Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues

[The Overlord]

I think it's naive to think that the government can effectively regulate a complex industry.

Considering BP's poor attempts to clean up the spill, isn't naive to say that they knew enough about they industry they were in to handle this problem correctly? Exxon has a way better safety record for God sakes.

Plus argument that market naturally punishes bad companies rings false, it only works if everyone in the world is completely logical and ignores the fact a lot of the world's population are foolish and easily led.

Look at Nike, instead of hiring people in America to make their shoes, they do business with third world dictatorships, use child labor and often put the children at risk with unsafe conditions. So at most a pair of these shoes costs 3 dollars to make and yet people buy them for a hundred dollars.

From any sort of moral or logical standpoint, that company should not be successful, because many people are easily led. So lots of bad companies are not naturally punished for their behavior.

The regulations that WERE IN PLACE, were not being enforced, more regulations is not the answer, less regulations is not the answer....those are all JUST WORDS.

Just like immigration, ENFORCE THE DAMN LAWS THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS, stop taking the paycheck, and not doing the job. The fact that BP was allowed to have ON RECORD, IN WRITING their plan in case there was an oil spill of this nature, and the government let that pass.........THE GOVERNMENT Bush AND Obama's administration ****ed that up....more regulation isn't going to help that, because again, those are just words....IF THEY ARE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE THE REGULATIONS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS, WHY IN THE HELL WOULD ANYONE THINK THEY ARE GOING TO ENFORCE MORE? That's just stupid.

So would the regulation on the books have worked if they were enforced?

I'm not even calling for regulation persay, but I don't see why this problem would have been avoided with less regulation. The question I'm asking is, would less regulation prevent spills like these and how would that happen?

And, as I watch Rahm Emanuel on "this week" its all POLITICS TO HIM....he sits there and says that the Republicans don't care about the Fishermen they care about BP because they are not happy with the 20 billion escrow account. DO THEY NOT LISTEN...? The Republicans are mad because they want a 3rd party to handle that escrow account, NOT the Obama administration.....I don't blame them, I don't trust the Obama admin to handle that 20 billion either, because they sure as hell aren't handling the other stimulus money and their other spending well..... *sighs*

This whole thing is so ****ed up its not even funny....

Well some people assume the GOP cares more about BP then the fishermen because you have some GOP officials bending over backwards to appease BP. When GOP officials apologize to BP it looks bad for them.

Plus this whole third option sounds very vague, who would be this third party, what would make them more trust worthy then anyone else? How would you get everyone to agree on who this third party should be? How much time would be wasted searching for and a debating about the best third party for the job? Sounds like something that's good in theory, but not in practice.

 

[Kelly]

Would the regulations have worked that are on the books had they been enforced?

Well, that is something we will never know.....BUT, one thing I do know....after reading a synopsis of BP's plan in case of an oil spill. MY STUDENTS could have told you that that WAS NOT A PLAN, that should have been ok'd by ANYONE. The MMS totally ****ed up oversight of ANY KIND....

So, who knows if they would have worked.....they were never enforced.


And I understand political assumptions....asses are being made daily in Washington....

 

[The Overlord]

Would the regulations have worked that are on the books had they been enforced?

Well, that is something we will never know.....BUT, one thing I do know....after reading a synopsis of BP's plan in case of an oil spill. MY STUDENTS could have told you that that WAS NOT A PLAN, that should have been ok'd by ANYONE. The MMS totally ****ed up oversight of ANY KIND....

So, who knows if they would have worked.....they were never enforced.


And I understand political assumptions....asses are being made daily in Washington....

But here's another question, is there evidence that BP would have done a better job with this, with fewer regulations? Is there any evidence that without regulation oil companies would be more environmentally responsible? I think more people would support less regulation if companies proved they were more responsible.

I mean what was the difference between good regulation and obstructive big government? Heck I bet some people would have said if the government didn't
allow BP to drill in the Gulf, that would be big government and the government would be denying BP its rights.

I'm beginning to wonder if the term big government isn't just some loaded political term that can be twisted into any shape you want, with no real substance.

