information on the cost of using up resources. In other words, there’s no issue on sustainability. ExxonMobil cannot drill oil forever, and yet the financials don’t show you that the core business operations have a limited life. </p>
<p>If this continues, investors won’t know when to back out and switch to green businesses. R&D to find better energy resources shouldn’t be market driven AFTER non-renewable energy sources run out. They should be starting when investors realize that a long-term interest in oil companies is no longer financially prudent. </p>
<p>This requires green accounting. Investors are only effective when knowledgeable. Our current short-term accounting standards prevent investors from switching to green businesses at the “right” time. You’re delaying green investments, which hurts long-run profits AND the environment. Lose-lose.</p>
<p>(Note that a green movement starts these green investments sooner, because bad PR lowers long run profits. There is a point to environmentalists taking a stance against environmentally irresponsible businesses).</p>
<h2>That wasn’t the point. The point was that you don’t have the right to do whatever you want if you’re taking out other people with you. One is immediate, one is slow. What is the difference between one that is taking out a few people at once and one that could kill everyone slowly? ~ Romangypseyes</h2>
<p>Well, in this case - everything is different.</p>
<p>If I don’t recycle my water bottle, no one will die from it - ever.</p>
<p>It’s attitudes like yours that put people off from the environmental cause. The arguments that you are making will just push people away, so re-evaluate your methods. If you don’t, you will just come off as a nut.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. Environmentalists should not be trying to convince other environmentalists that they’re right. Radical analogies convince no one that wasn’t already convinced.</p>