Tue 22 Apr 2008
Going Green without Government Mandates, the Real Solution
Posted by DC Republican under Across the US , Activism , Conservatism , SpendingSince today is Earth Day, I figured that I would take this opportunity to make a post that is political in nature, but also addresses a bigger challenge that the United States is facing.
Obviously there is enormous support behind the movement that is striving to eradicate global warming and I give them a lot of credit. They have done a great job mobilizing and I have no doubt that their reach is now into the millions.
I’m not going to try and argue against global warming. I’m not a scientist nor will I try to pretend that I am.
But what I will continually argue against is the use of government mandates to try and address global warming and the other ecological problems we’re facing.
Even those mandates that have been praised by many on the Left (like those relating to Ethanol), have only later been proven to be more harmful to the environment than the products they were aiming to replace.
Furthermore, CNN.com is even reporting that this energy-by-corn-ogasm has also created problems for world food prices:
Those battling global warming by promoting biofuels may unintentionally be adding to skyrocketing world food prices, creating what one expert calls “a silent tsunami” in developing nations.
The rising prices are “threatening to plunge more than 100 million people on every continent into hunger,” Josette Sheeran, executive director of the United Nations’ World Food Program, said on the agency’s Web site Tuesday.
The article continues:
Producing fuel from plant crops is supposed to be greener than drilling for oil, and biofuels generally burn cleaner, too. But the global biofuels industry now stands accused of a list of side effects that are said to be damaging lives, especially of the world’s poorest people.
The drive for more biofuels means more investment is going into those crops, meaning less land and less investment going in for food crops, causing a massive conflict and resulting in rising prices, which is having a huge negative impact, especially on developing countries,” said Clare Oxborrow, food campaigner for Friends of the Earth.
Is this really a trend that we want to see continue?
As it stands now, the United States has used corn as the save-all-product, when in reality it is something that is just over-subsidized and keeps better, healthier and cheaper products from coming into the United States in higher quantities. Furthermore, it drives up the prices of things like sugar – courtesy of some unfair government regulations.
I think the track record for government mandates on all of these energy and eco-projects have shown to be complete failures that have wasted tons of money and left the environment worse than it was originally.
The answer to me seems simple: government mandates simply don’t work.
I’m sure I’ve just upset a lot of environmentalists out there, but I truly believe that choice could be the best solution for making the environment better – not the government.
Just look at the environmental movement that is sweeping across the country today.
These people aren’t motivated by government mandates, but instead are motivated by knowing that they can do something that will help make the world a better place, and for some there is also the added benefit of knowing that they can save some money.
If there were no mandates in the next 10 years, would the environmentalist progression slow down? I don’t think so.
This movement is growing on its own, so why should the government get in the way of that?
With fuel prices soaring, I’ve even seen many far-right conservatives purchase hybrid vehicles, simply because they are more economical.
Furthermore, I don’t see any reason why any homes built in the future won’t be made to be as energy efficient as possible.
Even those who think that global warming is a complete myth and nothing should be done, will still buy into the efficiency argument, simply because it is more economical.
I think that all of this will lead to a mentality shift amongst the next generation, who will also see the advantages of being Earth conscious, and be able to make these decisions on their own.
CNN.com has a few pages showing how people can “go green,” without having the government telling them how to do it. I urge everyone to check these out and consider some of the options.
Even I, DC Republican, have started to adapt some of these “green ideas” into my world.
I don’t do it because I’m a raging environmentalist, but because I see no harm in making the world a cleaner, greener place, while saving myself some money at the same time.
Link 1
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
It’s good to see that there are some conservative who are getting in on this issue.
The approach might be different, but I think it’s better than not being involved at all.
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:22 pm
It sounds like a sweet deal, but I don’t think that anything big can be accomplished without some sort of regulation.
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:12 pm
I couldn’t agree with DCRepublican more.
Government mandates seem to happen as a knee-jerk reaction to something, ie ethanol subsidies when gas prices started to climb. Unfortunately the government tries to react in a politically correct and expedient way without a complete understanding of the cost/benefit analysis for each mandate.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Some work, some don’t. Government programs in Japan and Germany have made them the world leaders in energy production using photovoltaics.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:47 pm
I don’t necessarily see a problem with there being mandates like there are in German and Japan, as long as they are on the local level.