 

[StorminNorman]

Considering BP's poor attempts to clean up the spill, isn't naive to say that they knew enough about they industry they were in to handle this problem correctly? Exxon has a way better safety record for God sakes.

Plus argument that market naturally punishes bad companies rings false, it only works if everyone in the world is completely logical and ignores the fact a lot of the world's population are foolish and easily led.

Look at Nike, instead of hiring people in America to make their shoes, they do business with third world dictatorships, use child labor and often put the children at risk with unsafe conditions. So at most a pair of these shoes costs 3 dollars to make and yet people buy them for a hundred dollars.

From any sort of moral or logical standpoint, that company should not be successful, because many people are easily led. So lots of bad companies are not naturally punished for their behavior.

Nike is an extremely well run company, (though I personally have no moral qualms with Child Labor - I buy my NFL jerseys via Jersey-China.com) - however their decision to not make their shoes in America has allowed New Balance to make a nice share in the shoe market utilizing their American-Made branding.

A company that cuts corners in certain areas isn't necessarily bad, depending on the real life consequences of those cut corners. BP cut the wrong corner, though, and their company is going to go under because of it. Because BP is going to go under, no other company is going to risk that chance.

 

[Alastor]

I'm beginning to wonder if the term big government isn't just some loaded political term that can be twisted into any shape you want, with no real substance.

I think youre onto something.

 

[Schlosser85]

A company that cuts corners in certain areas isn't necessarily bad, depending on the real life consequences of those cut corners. BP cut the wrong corner, though, and their company is going to go under because of it. Because BP is going to go under, no other company is going to risk that chance.

I agree with this.

It's a GOOD thing for a company to try to cut whatever costs it can, wherever it can, as long as it's not an area where it makes itself wide open to risks like BP did.

 

[Alastor]

though I personally have no moral qualms with Child Labor

I'm curious. What is your position on child labor?

 

[Kelly]

But here's another question, is there evidence that BP would have done a better job with this, with fewer regulations? Is there any evidence that without regulation oil companies would be more environmentally responsible? I think more people would support less regulation if companies proved they were more responsible.

I mean what was the difference between good regulation and obstructive big government? Heck I bet some people would have said if the government didn't
allow BP to drill in the Gulf, that would be big government and the government would be denying BP its rights.

I'm beginning to wonder if the term big government isn't just some loaded political term that can be twisted into any shape you want, with no real substance.

No more evidence than there is that more regulation works...

 

[The Overlord]

Nike is an extremely well run company, (though I personally have no moral qualms with Child Labor - I buy my NFL jerseys via Jersey-China.com) - however their decision to not make their shoes in America has allowed New Balance to make a nice share in the shoe market utilizing their American-Made branding.

So you have no problem with stealing a child's future, denying them their childhood and condemning to a life poverty and unhappiness, for very selfish reasons? OK, I completely disagree with that on every level.

The fact is from a logical standpoint there is no reason why Nike is successful, its a biggest rip off ever, you are paying a hundred dollars for shoes that cost 3 dollars but a lot of people are easily led so they buy. If people were rational Nike would have gone out of business, but they aren't so Nike is still around.

A company that cuts corners in certain areas isn't necessarily bad, depending on the real life consequences of those cut corners. BP cut the wrong corner, though, and their company is going to go under because of it. Because BP is going to go under, no other company is going to risk that chance.

Good in theory, not in practice. You think after the Exxon spill we never would have saw a spill like this, but here we are.

You would think after Enron, no company would have tried to cook the books to make a quick buck, but that's clearly not the case.

Most people are not rational and companies are run by people, so they are irrational things. Greed makes people irrational, not rational. It makes people think only in small term and ignore the long term. That is nature of greed, so no real lesson will be learned here.

Besides none of this actually prevents the damage this spill caused, doesn't it?

No more evidence than there is that more regulation works...

I didn't say more regulation would work, I didn't say that. What I'm asking is barring the fact it wasn't enforced properly is there a problem with the existing regulation? Why should it be repealed instead of enforced better? How was the regulation itself the problem? Can you tell me how BP or any oil company would have a better environmental track record with less environmental regulation?

