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

[The Overlord]

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.

If you are making money off of the exploiting children there is something wrong with that.

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.

Maybe if they payed the adults more, then they may be able to make enough money to make their lives better, even on an exchange rate if pay them well you would still pay them less then an American worker.

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.

Why not make the factories safe then? Seriously what's preventing them from doing that.

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.

Its subsistent living where you make people dependent on sweat shops instead of trying to give them more options to develop their future into something where they can prosper.That is wrong. It turns these children into serfs.

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.

Why not set up a Nike factory in America instead and pay people there, instead of having children work in unsafe factories?

If Nike wasn't involved with corrupt governments I'm sure no one would blame for anything that went on in these countries. But getting involved these governments makes them part of the problem. How often do these children work long hours in a unsafe conditions? I think that's wrong to do a child and saying the other forms of exportation are worse is a very poor excuse.

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.

Would you want your kid to work in this type factory? I think I would rather have some credit card debt then living in some corrupt society where children have to chose between different types of exploitation.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

If you are making money off of the exploiting children there is something wrong with that.

You're not exploiting children. You're exploiting the laws that allow you to employ children.

Maybe if they payed the adults more, then they may be able to make enough money to make their lives better, even on an exchange rate if pay them well you would still pay them less then an American worker.

Paying them more doesn't the solve the issues of how they would get the resources to build and run a school, assuming their government even lets them.

Why not make the factories safe then? Seriously what's preventing them from doing that.

Just for reference, how the factories unsafe? I am not against making conditions in the factories better. I am against your belief that children working in these factories is wrong.

Its subsistent living where you make people dependent on sweat shops instead of trying to give them more options to develop their future into something where they can prosper.That is wrong. It turns these children into serfs.

It's the government's responsibility to provide them more options, not Nike's. The children are NOT serfs. They do not have to work at these sweat shops. They CHOOSE to because they are poor and it is their best option.

Why not set up a Nike factory in America instead and pay people there, instead of having children work in unsafe factories?

Because of the wonderful corrupt unions that continue to plague America.

Would you want your kid to work in this type factory? I think I would rather have some credit card debt then living in some corrupt society where children have to chose between different types of exploitation.

With the current spending of our country, I honestly would rather my child work in a sweat shop than have to deal with trillions of dollars in debt. But that's a separate discussion.

 

[The Overlord]

You're not exploiting children. You're exploiting the laws that allow you to employ children.

Oh, you are just exploiting the rules of a corrupt society who doesn't care about tis own people.

Paying them more doesn't the solve the issues of how they would get the resources to build and run a school, assuming their government even lets them.

It gives them at least a chance better life, its something, some of these poor countries may not even be dictatorships, they could just be poor countries.

Just for reference, how the factories unsafe? I am not against making conditions in the factories better. I am against your belief that children working in these factories is wrong.

Look at the stats, how often is child labor safe in general:

http://www.freethechildren.com/getinvolved/geteducated/childlabour.htm#0012

What makes Nike factories safer then others in the third world?

Sweat shops have a bad reputation.

Also if Nike did nothing wrong why did say this in 2001: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...its-to-mistakes-over-child-labour-631975.html

It's the government's responsibility to prove them more options, not Nike's. The children are NOT serfs. They do not have to work at these sweat shops. They CHOOSE to because they know it is their best option.

The choice between exploitation and death is no real choice, especially for a child. Its serfdom.

Because of the wonderful corrupt unions that continue to plague America.

I would rather work in America then China.

With the current spending of our country, I honestly would rather my child work in a sweat shop than have to deal with trillions of dollars in debt. But that's a separate discussion.

You are honestly saying a kid in America who goes to school and can become a lawyer, is worse off then some kid who works 15 hours an day, in unsafe conditions and may not even be to read at the end of the day? I think you have an education, you have important life skills and if you have life skills you have better life and better impact on the world.

Also lots of third world countries have lots debt, because they turn of corrupt dictatorships that spend all the money on the military.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Oh, you are just exploiting the rules of a corrupt society who doesn't care about tis own people.

The problem is the corrupt governments.

It gives them at least a chance better life, its something, some of these poor countries may not even be dictatorships, they could just be poor countries.