I know that in both of those countries they strive to have a certain percentage of their energy come from renewable resourcese by a certain year.
If we did that on a local level, I think that we would have great success.
Though, I don’t really see solar taking off in places in WI, MI, IL, MN, etc.
But I agree with DCR, when it comes to the mandates on the federal level, they seem to do more harm than good.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:22 am
To a point, I agree with DCRepublican, however, I think that the government needs to be involved enough to help push the issue. The local or state level may be a better platform for it, as stated by Playground Politique. Ethanol is not the correct answer, with current manufacturing technology. I believe that it takes almost as much energy to produce ethanol as you get out of it. The input energy is most likely patroleum, thus we are back where we started. Why is no one out there thinking about biodiesel? The infrastructure is already there, for the most part. It would require relatively minor tweaks to existing engines, and newer engines should be designed with this in mind. The vegetable oil used as fule can be made from non-ceereal crops, such as peanuts or soy bean. Without being a crop expert, I would imagine soy bean has a much higher yield per acre than corn, thus is a better solution. These are just my thoughts on the matter…We do need a solution, and the populous MUST be involved to make change happen. Good luck to us all.
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:51 am
Our Republican friend makes some valid points regarding subsidies and misguided environmental regulations in todays political arena. But I think he missed the bigger picture on environmental regulation and the positive impacts that they have had. Environmental regs are not new to the political arena nor is the grassroots movement new. They are just getting more press these days. Didn’t we see a similar grassroots movement spring up in reaction to Regan Environmentalism.
As he points out, there are some things that we can do on our own to be “greener.” But is that enough? Is reducing our carbon footprint our only concern? Shouldn’t the government regulate the amount of particulate matter coming out of the tail pipe of a school bus (my kid is breathing the air afterall)?
Businesses are major contributors to the environmental problems that we have today. And most businesses don’t have the same social conscience that we have. For example, air and water regulations, going green isn’t economical for major businesses. It costs money to istall scrubbers or a wastewater treatement system. Lets face it, for some businesses it is cheaper not to be green. Think about it, we see it at the supermarket and in stores, organic food and recycled products tend to be more expensive. Think about the cost of technologies to make a facility environmentally friendly. Who is going to force the businesses to act responsibly? That is where government regulations have helped. Two examples, SO2 and CFCs, better recognized as acid rain and ozone depletion. The government stepped in to regulate these substances. Although, not perfect regulations, we have seen a decrease in acid rain and the ozone hole is shrinking. Other examples: DDT, DDE, Alar, etc. Chemical products that were being used as pesticides on foods that cause cancer. The government banned them.
Not to sound pessamistic, the main reason why we are seeing the people buy hybrids is because of the economical benefits. If gasoline was still $0.98/gallon, we might still be in SUV hungry. The answer, in my opinion, lies in the balance of social awareness of society and government regulations. We can’t rely on the inherent goodness of people and industry to do the right thing, nor can we rely on the government to force the right decisions. Maybe a little bit of both will get us to where we want to be.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:32 am
Regarding Germany and Japan, and use of renewable energy sources like photovoltaics in the US. The issue is not about 100% replacement of current power, but about making every effort to substitute clean power for ‘dirty’ power. If every power customer in this country offset it’s current power usage by use of Solar or Wind by only 5% even, that would be a HUGE HUGE HUGE reduction in carbon emissions. Even if they only use those offsets during the summer when they are more likely to have sun.
I am a Seattle,WA resident and was highly hesitant to use solar for the obvious reasons that we don’t see the sun a whole lot. But the amazing thing is that the technology is better than most people think and while in the winter we don’t generate as much power, we do really well in the summer, and every little bit helps. If everyone in the country did this, just like everyone useing CFL bulbs, we could really make a huge impact on our carbon emissions. The important thing is to remember that we can eat the elephant if we work together and take small bites. If we don’t work together or we don’t bother trying, though, we can’t accomplish anything. Give Solar a try!!