 

[Spidey-Bat]

So you have no problem with stealing a child's future, denying them their childhood and condemning to a life poverty and unhappiness, for very selfish reasons? OK, I completely disagree with that on every level.

You're making it sound as if Nike is kidnapping children and forcing them into slave labor. Those children are denied their childhood and condemned to poverty because of the state of the country they live in, not Nike.

 

[Schlosser85]

You're making it sound as if Nike is kidnapping children and forcing them into slave labor. Those children are denied their childhood and condemned to poverty because of the state of the country they live in, not Nike.

QFT

If they weren't working for Nike, they would be doing something else where if anything they would be making even less money.

 

[The Overlord]

Those children are denied their childhood and condemned to poverty because of the state of the country they live in, not Nike.

Yeah and Nike is taking advantage of this fact, to exploit these children for cheap labor. Nike is just as guilty as the corrupt governments, they are building factories on land sold them by illegitimate governments and taking advantage of the fact that the government treats these people like serfs. Lets not forget that the government often profits more from these factories then the people who work in this factories.

There is nothing stopping Nike from hiring adults at an okay wage, still making a pretty big profit and doing a little something to make that country a bit better, but they don't do that because they have all the morals of a snake.

Its like saying its okay to buy stolen goods for a cheap price, because you are not the one who stole them, its still wrong.

QFT

If they weren't working for Nike, they would be doing something else where if anything they would be making even less money.

Or Nike can hire adults, the adults can make a little money, the adults can afford to go to school and the children can have a future.

Nike exploiting an existing evil makes them part of that evil. They have not have created that evil, but taking advantage of that evil makes them partly responsible for it.

Where do we draw the line in terms of moral responsibility? Because this logic can lead anyone to exploit any person living in a third world dictatorship, with that person having to take no responsibility for their actions. That's a very dark path.

 

[StorminNorman]

You're making it sound as if Nike is kidnapping children and forcing them into slave labor. Those children are denied their childhood and condemned to poverty because of the state of the country they live in, not Nike.

The biggest winners in Child Labor laws? Pimps and the perverts that use their services.

 

[StorminNorman]

So you have no problem with stealing a child's future, denying them their childhood and condemning to a life poverty and unhappiness, for very selfish reasons? OK, I completely disagree with that on every level.

The fact is from a logical standpoint there is no reason why Nike is successful, its a biggest rip off ever, you are paying a hundred dollars for shoes that cost 3 dollars but a lot of people are easily led so they buy. If people were rational Nike would have gone out of business, but they aren't so Nike is still around.

I would rather have a child working making shoes than resorting to prostitution. You do realize that child life expectancy RISES in third world countries when children are able to work? The Industrial Revolution in England, which is frequently bashed by anti-Capitalists for it's Child Labor, saw a gigantic boom in life expectancy. Children, that would typically die due to the typical costs of poverty, were able to survive due to their work.

Good in theory, not in practice. You think after the Exxon spill we never would have saw a spill like this, but here we are.

You would think after Enron, no company would have tried to cook the books to make a quick buck, but that's clearly not the case.

Most people are not rational and companies are run by people, so they are irrational things. Greed makes people irrational, not rational. It makes people think only in small term and ignore the long term. That is nature of greed, so no real lesson will be learned here.

Besides none of this actually prevents the damage this spill caused, doesn't it?

Exxon and this spill are incomparable - outside of the fact theirs oil involved.

Regulations didn't prevent the damage the spill caused either. I never said it would prevent bad things from ever happening.

 

[The Overlord]

I would rather have a child working making shoes than resorting to prostitution. You do realize that child life expectancy RISES in third world countries when children are able to work? The Industrial Revolution in England, which is frequently bashed by anti-Capitalists for it's Child Labor, saw a gigantic boom in life expectancy. Children, that would typically die due to the typical costs of poverty, were able to survive due to their work.