That's all well and good but you continue to ignore my point: How do you plan on making it happen? You can't just wish it to come true. You have to have a plan on how it will get done. Paying adults more doesn't solve any of that.

Look at the stats, how often is child labor safe in general:

http://www.freethechildren.com/getinvolved/geteducated/childlabour.htm#0012

What makes Nike factories safer then others in the third world?

Sweat shops have a bad reputation.

Maybe it's just that I'm falling asleep, but I don't see anything specifically mentioning the safety of sweat shops.

Spoiler

Also, just a sidebar and not something to detract from our discussion or be a Grammar Nazi, but it's "than" when you're comparing things, not "then." Just a pet peeve of mine.

Also if Nike did nothing wrong why did say this in 2001: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...its-to-mistakes-over-child-labour-631975.html

Anything more relevant?

The choice between exploitation and death is no real choice, especially for a child. Its serfdom.

It is NOT serfdom. Your usage of the word proves you do not understand it. Serfdom means there is no choice and little pay. Neither case is true. Children have the option to work in factories, work in farms, prostitution, or starve. Going to school and simply being a kid isn't an option. As for the pay, it is little by our standards. However, their salaries are still higher than the average income in those countries. Whether or not you think it's a real choice is subjective. The bottom line is they DO have a choice and those that work there are choosing the best option for them.

I would rather work in America then China.

Then let's do something on the corrupt unions.

You are honestly saying a kid in America who goes to school and can become a lawyer, is worse off then some kid who works 15 hours an day, in unsafe conditions and may not even be to read at the end of the day? I think you have an education, you have important life skills and if you have life skills you have better life and better impact on the world.

If things get as bad as they can potentially get with all this careless spending with the failed stimulus packages and health care bill, yes.

Also lots of third world countries have lots debt, because they turn of corrupt dictatorships that spend all the money on the military.

Nothing like ours could potentially be in the future.

 

[Marx]

DRILLING MORITORIUM BLOCKED BY JUDGE
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/22/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?hpt=T2

 

[Kelly]

Yep, good news indeed....of course the Obama administration have already started the appeal.

 

[Morg]

DRILLING MORITORIUM BLOCKED BY JUDGE
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/22/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?hpt=T2

I wonder if the judge seen this

Makes me sad

 

[Kelly]

Oh dear lord, all of this post dissecting is giving me a headache....

 

[StorminNorman]

I wonder if the judge seen this

Makes me sad

I hope you realize how incredibly horrible of an argument that is.

 

[Marx]

I wonder if the judge seen this

Makes me sad

Holy ****!

 

[chaseter]

I wonder if the judge seen this

Makes me sad

Do you really think that in 6 months, the government is going to find ways to make deep water oil drilling safer

This was caused by corner cutting, not because it was drilled way out at sea.

 

[Paradoxium]

Federal Gov't Halts Sand Berm Dredging

The federal government is shutting down the dredging that was being done to create protective sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico.

The berms are meant to protect the Louisiana coastline from oil. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department has concerns about where the dredging is being done.

Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser, who was one of the most vocal advocates of the dredging plan, has sent a letter to President Barack Obama, pleading for the work to continue.

Nungesser said the government has asked crews to move the dredging site two more miles farther off the coastline.

"Once again, our government resource agencies, which are intended to protect us, are now leaving us vulnerable to the destruction of our coastline and marshes by the impending oil," Nungesser wrote to Obama. "Furthermore, with the threat of hurricanes or tropical storms, we are being put at an increased risk for devastation to our area from the intrusion of oil.

 

[Marx]

They're shutting it down!?!

 

[Marx]

BREAKING NEWS!

CONTAINMENT CAP REMOVED FROM WELL AFTER ACCIDENT
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/23/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?hpt=T2

 

[Hobodeluxe]

It's raining oil in Louisiana

 

[Raiden]

BREAKING NEWS!

CONTAINMENT CAP REMOVED FROM WELL AFTER ACCIDENT
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/23/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?hpt=T2

Geez, is there a way for the government or other company to take over this operation? BP is so friggin' incompetent.