JK
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I would note that mandates, regulation, and programs are important for issues that extend to timescales beyond a generation (25 years).
On average, an insurance company with premiums that cover the 100 year hurricaine will be beat out (or bought out for its cash reserves) by its peers and go out of business before 100 years comes around. Keeping one person/company from reaping the windfall of natural resources in a single generation at the expense of future generations is in their interest but not the future’s interest. It is inherenetly difficult to have business cost in the value to future generations and the broader world without government intervention.
I would argue subsidies and regulation are almost always a bad idea and would much rather see taxation as the primary tool. This allows the free market to reach an optimal solution, often novel and unexpected, rather than government forcing the answer. When it comes to global warming, this is easily done by taxing the coal, oil, gas, and land conversion as they occur and let the free market find cheap technologies in this environment.
Why having a fleet fuel standard, just have more expensive gas and manufactures will make cars with better fuel efficiency? Government wastes less money monitoring and the end solution may be something crazy and new like carpooling, which is a lot better than 15% better fuel mileage (2 people / 1 car is 50% less fuel).
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
I think everyone is missing the point.
The real underlying issue that the world needs to address is the global population. What we’re seeing now is a dying planet, because people are either too naive (US) or ignorant (developing nations) to sacrifice having kids for the global good
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I agree with most of the posts, but I must say that I’m quite pleased to see that there are even rationale Republicans on this issue.
I’d love to see this issue be resolved by people making their own choices on how to do that, but I have a feeling that there are many in DC who want to put their stamp on this, which will inevitably lead to mandates in some form.
But it’s refreshing to see all sides are looking at the bigger picture here and realizing something needs to be done.
It’s just a matter of how do we get there now.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
My suggestion on biofuel is this:
Many countries were hit hard economically when corn replaced sugarcane as a sweetner. It might benefit many if we just went back to sugarcane as a sweetner and used the corn dedicated to corn syrup as biofuel.
A simple thing to do to aid in the reduction of global warming, eat vegetarian for one day a week.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
KLN - I definitely agree! Not to mention that corn-based sweeteners have been shown to be bad for your health.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:16 am
I think that instead of going after businesses right away with regulation, we should offer some tax-breaks for those companies that decide they want to take the first steps in “going green”
I think that some of our biggest companies will see the advantage in this as the economy slows down, and make the moves needed to go green.
Like I said early, we should stay away from the federal mandates by all means necessary.
Big businesses can be bad, I know, but I think we should give them the opportunity to make good on this issue before we even cosider throwing the book at them.
Otherwise, they’ll just move over seas, which will only make things worse here.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Kudos, well said. I don’t buy into the global warming brought on by us but rather to the natural cycle of the earth for millenia now as we are still discovering. The earth has been changing before we were even around and will continue to do so. But I do as much as I can be it recycling, re-using, reducing, and making better efficiency choices (that I can afford) because it’s the right thing to do for all our own benefits. We must learn to minimize our impact but also adapt with these changes.
As for Playgroung Politique’s comments; Big business has had plenty of opportunity to try and make good on these issues but they already show their true side by consistently moving overseas where there are much less restrictive (disgustingly so) laws (or enforced laws) in regards to manufacturing and workers rights standards all in the name of the almighty profit margin.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
DC Republican,
While I’m generally in agreement that government mandates are undesirable, for certain issues (environmental impact being one) addressing externalities would seem to be an appropriate role for government.
Firms can’t be expected to self-police even if individual firms may have the best intentions. If other firms do not incur the cost of environmental responsibility, the responsible firm will be less efficient and will just go out of business. A solution is for government to create a playing field where the cost of environmental responsibility is born by all firms so compliance does not create competitive disadvantage.
Personally, I think the most efficient way to do that is to tax emissions generating fuels. This discourages consumption (and makes alternatives relatively more attractive) while generating tax revenue.
That tax revenue could be used in part for basic research on energy technology or to fund grants for installation of further emissions reducing capital equipment (like scrubbers). But this part is a separate discussion - the tax above should have a mitigating effect on its own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality