Why the free market helps the environment

[dree12]

This is what happens when protectionism and government intervention occur: a tax on solar panels.

We already well know the the US puts twice as much money into oil than sustainable energy, spends millions on increasing oil production in the US colony in Mesopotamia (Iraq), and continues to mass-produce weapons for the military, polluting the Mississippi and the Gulf of Mexico. It was no surprise that the government just doesn't care that our planet will become a forsaken garbage-filled steaming wasteland. But this is just ridiculous: taxing solar panels?

The rationale given was that China doesn't have a free market. Well, guess what? Neither does the States. They can't get a free market until they stop this oil-run government from intervening in the market.

[1713920657]

1713920657

[1713920657]

1713920657

[1713920657]

1713920657

[Littleshop]

Chinese solar panels sold below manufacturing cost...

According to the government it is a technique to put US panel makers out of business.  But the free market is a complex beast.  Due to these cheap panels a number of companies have flourished installing panels on American roofs.  This has created jobs and lessened the dependence on fossil fuels. 

So the government views these panels as an economic attack, I view them as a GIFT.  If they want to sell them below cost, let them.  Solar panel makers will still exist in the US and some of them may even come up with better lower cost manufacturing due to the pressure.  In addition the American panel makers have less transportation costs and may have more long term trust as well. 

[FirstAscent]

The free market is environment indifferent. The free market helps benefit those who exploit what it has to offer. Nothing more, and nothing less.

The actions of the government can protect or destroy the environment. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Properly and intelligently applied rules based on research can slow down the destruction of the environment in a world that seems to value economic growth over the protection of natural capital.

Do yourself and society a favor: never use your political agendas which are not 100 percent based on scientific evidence and knowledge about the environment and for protecting the environment as a vehicle to promote your political agendas as if they were designed to protect the environment. The two do not mix. Either you understand environmental issues and ecology and have an agenda to protect it, or you don't.

If your agenda is to promote a free market, then promote a free market with knowledge that you possess, and not with incomplete knowledge about other subjects.

[Bjork]

Government can protect the environment much better than the free market.  If you've ever taken an economics class you'd know about externalities and how sometimes the free market will not find the "correct" price--thus justifying government intervention.

 

[myrkul]

Government can protect the environment much better than the free market.  If you've ever taken an economics class you'd know about externalities and how sometimes the free market will not find the "correct" price--thus justifying government intervention.

Funny how governments tend to be the biggest polluters then, huh?

[Bjork]

Government can protect the environment much better than the free market.  If you've ever taken an economics class you'd know about externalities and how sometimes the free market will not find the "correct" price--thus justifying government intervention.

Funny how governments tend to be the biggest polluters then, huh?

well, I did say "can"  .   Corruption and abuse of power in government is a whole different problem/debate.

[myrkul]

Government can protect the environment much better than the free market.  If you've ever taken an economics class you'd know about externalities and how sometimes the free market will not find the "correct" price--thus justifying government intervention.

Funny how governments tend to be the biggest polluters then, huh?

well, I did say "can"  .   Corruption and abuse of power in government is a whole different problem/debate.

Giving government control over the environment Is effectively giving them the ability to issue licenses to pollute. Since this cannot happen in a private market, I fail to see how government "can" protect the market better than the free market, given that all they can do is not issue those licenses, at best matching the free market.

[dree12]

The free market is environment indifferent. The free market helps benefit those who exploit what it has to offer. Nothing more, and nothing less.

The actions of the government can protect or destroy the environment. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Properly and intelligently applied rules based on research can slow down the destruction of the environment in a world that seems to value economic growth over the protection of natural capital.

Do yourself and society a favor: never use your political agendas which are not 100 percent based on scientific evidence and knowledge about the environment and for protecting the environment as a vehicle to promote your political agendas as if they were designed to protect the environment. The two do not mix. Either you understand environmental issues and ecology and have an agenda to protect it, or you don't.

If your agenda is to promote a free market, then promote a free market with knowledge that you possess, and not with incomplete knowledge about other subjects.

Please read:

Free-market environmentalism.

[Bjork]

Government can protect the environment much better than the free market.  If you've ever taken an economics class you'd know about externalities and how sometimes the free market will not find the "correct" price--thus justifying government intervention.

Funny how governments tend to be the biggest polluters then, huh?

well, I did say "can"  .   Corruption and abuse of power in government is a whole different problem/debate.

