In order to help the environment, we're encouraged to recycle and upgrade to vehicles and equipment that produce less pollution – hydrogen powered cars, for example.
Problem is, some studies show that recycling has a larger impact on the environment than does using virgin resources. And that hydrogen-powered car may not generate pollution in its exhaust, but how much pollution was created to generate that hydrogen?
What to do? How to decide? William Baldwin has an answer:
You could drive yourself crazy calculating all the direct and indirect inputs behind a consumer choice, so here's a handy rule, courtesy of Jerry C. Taylor, head of natural resource studies at Cato: If you care about the environment, go for the cheaper item. "Prices are a signal for all of the resources that go into producing something," he says.
Of course, some will argue that the price of something isn't a good indicator, because so many goods that have a signficant environmental impact are subsidized. Their prices don't reflect their "true costs" in environmental terms.
So don't order people to spend their money on hydrogen powered cars. Don't shame people into ignoring prices and other economic signals. End subsidies.
2 comments:
"In order to help the environment, we're encouraged to recycle and upgrade to vehicles and equipment that produce less pollution – hydrogen powered cars, for example.
Problem is, some studies show that recycling has a larger impact on the environment than does using virgin resources. And that hydrogen-powered car may not generate pollution in its exhaust, but how much pollution was created to generate that hydrogen?"
What you're partially missing is of course it would require more manufacturing in the short term for environmental protection, but in the long term it would seem manufacturing costs would go down because a system has been implemented. Just as the system we currently have. The research is basing the cost on the existing system versus a system that has a profoundly more expensive startup cost.
The idea behind environmentalism is more on the basis of protection for wildlife and conservation. I leave "global warming" alone because there has become 'too many hands in the pot' (from both sides) to figure out what is and what isn't accurate science. I'm actually much more for the public deciding what environmental policies are a part of tax and what are not, and without resorting to name calling, I think it would tell just how much people value the land. When it comes to things like Nat'l Parks and old growth forests, I think at some point the green organizations have to step in on those two specific topics because people have too long a history of relying on the gov't to do the changing.
Again, it seems much of the outlook from the general public is based on how environmentalism benefits "me" and not the species and spiritual benefits of 'getting away from it all', as Robert Devine notes. Equating the economic costs of environmentalism is of course beneficial to humanity, but the misinformation is society equating all benefits to a monetary value as opposed to a spiritual one.
The overall tone being a people who do not maliciously have little care for the environment, but a society who cares more for technology than Nature's creation.
"Problem is, some studies show that recycling has a larger impact on the environment than does using virgin resources. And that hydrogen-powered car may not generate pollution in its exhaust, but how much pollution was created to generate that hydrogen?"
You'll have to show me the data. The idea behind recycling paper is to use less trees and therefore more of the original forests remain intact.
Again, of course there will be more pollution in the immediate with the manufacturing of hydrogen cars, but in the long run it would seem the benefits of less emissions would be worthwhile. A counter take would be to notice all the pollution is being generated by the manufacturing of the standard car (unless the manufacturing process pollutes far less than hydrogen). Your argument seems to suggest we should be comfortable with our existing standards and that the only basis to gauge the environment is economics.
"So don't order people to spend their money on hydrogen powered cars. Don't shame people into ignoring prices and other economic signals. End subsidies."
Who is doing the ordering? It seems to me the environmental message has had very little impact on what the general public consumes.
Post a Comment