The problem with the libertarian's point of view is that holding people liable only works if they have something to lose, money to take, etc.
Many companies pollute because the cost of doing so (in the form of fines and penalties) is less than the cost to not pollute.
The other problem is that if your neighbor is across a line on a map, he/she can just ignore your "liability" rules and carry on. Unless you plan to go to war every time you have an issue.
Frankly, the system of laws that we have is better than that.
How do I sue Mexico for bad environmental practices?
Mexico is my neighbour when it comes to the environment.
At the end of the day, we can talk about it, we can come to an understanding, or we can create international laws related to pollution.
And if those are ignored, there is always war to resolve the issue.
The fact is, your right to freedom doesn't give you the right to screw up the planet. Since it isn't practical to sue everyone in the world who is doing it, that is what we need laws for.
That is a nice idea, but the fact is, people see and believe what they want to believe, including local governments.
No matter how much evidence is provided, plenty of local politicians will "take care of their own" and do nothing to change the local rules.
That is why we need more uniform rules, because some people just won't change, unless made to. That was my whole point about the "neighbor" with the toxic chemicals. Lets say he just doesn't want to change, no matter what.
Now lets say he is actually one state over, and everyone over there sees no reason to change, their whole economy loves having the income from the toxic chemicals. My state doesn't like it, but since my state doesn't control the laws over there, what do we do about it?
Go up a level to the national government to get a solution.
No, because the 20 months just pays back the $4K, it doesn't cover the remaining $13.2K cost of the whole system. That will take another 66 months to pay off, for a total payoff of 86 months, or about 7 years.
We like our oceans, it keeps us away from all the "crazy" people in the world.
Note, I know they aren't all crazy, but considering that most Americans don't even have a passport, much less have ever left the country, to a large number of Americans, the USA is the center of the Universe.
If anyone even makes noise about coming over here, the general reaction is, "bomb them". And if that doesn't work, then you aren't using enough bombs.
The irony is that much of the hate towards America is caused by America's own actions. On the flip side, we do need to protect our interests overseas, the world is very much smaller than it was 100 years ago.
It was $3,600 to repair the existing system. I had it cleaned and checked every year, the Freon levels were fine.
It was a 12 year old cheap unit that was run all the time, it finally gave out. I could have fixed it, but it had other minor annoying issues, it was time and I knew it.
The truth is, for my usage, the new system will actually cost me nothing over 10 years of owning it, that isn't a bad deal. The odds of the old system running for another 10 years, even with repairs, would have been slim.
Your comment of "spoiled with too much money" colors your comments with envy, green is nice in the wallet, not so much in a person's heart. Money doesn't make me better than anyone else, I've just been blessed in life with the chance to do well. But I work hard for it, so I make no apologizes for it either.
Yep, I fully understand that is the issue... When it is 104 outside, it is nice to walk into a cold house.:)
All I can say is that the electric bill went way down the month after we installed the new HVAC system, so clearly the promises made regarding energy efficiency were true.
Large open spaces (tall ceilings in the family room, it is open to the second floor), big huge picture windows, and no, it probably isn't insulated all that well. R-44 in the attic, nothing in the walls other than brick, but if you spray foam the walls you make it nearly impossible to run new wires in them.
Adding another 12" of insulation in the attic is my next project.
I don't know how to compare natural gas to oil heat, we keep our home at 74 degrees in the winter, it snows here, but usually doesn't get below 20 degrees. Winter gas bills run $250 or so, in the summer they run about $75, so the difference is the furnace heat. In the summer, the $75 covers hot water heaters, clothes dryer, and cooking (gas stove).
I am curious to know what you pay for electricity there. It is possible that your return is sooner because your cost of power is higher. Here, I can replace about 1/2 of my power use using PV panels on my roof (there isn't room to replace all of it), the cost to install those panels is about $60K. Tax credits pay for 30% of that, local credits pay for a bit more of it, but the rest is on me (about $37K). But because power here is so cheap, the payback is quite long. We pay about 8 cents per kw/h for power.
The payoff for Solar PV here is closer to 15 years, however if I had the option to have them installed and in return they would take it out of my power bill, so that my net power bill was the same, why wouldn't I?
