Aside from Climate Change or Global Warming, When was Pollution Good for Us?

[louis c]

Put aside the argument for fighting global warming or climate change. Put aside Al Gore's book or movie. Put aside the controversy on the E-Mails. Put aside the international agreements. Here's what I want to know.

Isn't cutting pollution a good idea anyway? I remember 40 years ago the smog in Los Angeles. Johnny Carson used to do jokes about it. I remember visiting Pittsburgh with my dad and actually scraping soot off our car. When has cleaning up the environment been some sort of hoax? Aren't the Republicans embarrassed by excusing air and water pollution?

Isn't our economy far better off with renewable sources of energy? Solar, hydro, wind, bio-fuels and other alternative sources? I don't get it.

Put aside all the politics for a moment. Isn't the argument of being less dependent on foreign oil and less tolerant of polluters an argument we already won? And isn't this the way to frame the debate?

[silverweb]

1. Stop making sense!

:D

Seriously, the only thing wrong with your argument is that it doesn't take into account the polluters' goals, which are always the same: fast, easy, maximal profits without consequences.

[timeforpeace]

13. No one anywhere denies it's a desirable goal. It's how to do it that generates conflicts.

[dysfunctional press]

2. whoever said that it was good for us...?

as a society, we have decided that we can put up with a certain amount of pollution, in order to make our lives more comfortable over all.

[taterguy]

3. When it's an inevitable byproduct of stuff we enjoy

I like my Xbox. A lot.

I know that my electricity comes from a coal powered plant. I just choose not to think about that too much when I'm engrossed in a video game.

If the weather is decent, all car usage is bad, bad, bad.

If it's raining and I don't feel like showing up at work soaking wet, it's fine.

Or if I feel like going somewhere more than 5 miles from my house.

Or I don't feel like putting 50 pounds of groceries in a duffel bag and biking to the store.

[louis c]

5. No one is talking about "zero" tolerance

What I'm saying is exploring alternative sources of energy and spending money on that work. The Hoover Dam comes to mind.

Rather than just drilling for more oil or conquering countries that provide it, there are numerous ways to provide electricity and to power automobiles in a cleaner and more efficient way.

the other side is pursuing a more fossil fuel based economy. We, on the other hand want alternative sources and the good jobs that go with it.

That's the way I'd frame this debate.

[taterguy]

7. My question is: Is convenience an acceptable cop-out?

I don't "need" a car or an Xbox.

I got along just just fine for most of my life without either of those things.

Now they're available to me and I choose to use them.

Is that acceptable?

Is it any different from a corporation choosing the easiest way to pad their bottom line?

[louis c]

10. We need a car to commute to work

We need electricity and fuel to heat our homes and preserve our food.

No one is arguing that point. The most efficient and environmentally sound way to do that is with alternative sources of energy. We can use something other than oil, gas and coal to reduce our fossil fuel dependence to an acceptable level.


Why do you keep making this about returning to the stone age? That's usually the other side's argument.

[taterguy]

15. An Xbox doesn't heat a home

And no one can deny that cars are used for more often than necessary.

My point is that individuals constantly make choices that pollute.

Why should we expect large entities to be any different?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. Yes, but nowdays everything has to be "outrageous" and cause hysteria

"Global Warming will rape your kids and melts santas snowshop... AHHHHhhh!!!1!1"
"Life as yu know it will be fucked in 50 years... OH NOES!!"

People don't get worked up about cleaning up the environment. America's air is decently clen today and we have good water supplies. There's not too much right now that motivates anyone to push environmentalism further. If people aren't hysterical like frightened sheep about the next disaster/conspiracy/outrage/crisis then it's hard to get them to do what you want. People would laugh Obama out of the whitehouse if he said we should have something carbon credits and pollution cap and trade solely in the name of "lets clean up the environment". But claim you're attacking pollution because the human race is in jeopardy due to a not-yet-percieved threat and you make a little more headway.

"Never let a good crisis go to waste"...

[ashling]

6. Didn't you know:

Pollution is caused by Trees per St. Ronnie

[bbinacan]

8. And oddly enough, Nixon

created the EPA. Go figure.

[KT2000]

9. Good in so many ways:

Every case of cancer increases the GDP - increase in goods and services.
Corporations are not restricted if they are allowed to pollute, therefore generating greater profits.
Sickness from pollution raises the insurance costs and they are then able to weed out the losers who look like they will cost money.
Brain damage in children, caused by pollution, increases the need for special education teachers. This increases employment for the teacher types - not so much the brain damaged though.
Polluted air in the home and community increases spending on things like air cleaners

There are lots more reasons why pollution is good - but it would take a true Libertarian to list them all.

[The Straight Story]

11. Here is my issue with it all

Corporations have gotten away with polluting assloads over the years, but it seems those in power (politicians/corporations) are telling us we need to change our life, go green, drive less, etc - all the while they don't.

Change should start at the top, but they get around such change by buying 'offsets', saying that them burning fossil fuels (with limos, their jets, etc) at a high rate is only for our own good...ie, don't do as we do, do as we say.

If a preacher did the same (think Ted Haggard, PTL Club, etc and so on) we would be all up in arms about the hypocrisy. People we 'like' do it, we applaud their leadership.

You and me become the 'problem' to them that needs fixed - all the while we were only consuming what they were producing.

How does that work???

[AllentownJake]

12. No we did not win this argument

We decided not to pollute our water and streams, than we exported the polluting to China.

Larry Summers idea.

[whosinpower]

14. that is true

If it is not staring us in the face, clogging our noses, or discolouring our water, we think all is well.

But, there are close to 7 billion of us on this marble. There is no magic shield that will save some nations while others perish. It affects us all.

Exploring and exploiting renewable energy sources is the right thing to do. Cutting down on our own carbon footprint is the right thing to do.