If you haven't noticed, I like to use the internet, for both reading and writing. And I am amazed every day by the sheer amount of information passed through this novel portal. Today I was amazed yet again, and by two very divergent yet strangely related sites. The first was Monsters & Critics who posted a story about Cheryl Crow, a person I know very little about, on a website I know nothing about. And the second was a satire posted by my friend trav.is.
What got me about the first story was the asinine response by all the people who went to the page containing an article that reports Ms. Crow's proclamation that women should be a part of protecting the environment by reducing their use of toilet paper to the minimum of one square per visit. This makes an incredible amount of sense, is very responsible thinking and can actually have a HUGE impact on both our water systems and our paper uses. It implies that this is for going "number 1" but the page did not specify. Nearly all of the responses on the page where churlish and rude, condemning Ms. Crow for voicing her opinion. I say to the people who wasted their time, energy, and money responding so sophomoric: get your heads out of the toilets and respect a small bit of honesty. She is right. This is one of the infinite, incremental steps you can do every day, every time you go to the bathroom to make a difference. It adds up.
We are so blessed in our first world nations (those of us who do, and of whom I am guessing represent 100% of my audience now) to have plenty, to have comfort, and to have extra. And we use more than we need because most of us do not know any better. This is one very palpable lesson in using less. Good for you Ms. Crow.
And now for the second article; a satire my Mr. Trav.is on the dangers of .... water. It took me some reading and common sense, and enough desire to even care what he wrote, to decode the blather of the site mentioned in his post, and it was funny, but I hate to say it, trav.is, I didn't really enjoy the joke.
Many people have incredibly intelligent and sound ideas about free market and open capitalism, and the effect of self regulation, but I am guessing, none of those people have ever suffered through or had someone close die from exposure to a toxic chemical leaked by an unconcerned corporation. It is simple fact that we do not understand the effects of what we do and create until years later, and I believe we should be responsible for our own actions. Just because we work for a company or corporation or government does not insulate us from the effects we cause, weather inadvertently or with full knowledge. Unfortunately not everyone acts with this level of responsibility, and in the glare of the gross, net, and margin, forget everything they every learned about what is right.
Because of these facts, it is vital and necessary to regulate people.
4 comments:
About Crow: She is right. This is one of the infinite, incremental steps you can do every day, every time you go to the bathroom to make a difference. It adds up.
Yes. It does add up. But Crow isn't talking about encouraging people to voluntarily use less paper. She's advocating a ban. A ban requires a law. A law requires enforcement. Where a ban begins, personal choice diminishes. And how, exactly does one enforce a toilet paper ban? TP rations?
Plus, as the eco-warrior Crow warrior hits the road to deliver her TP message and her music, her touring entourage travels in three tractor trailers, four buses, and six cars.
About the satire, you say: Unfortunately not everyone acts with this level of responsibility, and in the glare of the gross, net, and margin, forget everything they every learned about what is right.
That's right. And we already have laws for ***holes like that. Criminal liability and reckless endangerment are two that come to mind.
The joke wasn't meant to marginalize those harmed by negligent companies. The joke is satirizing those that use scare tactics and fearmongering to advance an agenda. It's also meant to satirize those that glom on to a cause not because of the cause's merits, but because they are joiners and the cause is popular. Even so-called intelligent people, like the Supreme Court, which recently somehow declared CO2 a pollutant, can be unthinking joiners. Want proof that many environmentalists are just joiners and worthy of a little satire? Watch this video.
Are you really surprised that calling water by an esoteric (and non-scientifically standard name) and talking only about it's problems will cause people to fear it? Old story, old hoax.
Also, I'm not sure what's wrong with the recent decision in MA vs. EPA. EPA has a pretty clear statutory mandate to regulate airborne pollutants, and how is CO2 not a pollutant?
Is it because its naturally produced by us? (like methanol, a known carcinogen regulated by the EPA)
Is it because it is needed for life? (like arsenic or selenium, toxic at high doses yet necessary at small doses?)
As we learn more and more about our world, we are finding that you can have too much of *anything* (like your hydrogen oxide). Furthermore, as we enter the Anthropocene, it is becoming clear that we, humanity, will be the prime determinants of what type of a world we will live in. This knowledge gives us the responsibility to try to act in an intentional manner as we live our lives.
