The economy and the Green argument

kabayiri

I struggle to reconcile our current consumerism model with the Green imperative.

It's technically not difficult to design goods with upgradeability and serviceability in mind. I have some stuff in for service which was built over 3 decades ago.

The problem is this defeats Apples (eg) objectives to flog you a new iThingy every year.

Some Apple products score as low as 1 out of 10 for repairability. Instant landfill if broken.

Putting a few solar panels on our roof or a windmill in the back garden is not solving anything.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

the 'green' costing issue is the faux adding of huge costs to 'doing nothing' or 'waiting' option to justify ridiculous taxes (levies) right now.

That may be how it is used (the 'Watermelon' hypothesis where a green outer hides a red interior). However, the problem of externalities not being factored into cost of production is very real.

If I make money from making water downstream from me undrinkable then I should have to pay the cost of providing water in some form to those downstream with extraction rights or perhaps pay for the river to be restored.

It's no more reasonable for me to make money despoiling the planet than it is for me to make money by disposing of toxic waste in your front garden as you sleep.

Loughton_Monkey

Generali wrote: »

That may be how it is used (the 'Watermelon' hypothesis where a green outer hides a red interior). However, the problem of externalities not being factored into cost of production is very real.

If I make money from making water downstream from me undrinkable then I should have to pay the cost of providing water in some form to those downstream with extraction rights or perhaps pay for the river to be restored.

It's no more reasonable for me to make money despoiling the planet than it is for me to make money by disposing of toxic waste in your front garden as you sleep.

Quite right, but this is where things get complicated enough without all this 'carbon credit' nonsense.

So I make rubber toys, and cannot flush my waste chemicals into the river or down the drain. I have to pay to 'clean' it. But China makes the same toys not only with cheaper labour, but they can flush all their crap into the Yangtse. They win on two counts. As soon as I go out of business, China puts even more gunge down their river.

It needs a 'global' response. But little chance of that. China and India are not going to consider lectures from Western countries who grew extremely rich on the back of child labour, polluted and exploitative manufacturing methods, and slavery. Why shouldn't they go through the same phase to get rich themselves?

kabayiri

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

...
It needs a 'global' response. But little chance of that. China and India are not going to consider lectures from Western countries who grew extremely rich on the back of child labour, polluted and exploitative manufacturing methods, and slavery. Why shouldn't they go through the same phase to get rich themselves?

If China had a change of heart and went expensive green then the execs at <insert mega corporation here> would look at relocating production to <insert next desperate country for work here>.

Their shareholders would demand it.

Pricing to control and regulate consumption with a sustainable aspect has many limitations, but I can't see a different viable approach. Politicians would just spend years bickering over who was masking their green figures if we continue down the agreements route.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

That may be how it is used (the 'Watermelon' hypothesis where a green outer hides a red interior). However, the problem of externalities not being factored into cost of production is very real.

If I make money from making water downstream from me undrinkable then I should have to pay the cost of providing water in some form to those downstream with extraction rights or perhaps pay for the river to be restored.

It's no more reasonable for me to make money despoiling the planet than it is for me to make money by disposing of toxic waste in your front garden as you sleep.

yes indeed

but that doesn't address the issue of how we actually calculate the external costs of our actions or what is meant by 'despoiling' or what we do with the figures when calculated.

because the issues are largely treated as a political issue rather than a scientific issue the wrong decisions are constantly being made.

The lunatics in the EU (i.e. the heads of state ) championed diesel rather than petrol because the Co2 is less, even though the scientific evidence of the harm that diesel does to people was well known.
The EU still has targets for bio diesel even though the scientific evidence is clear that this is overall harmful etc

Sadly the green lobby just love the idea of 'doing' something however unscientific the action on the faux argument that tomorrow is too late.

I do wonder how Bennett travelled from Australia to UK without doing any harm to the planet: I doubt she cycled.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes indeed

but that doesn't address the issue of how we actually calculate the external costs of our actions or what is meant by 'despoiling' or what we do with the figures when calculated.

Well yes. This is a big problem.

I would argue that environmental taxes would need to be set at a point where despoiling (or whatever term you'd rather use) the environment has no profit in and of itself.

I've been of the opinion for a very long time that we should tax bad things (smoking, ruining the planet) and not tax good things (people going out to earn a living). Much better to tax wrecking stuff than working for a living.

CLAPTON wrote: »

because the issues are largely treated as a political issue rather than a scientific issue the wrong decisions are constantly being made.

Yup, I agree. We're in a lunatic situation where some people are taking an ideological, anti-scientific position that global warming/climate change doesn't exist against all the evidence and others are prepared to justify almost any action in the name of climate change including fixing data to make a point.

CLAPTON wrote: »

Sadly the green lobby just love the idea of 'doing' something however unscientific the action on the faux argument that tomorrow is too late.

Every MP should have the following words tattooed on his forehead:

"Don't just do something, stand there"!

purch

CLAPTON wrote: »

I do wonder how Bennett travelled from Australia to UK without doing any harm to the planet: I doubt she cycled.

And even if she did, despite no doubt patting herself on the back for reducing her own "carbon footprint" there still would have been a Quantas flight from Sydney to London that day, and even with one empty seat the actual carbon footprint would have remained exactly the same.

CLAPTON

purch wrote: »

And even if she did, despite no doubt patting herself on the back for reducing her own "carbon footprint" there still would have been a Quantas flight from Sydney to London that day, and even with one empty seat the actual carbon footprint would have remained exactly the same.

absurd argument

kabayiri

To use a simple, perhaps contrived, example :

If a dvd player can be bought new for £25, but costs a minimum of £40 to repair or £30 to recycle effectively - reusing what we can; then is this a product pitched at a sustainable price point ?

Obviously, if consumers had to pay £500 for the very same device, the attitude to repair or throw away might be different. I do believe there is a price point which influences consumer behaviour, but is it so out of kilter with our current consumer expectations as to be redundant?

CLAPTON

kabayiri wrote: »

To use a simple, perhaps contrived, example :

If a dvd player can be bought new for £25, but costs a minimum of £40 to repair or £30 to recycle effectively - reusing what we can; then is this a product pitched at a sustainable price point ?

Obviously, if consumers had to pay £500 for the very same device, the attitude to repair or throw away might be different. I do believe there is a price point which influences consumer behaviour, but is it so out of kilter with our current consumer expectations as to be redundant?

what harm is done by throwing away the dvd player and buying a new one?