Long term value add to my house at no cost to me, same monthly bill until paid off, then free power for perhaps another 10-15 years.
My primary problem is that Solar PV panels are expensive and the up-front cost is not worth the return. You can't easily get loans for the cost of these things, not here anyway, so there are better ways of doing it.
On a more serious note, I recently looked into solar panels as well, but those make zero economic sense. I'd love to install them, but there is just no way, it would be throwing money away, the pay back is more than 15 years...
You speak the truth, that is indeed one of the problems with providing "easy money" to expand a business.
In fairness however, the difference between school loans and this is that a real product is being installed that provides a real direct benefit, lower monthly utility bills. It also provides a benefit in reduced energy use and lower pollution.
Tax credits only help half the population that actually pays income tax, and even then it does the same thing, drives up the cost by paying for part of the cost of the product. The government is out the money. In this case, it is a loan that has to be paid back. It also can be secured by something, the house, that a student loan has no security for.
It would be a straw man if it wasn't actually happening, right now, already.
I'm sorry you think I'm an extremist, but the truth is, you can't pollute far enough away from me for it not to effect me.
Wood stoves? No, one doesn't matter, 50 don't matter... 50,000 across a wide area won't matter... (in one small area, yea, but across a state, no)
50 million? 500 million? What number does matter? At some point, the actions that you take as a person, which by themselves don't hurt anyone, added up by the millions, do...
The question is, do you take any responsibility for your 1/1,000,000th share of the problem? The average person can easily say, "my pollution footprint doesn't harm the Earth". No, it doesn't, not by itself. But when everyone is doing it, then it does.
Or do you expect everyone else to stop so you can continue?
This isn't a problem that we can solve one person at a time, we all have to band together to change everyone's behavior. It does not help if only half of the population change, if the other half do not.
Except smoke from wood stoves isn't hurting other people, at worst it's slightly irritating.
Well, here is the funny thing. I disagree with you there. Since we disagree on that basic point, where else is there to go with the conversation?
Regarding the cigarette comment, there is a reason smoking almost anywhere but your home or car has been outlawed, because your right to light up does not override my right to be free from the smoke.
All fair points... but some people just don't want to change for anything, out of stubbornness if for no other reason.
As for them being my neighbor after the government shows up, maybe... or maybe not if they are stubborn enough.
I do see the benefits of working with people, my example was to illustrate what the options were if those efforts failed. If after trying to work with my neighbor, his constant reply is, "freedom, I can do what I want, no one can tell me otherwise". (there are plenty of these people in the world)
Well, he'll be shocked when he finds out he is mistaken. Most people are reasonable, a few are not. Those people require force because they simply won't change via any other method.
I suspect that even the EPA knows that some people disable these things, but they also know that many people don't, so even if it isn't 100% effective, at perhaps 70% effective it still will make a difference.
I agree with you on the adjustable flow rates, sometimes you're ok with less, sometimes you want everything it's got. That is a good idea.:)
3. What is the average temp in the summer/winter where you live?
4. What do you pay for power where you live?
Those all effect the price of power that you pay, it is quite possible that it would make little sense for you to spend that much money. Perhaps you only have a single HVAC system, in which case the price would be $2K more instead of $4K more (since I have 2 units).
The problem with the local government logic is that you don't actually have to be living next to me, or even in the same city, for your pollution to affect me.
Someone from very far away might be dumping chemicals in the water (maybe in the river far upstream). My local government doesn't have any power to do anything about it, maybe it crosses state lines and so my state government has no power.
That is why we need the federal government to get involved.
Frankly, it needs to go further than that, someone in Mexico or Canada has no more right to harm the environment than someone in the USA does. Pollution doesn't respect lines on a map.
Either the government will send people over to force the issue, or I could do it myself.
If you are doing something that I want stopped and you won't stop, my only two options are to pay the government (via taxes) to force the issue, or to force it myself.
The idea is that if someone wants to be difficult, sooner or later, someone (or multiple people) with guns will have to resolve the issue.
If two people disagree, and can just leave each other alone, fine. But if one side or the other decides that the current situation is not acceptable and the other side won't discuss it, then violence is the only remaining solution.
Works at the local level, works at the national level, we called them duels back in the day, when nations do it, we call them wars.
.........