How many children in the Industrial revolution who worked in these factories became sucessful adults and how many recieved injuries? Frankly using moral logic from 200 years ago to justify a current evil actions is very silly, 200 ago slavery was considered ok

Would you want your kids to work in a factory like that, instead of sending them school?

No I would rather have Nike hire adults in these contries, just because child labor was considered okay in the past doesn't mean it was morally correct and the ends justify the means argument is very poor moral logic. According to that logic Stalin is a good guy because his government made Russia a modern industrial society. Where does the ends justify the means logic

You do have any proof that the kids who work in those factories get skills that improve their life as adults, compared to getting an education.

The lesser of two evils argument only works if you only have two bad options, if you have a good option and you are still engaging in an evil option, you are a bad person It seems to me Nike is engaging in psychopath logic if they are using that as a justfication. Nike doesn't have just two bad options, they can pay adults in those countries to do the work, they can set up a plant in the US and hire workers here.

Exxon and this spill are incomparable - outside of the fact theirs oil involved.

Regulations didn't prevent the damage the spill caused either. I never said it would prevent bad things from ever happening.

How are they incomparable, they both caused by gross negligence.

And you have not answered my main question, how would less regulation result companies doing less environmental damage?

 

[Kelly]

I didn't say more regulation would work, I didn't say that. What I'm asking is barring the fact it wasn't enforced properly is there a problem with the existing regulation? Why should it be repealed instead of enforced better? How was the regulation itself the problem? Can you tell me how BP or any oil company would have a better environmental track record with less environmental regulation?

And now you are changing the question, do you realize you o that a lot. It's like if you don't get the answer you want, you change the question, and you keep changing it until you get the answer you want.

I didn't say that more regulation "would not" work.... I said, there is no way of knowing either way as far as BP concerned there was not enforcement of the laws on the books, therefore we don't know if those regulations would have worked enforced correctly, because they weren't enforced.

But, go ahead, change the question again, my answer will be the same.

And just for the record, since its apparent you didn't read my posts. I NEVER said that there should be less regulations, nor did I say that less regulations would be better. I simply said, before we add more regulations, we might want to try enforcing those that are already on the books.

Change the question again?

 

[The Overlord]

And now you are changing the question, do you realize you o that a lot. It's like if you don't get the answer you want, you change the question, and you keep changing it until you get the answer you want.

I didn't say that more regulation "would not" work.... I said, there is no way of knowing either way as far as BP concerned there was not enforcement of the laws on the books, therefore we don't know if those regulations would have worked enforced correctly, because they weren't enforced.

But, go ahead, change the question again, my answer will be the same.

And just for the record, since its apparent you didn't read my posts. I NEVER said that there should be less regulations, nor did I say that less regulations would be better. I simply said, before we add more regulations, we might want to try enforcing those that are already on the books.

Change the question again?

Except you asummed that I was calling for more regulation when I never said that, so I think you were misreading my posts.

So when you assume that I called for more regulation, even though I never said that which is why I asked these questions to get a clearer picture what you are saying.

 

[The Overlord]

The biggest winners in Child Labor laws? Pimps and the perverts that use their services.

Or maybe companies can hire adults and children can go to school, clearly suggesting that makes one a commie.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Yeah and Nike is taking advantage of this fact, to exploit these children for cheap labor. Nike is just as guilty as the corrupt governments, they are building factories on land sold them by illegitimate governments and taking advantage of the fact that the government treats these people like serfs. Lets not forget that the government often profits more from these factories then the people who work in this factories.

There is nothing stopping Nike from hiring adults at an okay wage, still making a pretty big profit and doing a little something to make that country a bit better, but they don't do that because they have all the morals of a snake.

Nike is making the country a bit better. If the sweatshops weren't there, the children would be on the streets starving to death or working jobs that don't pay as well and/or are more dangerous. To think that Nike is preventing them from living the lives of children in developed countries is naïve.

 

[The Overlord]

Nike is making the country a bit better. If the sweatshops weren't there, the children would be on the streets starving to death or working jobs that don't pay as well and/or are more dangerous. To think that Nike is preventing them from living the lives of children in developed countries is naïve.