This *cannot* be accomplished at the individual level, as the effects of our individual actions will not be felt by us as individuals. (Global warming will affect our kids way more than it affects us.)
Nor can it be accomplished solely at the societal level, as the effects of, for example, Canadian society's energy use will be felt disproportionately by the poor nations of the south.
Instead, we must start to realize that the only way to solve these large system problems are by engaging everyone who lives on this rock and come up with solutions together. Nation-level efforts such as regulation and incentives are a good first step, but we can't stop there.
If this conjures visions of black helicopters and the new world order, well, that's tough. Like it or not, humanity, and the rest of life on which we depend, has ONE place in the universe that we can live, and its a thin little shell of gas on a rock in the middle of a cold, dark universe, and if we fuck it up, that's it. No replay.
Tarek said:
Are you really surprised that calling water by an esoteric ... and talking only about it's problems will cause people to fear it?
Not at all. As I said, activists and politicians love to use fear to motivate others. When people are scared, it's easier to get them to do what you want. I'm saying I don't favor the tactic. The satire shows those who use fear are just as susceptible to it as those they are gaming.
This *cannot* be accomplished at the individual level, as the effects of our individual actions will not be felt by us as individuals.
Maybe. Maybe not. But I think the best possible chance lies with individuals. No country has ever regulated itself into prosperity. Not ever.
The most heavily regulated societies are always the worst polluters. Late last century, the USSR was the world's worst polluter. In 2009, China will be the world's worst. In 25 years, it'll pollute more than the US, Japan, the entire EU, Australia, and New Zealand - combined. It's no coincidence USSR and the PRC are the most heavily socialistic and regulated countries past and present. BTW, the USSR barely lasted 75 years before crumbling under the weight of it's own government. The largest polluter in the US is the Federal Government. Why? Because it isn't accountable to anyone.
If this conjures visions of black helicopters and the new world order, well, that's tough.
Be very careful what you wish for. A government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have. Any agency powerful enough to control your "CO2 allotment" can control whether or not you can smoke marijuana, drink alcohol, have an abortion, study evolution, or anything else they decide is politically expedient.
The most heavily regulated societies are always the worst polluters. Late last century, the USSR was the world's worst polluter. In 2009, China will be the world's worst.
Not to be pedantic, but the USSR ceased to exist 16 years ago. The largest of the formerly Soviet republics, Russia, is indeed one of the world's worst polluters, but calling it one of the "most heavily regulated societies is simply not true". Indeed, Russia in its current incarnation is the very model of a free-market kleptocracy, with "lenient standards and lax enforcement of existing regulations". (That's according to the Energy Information Agency)
As for China, on a per-capita basis, they pollute far less than Americans; 3.2 tons of C02 per person compared to the US's 19.8. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita)
However, clearly our standard of living is far greater in the US than in China, so a better number to look at is the ratio of GDP to CO2 emissions.
This number represents how much GDP you can get for a given amount of pollution, and the US (#39 on the list) does way better than China (#90). What's really interesting, though, is the top 10 of the list. Notice anything about these countries? With the exception of Hong Kong, these countries are all European, and have some of the most stringent environmental regulations in existence.
Now, drawing the boundary at the national level is somewhat arbitrary and gives a distorted picture, as the CO2 emitted from a product is tallied in the country of its production, not its consumption. (This also explains Hong Kong's position.)
Any agency powerful enough to control your "CO2 allotment" can control whether or not you can smoke marijuana, drink alcohol, have an abortion, study evolution, or anything else they decide is politically expedient.
I'm not sure what your argument is here. Global warming, and the CO2 emissions that drive it, are a classic tragedy of the commons, which represent a classic market failure. One of government's basic roles is to prevent market failures (antitrust laws to prevent monopolies, for instance.) I can understand that this may seem like a slippery slope towards the regulation of personal behaviors, but it's a matter of balance. Currently the US government does all of those nefarious things you point to, but doesn't regulate CO2 emissions. I'd like to see that reversed. (Although I do remain in favor of drunk driving restrictions, just not to the zero-tolerance extent they are being pursued now.)
On a side note, I'm enjoying this conversation - it's a shame we didn't have a chance to grab a beer when I was in Portland 3 weeks ago; we should do so the next time I come to town.
Also, thanks for letting me bloviate on your blog, E.
Post a Comment