Giving government control over the environment Is effectively giving them the ability to issue licenses to pollute. Since this cannot happen in a private market, I fail to see how government "can" protect the market better than the free market, given that all they can do is not issue those licenses, at best matching the free market.

they can also levee taxes, reducing/discouraging businesses that are polluting.

[TheButterZone]

Government can protect the environment much better than the free market.  If you've ever taken an economics class you'd know about externalities and how sometimes the free market will not find the "correct" price--thus justifying government intervention.

Funny how governments tend to be the biggest polluters then, huh?

well, I did say "can"  .   Corruption and abuse of power in government is a whole different problem/debate.

Giving government control over the environment Is effectively giving them the ability to issue licenses to pollute. Since this cannot happen in a private market, I fail to see how government "can" protect the market better than the free market, given that all they can do is not issue those licenses, at best matching the free market.

they can also levee taxes, reducing/discouraging businesses that are polluting.

Or people who, in the Newspeak dictionary, exhale "pollutants" like CO2. One would prefer the Party lead by example and permanently cease exhaling first.

[FirstAscent]

The free market is environment indifferent. The free market helps benefit those who exploit what it has to offer. Nothing more, and nothing less.

The actions of the government can protect or destroy the environment. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Properly and intelligently applied rules based on research can slow down the destruction of the environment in a world that seems to value economic growth over the protection of natural capital.

Do yourself and society a favor: never use your political agendas which are not 100 percent based on scientific evidence and knowledge about the environment and for protecting the environment as a vehicle to promote your political agendas as if they were designed to protect the environment. The two do not mix. Either you understand environmental issues and ecology and have an agenda to protect it, or you don't.

If your agenda is to promote a free market, then promote a free market with knowledge that you possess, and not with incomplete knowledge about other subjects.

Please read:

Free-market environmentalism.

They're doing exactly what I said not to do in paragraph four of my original post. In other words, your reply is definitely not a convincing argument.

[myrkul]

Government can protect the environment much better than the free market.  If you've ever taken an economics class you'd know about externalities and how sometimes the free market will not find the "correct" price--thus justifying government intervention.

Funny how governments tend to be the biggest polluters then, huh?

well, I did say "can"  .   Corruption and abuse of power in government is a whole different problem/debate.

Giving government control over the environment Is effectively giving them the ability to issue licenses to pollute. Since this cannot happen in a private market, I fail to see how government "can" protect the market better than the free market, given that all they can do is not issue those licenses, at best matching the free market.

they can also levee taxes, reducing/discouraging businesses that are polluting.

In a free market economy, with all land privately owned, polluters who damage other people's persons or property have to pay them restitution. If they only damage their own land, then they reduce it's future value (unless cleaned up). Either way, they're losing money, and without the option of lobbying for tax breaks. This likewise discourages polluting businesses.

[FirstAscent]

Government can protect the environment much better than the free market.  If you've ever taken an economics class you'd know about externalities and how sometimes the free market will not find the "correct" price--thus justifying government intervention.

Funny how governments tend to be the biggest polluters then, huh?

well, I did say "can"  .   Corruption and abuse of power in government is a whole different problem/debate.

Giving government control over the environment Is effectively giving them the ability to issue licenses to pollute. Since this cannot happen in a private market, I fail to see how government "can" protect the market better than the free market, given that all they can do is not issue those licenses, at best matching the free market.

they can also levee taxes, reducing/discouraging businesses that are polluting.

In a free market economy, with all land privately owned, polluters who damage other people's persons or property have to pay them restitution. If they only damage their own land, then they reduce it's future value (unless cleaned up). Either way, they're losing money, and without the option of lobbying for tax breaks. This likewise discourages polluting businesses.

Don't be so naive.

1. They don't have to pay restitution. There may not even be a claim made by their ignorant neighbors or their "I'll look the other way if you look the other way." neighbors.

2. They may not know if or care if they are reducing their land's value if they're achieving what they want.

3. You're doing exactly what I said those with a political agenda counter to environmentalism should not do in the fourth paragraph of my first post.

You lose on three counts. Go back to pushing your political agenda without trying to conflate it with environmentalism. You're ignorant when it comes to the environment, and your agenda is the only thing that matters to you. Push your silly libertarian views all you want, but if you're going to claim any benefit it has to the environment, then learn about the environment.

[myrkul]

Don't be so naive.

1. They don't have to pay restitution. There may not even be a claim made by their ignorant neighbors or their "I'll look the other way if you look the other way." neighbors.