And I think being naive about Nike's impact and intentions there.

And why isn't Nike hiring adults instead, with the exchange rate alone you still pay them less then a worker in the west. Maybe the adults they hire can get enough money to make a better school and give their kids better options then they have, that's why better for this society then sending the kids to unsafe factories.

Just because Nike isn't exploiting these kids as bad as someone else is, doesn't mean it isn't exploiting the kids. The lesser of two evils is still an evil and the lesser of two evils excuse only works if those are you two options if you have another more moral option and don't take it for selfish reasons, then you are a bad person. All of this seems like nothing more then a justification to engage in immoral behavior.

Nike didn't create the societies that exploit children, but they take advantage of it and that contributes, it enables it, it ultimately doesn't make it better. It doesn't create any prospects for people in this country, how many kids who come out these factories unharmed have any sort of real skills that would allow to prosper as adults? What would their level of education be after they get to old and replaced by other kids?

It is completely cynical, it turns these children as objects to thrown away, it doesn't do anything to give options to have a brighter future saying its better then starving or working as a sex worker isn't very comforting. I suppose getting a hand chopped off is better then getting a leg chopped off, but wouldn't want either to happen.

 

[Marx]

Except you asummed that I was calling for more regulation when I never said that, so I think you were misreading my posts.

So when you assume that I called for more regulation, even though I never said that which is why I asked these questions to get a clearer picture what you are saying.

Can I ask another question to clarify your position? Are you essentially arguing that existing regulation should have way sharper teeth and be enforced in a far stricter manner? If these regulations are enforced, wouldn't have more effect on the companies then regulations that aren't enforced, so you are arguing it would be a good idea to do that? Enforcing this regulation means it exists in practice, not just on a piece paper, so in practice it is more regulation.

I'm not quite sure what more you need Kel to clarify Overlord. She has stated her position numerous times. 'Before more regulation is added, we should enforce the regulations that are already on the books'.

 

[StorminNorman]

How many children in the Industrial revolution who worked in these factories became sucessful adults and how many recieved injuries? Frankly using moral logic from 200 years ago to justify a current evil actions is very silly, 200 ago slavery was considered ok

Would you want your kids to work in a factory like that, instead of sending them school?

The fact that you think the options for those children are "work in a factory" or "go to school" indicates an incredible degree of naivety on your part. The fact that you seem to think that a life featuring an injury received on the job is a worse situation than death is bizarre on a completely different way.

No I would rather have Nike hire adults in these contries, just because child labor was considered okay in the past doesn't mean it was morally correct and the ends justify the means argument is very poor moral logic. According to that logic Stalin is a good guy because his government made Russia a modern industrial society. Where does the ends justify the means logic

I think the means justify the means. Giving children the chance to live is something I always support. The fact that you don't seem to grasp that isn't my problem.

The lesser of two evils argument only works if you only have two bad options, if you have a good option and you are still engaging in an evil option, you are a bad person It seems to me Nike is engaging in psychopath logic if they are using that as a justfication. Nike doesn't have just two bad options, they can pay adults in those countries to do the work, they can set up a plant in the US and hire workers here.

Nike doesn't go out of their way to employ child labor. Typically the parents of those children have their own jobs.

How are they incomparable, they both caused by gross negligence.

And you have not answered my main question, how would less regulation result companies doing less environmental damage?

With no less regulation, companies would be free to drill closer (and thus in a safer environment), if nothing else.

 

[Kelly]

Except you asummed that I was calling for more regulation when I never said that, so I think you were misreading my posts.

So when you assume that I called for more regulation, even though I never said that which is why I asked these questions to get a clearer picture what you are saying.

Can I ask another question to clarify your position? Are you essentially arguing that existing regulation should have way sharper teeth and be enforced in a far stricter manner? If these regulations are enforced, wouldn't have more effect on the companies then regulations that aren't enforced, so you are arguing it would be a good idea to do that? Enforcing this regulation means it exists in practice, not just on a piece paper, so in practice it is more regulation.

