The Shotgun Blog
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The Greens should look to the market
Environmentalists continue to push for ever-more regulations to help the environment. But old regulations are keeping the Canadian-made ZENN (Zero Emission, No Noise), and the Toyota Prius off the streets. In "Unacceptably Green," Tim Mak gently suggests that the greens should look at good, old-fashioned free market deregulation first.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Greens should look to the market:
Highly unlikely that the enviro-radical movement will opt for a common sense approach. Actually most of these so-called non profit groups are anything but non profit. Just check into their finances to see how profitable they are for the people running them.
The irony however is that it is zealous over-regulation that does the most harm to attempts to protect the environment. The light bulb decision is an example. Also environment-friendly natural agriculture is another example and I would just about fill a small book with others, which brings me to the conclusion that these groups are not about protecting the environment. Rather they are about profit (for themselves) and controlling the lives of people.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-02-12 2:07:37 PM
I meant that environment-friendly natural agriculture is being harmed and often prevented by regulation, as are many other things which actually protect and improve the environment.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-02-12 2:10:55 PM
If these people had any sense and half as many brains, they'd come up with a way to bring these technologies to market. Not only would they be doing a lot to help the environment, but they'd get rich, too. Unfortunately, environmentalists have for too long shared the company of radical groups to trust the market or consumers. And their dogged insistence on grabbing existing wealth to fund their projects instead of generating new wealth through better-designed projects has ensured they stay on the political fringe.
The top-down sledgehammer is the only way they can envision to change people's habits. Which is all the more remarkable, considering that of all groups, they are the ones who respond least favourably to that leadership style themselves. It's like they all have ADHD or something.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-02-12 3:11:31 PM
Actually the Green Party is the only party out there that actually advocates a free market.
Remove the subsidies, lift the regulations and let the true costs be revealed. Only then will the green economic revolution move into high gear.
Posted by: Green Market | 2008-02-12 6:28:24 PM
A free market Green Party, hoho.
Green isn't about green. It's about socialism ie punishing the productive to the benefit of the parasites in gov't. They don't give a rats ass about less emissions because emissions aren't causing the earth to warm. Shhhhht, don't tell anyone.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-12 6:52:35 PM
I seem to remember in the early days of the green party, they actually did make some points that made economic sense. That may have changed.
Posted by: dp | 2008-02-12 9:32:33 PM
Green Market, what rot. Veteran is correct. Many years ago I joined the Green Party naively thinking it was as Green Market claims. The truth turned out to be very ugly indeed, with the party pushing every wacko policy from the militant homosexual agenda to abortion and native rights. Needless to say it was clear this was not the company I should keep.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-02-12 11:00:33 PM
Sorry, Green Market, there's way too much hate in the Green agenda for them to leave the market untouched. Corporate fat cats, SUV drivers, smokers, oil companies, power companies, development companies, farmers, hunters, trappers, loggers, fishermen AND fish farmers--this party's hit list is long indeed. If the Greens were elected, they'd legalize marijuana and prohibit everything else.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-02-13 9:05:19 AM
This is all well and good, but can anyone offer an example of where a totally free market has produced positive environmental results?
This isn't about ideology, it's about practicality in addressing a problem that if left unattended, will be the greatest crisis of our age and age of our children.
How can someone defend the free market, then deny any attempt to address the cost of goods to the consumer? Visionaries like Michael Bloomberg have developed policies - congestion pricing, for instance - that addresses an issue that makes business less efficient (public roads and congestion are a classic tragedy of the commons) by making users pay for the goods they use.
Just like free speech, its abundantly clear that for the right wing of this country, the free market is good only when they say it is.
That's not free market economics, that's a command economy dressed up in Greenspan's glasses.
Posted by: All Well and Good | 2008-02-16 7:21:20 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.