2. They may not know if or care if they are reducing their land's value if they're achieving what they want.

3. You're doing exactly what I said those with a political agenda counter to environmentalism should not do in the fourth paragraph of my first post.

1. Right. They'll ignore their children getting sick and dying and wave as the tanker trucks drive by. 

2. They're still losing money, same as if they were taxed. Best part is, they're doing it to themselves, and no money need be wasted collecting those taxes.

3. Like I give a shit about your "paragraph 4". AnCap is not counter to environmentalism, at worst it's neutral. And you're more than welcome to necro your thread where you were educating us about the dangers of free markets to the environment, or you can go back to wanking to avant-garde films. I don't recall yanking your chain.

[FirstAscent]

Don't be so naive.

1. They don't have to pay restitution. There may not even be a claim made by their ignorant neighbors or their "I'll look the other way if you look the other way." neighbors.

2. They may not know if or care if they are reducing their land's value if they're achieving what they want.

3. You're doing exactly what I said those with a political agenda counter to environmentalism should not do in the fourth paragraph of my first post.

1. Right. They'll ignore their children getting sick and dying and wave as the tanker trucks drive by.  

2. They're still losing money, same as if they were taxed. Best part is, they're doing it to themselves, and no money need be wasted collecting those taxes.

3. Like I give a shit about your "paragraph 4". AnCap is not counter to environmentalism, at worst it's neutral. And you're more than welcome to necro your thread where you were educating us about the dangers of free markets to the environment, or you can go back to wanking to avant-garde films. I don't recall yanking your chain.

1. If you see the quantity of idiots alive today, they're not going to suddenly become smart in your world.

2. Irrelevant. Did you forget that in order for you to have a point here, your goal would be to avoid environmental destruction, not avoid taxes. It seems that once again you can't comprehend the gist of paragraph four.

3. You're quite ignorant with regard to films, as comments you made in prior posts made abundantly and laughably clear, so why don't you stick to what you know - whatever that may be.

[myrkul]

1. If you see the quantity of idiots alive today, they're not going to suddenly become smart in your world.

2. Irrelevant. Did you forget that in order for you to have a point here, your goal would be to avoid environmental destruction, not avoid taxes. It seems that once again you can't comprehend the gist of paragraph four.

3. You're quite ignorant with regard to films, as comments you made in prior posts made abundantly and laughably clear, so why don't you stick to what you know - whatever that may be.

1. Your point here is very weak. Even today, the stupidest people know when they're being harmed.

2. No, the point is to "reduce/discourage businesses that are polluting." Since business are out to make a buck, losing money will do that. Your Captain Planet view of businesses is not helping your case here, they're not all Hoggish Greedly and Sly Sludge.

3. I am. Unlike yourself. Seriously, you were doing quite well at avoiding making yourself look like a moron. It's shame you've stopped that practice.

[FirstAscent]

1. Your point here is very weak. Even today, the stupidest people know when they're being harmed.

2. No, the point is to "reduce/discourage businesses that are polluting." Since business are out to make a buck, losing money will do that. Your Captain Planet view of businesses is not helping your case here, they're not all Hoggish Greedly and Sly Sludge.

3. I am. Unlike yourself. Seriously, you were doing quite well at avoiding making yourself look like a moron. It's shame you've stopped that practice.

1. Last time I checked, land developers (which are land owners) are not improving the environment. They're improving their bank accounts. Epic fail on your part.

2. If that's your point, than A) learn about ecology, and B) get proactive about the environment, instead of engaging in armchair politics. Epic misrepresentation of yourself.

3. Vague and meaningless chatter.

[myrkul]

Vague and meaningless chatter.

Thanks for the summary. Saved me from having to read the rest of your post.

[FirstAscent]

Vague and meaningless chatter.

Thanks for the summary. Saved me from having to read the rest of your post.

Your knowledge on the environment is so limited, it makes no sense for you to even consider pushing your fantasy political ideal within the context of environmental issues.

[myrkul]

Vague and meaningless chatter.

Thanks for the summary. Saved me from having to read the rest of your post.

Your knowledge on the environment is so limited, it makes no sense for you to even consider pushing your fantasy political ideal within the context of environmental issues.

to reiterate:

You're more than welcome to necro your thread where you were educating us about the dangers of free markets to the environment, or you can go back to wanking to avant-garde films. I don't recall yanking your chain.