user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
smile bank:
|
similiar ballots:
5255. Why do Southerners support slavery, economic collapse, environmental pollution, a moron for president, chruch over state, and inbreeding?
45439. Monsanto to profit from GM pollution? Is this DISGUSTING or what?
114739. West's pollution 'led to African droughts'
116657. china's pollution harming the west coast of usa
122281. Which Country Produces the Most Waste, Pollution and Enviromental Hazards?
62280. Support Our Troops and Freedom Isn't Free: I agree, so how can I show my support?
94484. No Longer The Minority: 82% Plus Support Charlie Sheen, who do you support?
14423. Toby Keith is a loser, Bush is retarded, Texas sucks, France and Canada are cool, Stop air pollution, End affirmative action!
36199. will it take the women of the world to eradicate the world of war, poverty, pollution, hatred, etc?
48823. Now that the US military has more support behind it
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : I'm bewildered
It's hard for the big industry tycoons to feel the hazards of pollution; and they never will as long as they spend their days confortably sitting on their arses in their luxurious offices or playing golf in some exquisite golf course with the politicians they have on their payroll.
Voted : lack of property rights
As long as property rights are ill-defined and/or weak, companies will be able to get away with foisting their pollution on us.
Voted : I'm bewildered
thc: Bull.
This has nothing to do with 'property rights,' it has to do withg 'externalizing costs' -- that is, foisting the costs of business (i.e., dealing with pollution) onto Society rather than take responsibility themselves.
I don't think anyone supports pollution, that's a misnomer used to attack anyone who questions the kyoto treaty and other such programs on a scientific basis.
But the fact is living as anything other than a naked animal in the jungle is going to produce pollution, we all want the results, but not the side effects. So pollution has to exist if we're to have a ciivlization, you can dicker on the levels that are acceptable, and you can work to limit them, but there has to be a midpoint between polluting as much as you want, and living as an animal with no sort of development whatsoever. That midpoint is what the debate hinges on.
Thc
In reality, property rights will never reach 100% coverage, and thus there will always be externalities. Action is also required at the source of the problem if social welfare is to be maximised.
Voted : I'm bewildered
Clueless lifeforms at work. And all of them are in power, unfortuntely.
DoctorDraw definitely has an excellent grasp on the true realities of these situations. You'd do well to heed him, thc.
Short-sighted rightwing prostitutes do support pollution. They see it as the inevitable by-product of their getting rich (or richer). Their utter lack of concern for anyone but themselves, and members of what they perceive to be their tribe, makes them indifferent to the destruction of the environment.
Actually, I would suggest that they make a direct connection between the two: their getting rich and pollution, so do, in fact, support pollution. Also, they see dealing with pollution as a hinderance to their wealth accumulation, so are against efforts to stop it.
^To be fair, what Herzog said is true. To some degree pollution is an inevitable by product of devlopment, and, as presumably not many of us want to live without electricity, telephones and the occasional hot bath/shower, the trick is finding the balance. A sustainable level of development.
Where I begin to agree with you is that Republicans place too much emphasis on development, and not enough on the environment, which is short sighted.
Its called the tragedy of the commons, and it does arise from incomplete property rights, yes. In reality though, 100% property rights are unlikely to be a realistic proposition for the next few hundred years, if ever, so until then pollution must be curbed at the source.
I always reference air pollution to those who don't "believe in" global warming. Air pollution is having significant, measurable effects on health in many parts of the U.S. and abroad. There are days when public officials recommend (children and the elderly) don't even go outside.
I can't understand why if something is proven to damage peoples health, everything possible should not be done to remedy that, I was watching a story about a town in China that children are not even allowed to play outside because the pollution is so bad, a school I once attended near a busy highway and I could taste the air and it wasn't nice. If We have the technology but it's only the bottom line of a corporation that stands in the way, is that okay?
Voted : ^how do you put property rights on the air?
With intelligent planning, we can have the good of civilization while minimizing the harm.
Does anyone believe that the west has the right to denounce China's pollution rate?
If we would denounce our own at same time I guess it's okay, probably for our govenment and industries to denounce China's pollution rate, would be hypocrital. We the people have the right to denounce anything we want , don't we?
guest
One cannot externalize costs onto another whose property rights are protected and well-defined. They would have legal recourse against would be aggressors.
Doc
That's what I'm calling for. If the government monopoly on the legal system recognized my right to breathe pollution free air, I and many of the other children who grew up in the 80s in the Bronx would probably not have asthma.
|
|