 

[Paradoxium]

The good news is, Obama and BP are in bed together. They plan to use cap and trade (BP big supporter btw) to re-cope the costs by killing energy prices in the delicate economic situation for negligible environmental payoffs.

 

[Marx]

It's raining oil in Louisiana

I shudder to think what's going to happen if there's a hurricane in the Gulf.

Geez, is there a way for the government or other company to take over this operation? BP is so friggin' incompetent.

...the government doesn't have the equipment or the knowledge to take it over.

 

[Heretic]

This is not incompetence. When a foreign oil company is given the right to tell our police officers to arrest people videotaping the lack of clean up (and our police obey like good servants) and when the national guard is forcing ships to return to to port instead of cleaning up as happened with Louisiana...then it is INTENTIONAL.

Again...armed guards are protecting the oil spill from being cleaned up. Police are protecting the public relations spin by arresting those documenting the lack of cleaning...it is an intentional destruction of our coast.

Why?

BP has been pushing for years for a carbon tax...and Obama says the only way we can save the world is the carbon tax...so in the end, the powerful get what they wanted before the spill even happened.

 

[Paradoxium]

 

[StorminNorman]

Geez, is there a way for the government or other company to take over this operation? BP is so friggin' incompetent.

LOL the government? Yea, that's a sure fire way to fix incompetency lol.

 

[Hobodeluxe]

This is not incompetence. When a foreign oil company is given the right to tell our police officers to arrest people videotaping the lack of clean up (and our police obey like good servants) and when the national guard is forcing ships to return to to port instead of cleaning up as happened with Louisiana...then it is INTENTIONAL.

Again...armed guards are protecting the oil spill from being cleaned up. Police are protecting the public relations spin by arresting those documenting the lack of cleaning...it is an intentional destruction of our coast.

Why?

BP has been pushing for years for a carbon tax...and Obama says the only way we can save the world is the carbon tax...so in the end, the powerful get what they wanted before the spill even happened.

a couple of points.

1. this stuff is toxic. amateurs w/o proper training and gear could get sick or accidentally start a fire. I know these are well intentioned people. but you can't let them into hazardous areas.

2. Most of the world pays a higher fuel tax. They use it to do several things. as an incentive to cut down on waste. fund research into alternatives. pay for infrastructure and environmental programs.
We've gotten by on cheap gas for so long and drove tanks to the grocery store for so long we feel we're entitled to have out cake and eat it too.
Sorry but eventually things do catch up to the point that you have to do something.

 

[Heretic]

a couple of points.

1. this stuff is toxic. amateurs w/o proper training and gear could get sick or accidentally start a fire. I know these are well intentioned people. but you can't let them into hazardous areas.

2. Most of the world pays a higher fuel tax. They use it to do several things. as an incentive to cut down on waste. fund research into alternatives. pay for infrastructure and environmental programs.
We've gotten by on cheap gas for so long and drove tanks to the grocery store for so long we feel we're entitled to have out cake and eat it too.
Sorry but eventually things do catch up to the point that you have to do something.

Funny you mentioned safety...since BP has demanded that NO ONE involved in clean-up can wear masks to keep the deadly gases out of their lungs. They say they will fire those who do. So, your point is not based in reality. Furthermore, Louisiana sent trained experts out to clean up the oil...and were met with armed resistance from the national guard who sent them back to port. Further more, BP should not have the authority to declare parts of the coast off-limits to people with cameras.

A carbon tax will cripple the country. There is little reason to pay a massive tax on our carbon dioxide emissions as it will not in any way effect the clean up effort. It is merely a scheme to rape the American people and set limits on what we are able to do. Of course, carbon dioxide (which we breathe) kills plants (except that plants need carbon dioxide to survive). Dont ask questions...just pay the tax.

 

[Marx]

This is not incompetence. When a foreign oil company is given the right to tell our police officers to arrest people videotaping the lack of clean up (and our police obey like good servants) and when the national guard is forcing ships to return to to port instead of cleaning up as happened with Louisiana...then it is INTENTIONAL.

Again...armed guards are protecting the oil spill from being cleaned up. Police are protecting the public relations spin by arresting those documenting the lack of cleaning...it is an intentional destruction of our coast.

Why?

BP has been pushing for years for a carbon tax...and Obama says the only way we can save the world is the carbon tax...so in the end, the powerful get what they wanted before the spill even happened.

Funny you mentioned safety...since BP has demanded that NO ONE involved in clean-up can wear masks to keep the deadly gases out of their lungs. They say they will fire those who do. So, your point is not based in reality. Furthermore, Louisiana sent trained experts out to clean up the oil...and were met with armed resistance from the national guard who sent them back to port. Further more, BP should not have the authority to declare parts of the coast off-limits to people with cameras.

A carbon tax will cripple the country. There is little reason to pay a massive tax on our carbon dioxide emissions as it will not in any way effect the clean up effort. It is merely a scheme to rape the American people and set limits on what we are able to do. Of course, carbon dioxide (which we breathe) kills plants (except that plants need carbon dioxide to survive). Dont ask questions...just pay the tax.

Do you have any legitimate links to back up these accusations?

 

[Paradoxium]

http://mises.org/daily/4488

In 1995, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Deepwater Royalty Relief Act (DWRRA), which was "intended to encourage natural-gas and oil development in the Gulf of Mexico in waters at least 200 meters (656 feet) deep by offering royalty relief on qualifying natural gas and oil lease sales." This act has since expired, but there remain continued incentives for drilling in deep water.

For example, a report from the DOE written in 2005 states that after the conditions of the DWRRA expired in 2000

the MMS adopted a program which determines royalty relief on a lease-specific basis. Under the revised method, leases located in the same water depth may have different volumes exempt from royalty charges if the economic conditions vary. For example, if one natural gas field is more expensive to access, then it may potentially receive more royalty relief than a field in the same water depth with lower costs to access.Download PDF​

In other words, the government specifically passed laws that gave the oil companies incentives to drill far offshore — that is, in deeper water where risk is presumably higher. In addition to the higher risk of accidents, the cost of solving any problems are necessarily greater in five thousand feet of water than in, say, 250 feet of water.

How much of an incentive was there to drill in deeper water? The same DOE report contains the following table.

It seems that it would have been downright foolish for a company to spend much effort drilling in shallow, more easily accessible regions nearer to the coastline, when by law there was a five-fold incentive for them to go out into deeper waters. Who could blame a company for trying to achieve a minimum relief volume, which would guarantee billions of dollars in royalty-free sales of petroleum and natural gas?

To see how this affected the amount of oil taken from deep waters, let's examine a second table from the same DOE report.

As is seen from this table, the production of crude oil in deep waters increased dramatically after the passage of the DWRRA in 1995. As of 2003, there was more than a 250 percent increase in the percentage of total oil produced in the deep-water regions of the gulf, with about 70 percent of all drilling taking place there.

It seems the DWRRA law was passed with precisely the intention of encouraging deep-water drilling, and it accomplished this goal. Unfortunately, accomplishing this goal led necessarily to higher risk and unintended consequences.

Stepping back from all this and taking a look from a free-market perspective, it is clear that the incentives put in place by the state — undoubtedly at the behest of lobbyists for oil companies — led to drilling in deep water, leading to increased risk. The incentives encouraged drilling in water that had been previously deemed economically unattractive by those same companies.

Additionally, a liability cap of $75 million for the oil companies was put in place by law. This is an incredible use of the control of the political means to make favorable dealings for oneself in the economy.[1] In fact, it is the very definition of corporatism: First, individuals within a company work to get laws passed to reward companies for taking risks previously deemed unworthy of the time, energy, and capital expenditures. Then, those same individuals within the company work to get other laws passed to limit liability when things go wrong.

This oil spill is something that we in engineering and science refer to as a three-sigma event, in that it is a very low-percentage occurrence. In other words, Congress and big oil companies colluded to reward risky behavior and lost their bet. Comically, we now see Congress — who encouraged the risks — cry "foul!" They are demanding that the previously set damage cap be raised, retroactively, to another arbitrary figure deemed more appropriate for BP's sins: at present, $20 billion, although this may change in the near future.

Government incentivized the market players into taking a bigger than necessary risk. There was no incentive to drill this deep in the first place.