WTF? lmao....I haven't EVEN tried to restate, or assume anything that you have said. I simply answered your question.

I'm done with you.....say hello to your new debate partner.

Maybe he'll give you the answer you want...

 

[The Overlord]

The fact that you think the options for those children are "work in a factory" or "go to school" indicates an incredible degree of naivety on your part. The fact that you seem to think that a life featuring an injury received on the job is a worse situation than death is bizarre on a completely different way.

Oh come on, so you are saying that Nike can do nothing to make the factories safer or the hours shorter for these kids, because they are kids.

I think the means justify the means. Giving children the chance to live is something I always support. The fact that you don't seem to grasp that isn't my problem.

So working in a factory that could be unsafe and working long hours for children is living? What kind options does that provide them as adults?

Nike doesn't go out of their way to employ child labor. Typically the parents of those children have their own jobs.

Do the children work in safe conditions, how long are the hours? Just because parents exploit their children doesn't mean it is right.

How many life options for the future does this work provide for the kid, what do the kids do when they grew up and leave the factory? What if a kid is injured and can't work anymore, what happens to him?

With no less regulation, companies would be free to drill closer (and thus in a safer environment), if nothing else.

So BP wouldn't have drilled there if that was the case? Considering the amount of oil there, I find that doubtful.

WTF? lmao....I haven't EVEN tried to restate, or assume anything that you have said. I simply answered your question.

I'm done with you.....say hello to your new debate partner.



Maybe he'll give you the answer you want...

Fine I thought you implied I said there should be more regulation.

If I was mistaken on that, I'm sorry I misinterpreted your post.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

And I think being naive about Nike's impact and intentions there.

Nike's motives are to make money. There is nothing wrong with a company looking to make money. People need to abandon this idea that those who make money are evil. It's not Nike's duty to reform a country's government or society.

And why isn't Nike hiring adults instead, with the exchange rate alone you still pay them less then a worker in the west. Maybe the adults they hire can get enough money to make a better school and give their kids better options then they have, that's why better for this society then sending the kids to unsafe factories.

The adults already have jobs. They do not have the resources to build a school to send children to. Who would pay for the materials to build the school? Who would pay for the necessary goods to run the school? Who would teach? Who would pay the teachers? Depending upon the country, the government would probably put a kibosh on it.

The factories may be unsafe, but so is starving on the streets, working in even worse conditions on farms (prone to insects, heat stroke, dehydration, and hyperthermia), or prostitution.

Just because Nike isn't exploiting these kids as bad as someone else is, doesn't mean it isn't exploiting the kids. The lesser of two evils is still an evil and the lesser of two evils excuse only works if those are you two options if you have another more moral option and don't take it for selfish reasons, then you are a bad person. All of this seems like nothing more then a justification to engage in immoral behavior.

Please, you can say anyone is exploiting someone else. Is Nike a saint? No, but stigmatizing what they're doing is wrong. The real solution is improving EVERYTHING ELSE in the country.

Nike didn't create the societies that exploit children, but they take advantage of it and that contributes, it enables it, it ultimately doesn't make it better. It doesn't create any prospects for people in this country, how many kids who come out these factories unharmed have any sort of real skills that would allow to prosper as adults? What would their level of education be after they get to old and replaced by other kids?

Nike is making the country better for them by providing them those jobs. If they weren't there, they would be working jobs that are more dangerous and pay less. If they're not working, then they're starving. Nike as a company can only do so much. Attempting to change the government would be over-stepping their bounds.

It is completely cynical, it turns these children as objects to thrown away, it doesn't do anything to give options to have a brighter future saying its better then starving or working as a sex worker isn't very comforting. I suppose getting a hand chopped off is better then getting a leg chopped off, but wouldn't want either to happen.

You think that Nike is forcing these children into slavery and preventing them from getting an education. The harsh reality is that it is not an option for them. It's either starving or working more dangerous jobs for less. It may not be giving them a better life right, but it will improve the life of their children and succeeding generations. Compare that to developed countries who are only passing on more and more debt to future generations.