BTW, if you missed the third option, which was to move, then you missed the whole point. I can't move, I live on Earth and have no where else to go. The pollution that humans have been doing for the past hundred years affects us all, I can't move far enough away to get away from it. You're my neighbor if you live next door, or 10,000 miles away.
BTW, my comment about plastic wasn't related to the garbage aspect, it was related to the "if we do things cleaner it will cost more than thus you can't buy as much stuff".
I was trying to say that I'm ok to have a little less "stuff" in return for having a cleaner environment.
:) For what it is worth, I knew very little about wood burning stoves of any kind before this was posted here. I spent a few minutes doing some reading and also followed links provided by people here.
I don't claim to be a wood burning stove expert, but I do now know that the cost to buy a modern one is not crazy high, that there is a difference between an old bad design and the new good designs, and that burning less wood to get the same heat is generally a good thing.
Your other points about the EPA are probably fair, way too much of government is just stupid, I'm anti-government much of the time, but I'm not for "no-government", which wouldn't work either.
What do you think of the idea of requiring anything imported into the US for general sale or consumption to be manufactured under the same rules as if it had been made here?
Would that not remove much of the economic reason to make everything overseas, due to EPA laws? Yes, labor is expensive here, but that is just one part of it. Apple has said that it would cost $100 or so more to make the iPad in the USA. If the ones in China were made according to US standards, would they remain so much cheaper?
I personally would pay $599 instead of $499 to get a "green and clean" iPad made under US standards, rather than China standards.
Maybe I'm alone or perhaps the minority, but when I shop at Walmart, from time to time they have Made in the USA items next to Made in China items (coat hangers recently). The Made in the USA items cost slightly more, but I'm ok with that, I bought them.
While that is probably true, that 10 EUR a month is probably licensed for consumer use, not business use. It probably also comes with no SLA (service level agreements). It is quite possible that for this money, they will provide unlimited bandwidth (no data rate caps) and perhaps preferred transmission during heavy use times (if that is legal there, I'm in the USA).
For a business, part of what you get for the money is service and the ability to hold the company's feet to the fire. For 10 EUR a month, you more or less have no power, for 8 Million EUR, you would have some sway.
Keep in mind that if media companies could really use those 10 EUR plans, they would, they pay for the sat uplinks for a reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Many companies pollute because the cost of doing so (in the form of fines and penalties) is less than the cost to not pollute.
The other problem is that if your neighbor is across a line on a map, he/she can just ignore your "liability" rules and carry on. Unless you plan to go to war every time you have an issue.
Frankly, the system of laws that we have is better than that.
Mexico is my neighbour when it comes to the environment.
At the end of the day, we can talk about it, we can come to an understanding, or we can create international laws related to pollution.
And if those are ignored, there is always war to resolve the issue.
The fact is, your right to freedom doesn't give you the right to screw up the planet. Since it isn't practical to sue everyone in the world who is doing it, that is what we need laws for.
No matter how much evidence is provided, plenty of local politicians will "take care of their own" and do nothing to change the local rules.
That is why we need more uniform rules, because some people just won't change, unless made to. That was my whole point about the "neighbor" with the toxic chemicals. Lets say he just doesn't want to change, no matter what.
Now lets say he is actually one state over, and everyone over there sees no reason to change, their whole economy loves having the income from the toxic chemicals. My state doesn't like it, but since my state doesn't control the laws over there, what do we do about it?
Go up a level to the national government to get a solution.
No, because the 20 months just pays back the $4K, it doesn't cover the remaining $13.2K cost of the whole system. That will take another 66 months to pay off, for a total payoff of 86 months, or about 7 years.
We like our oceans, it keeps us away from all the "crazy" people in the world.
Note, I know they aren't all crazy, but considering that most Americans don't even have a passport, much less have ever left the country, to a large number of Americans, the USA is the center of the Universe.
If anyone even makes noise about coming over here, the general reaction is, "bomb them". And if that doesn't work, then you aren't using enough bombs.
The irony is that much of the hate towards America is caused by America's own actions. On the flip side, we do need to protect our interests overseas, the world is very much smaller than it was 100 years ago.
There are no easy solutions.
It was a 12 year old cheap unit that was run all the time, it finally gave out. I could have fixed it, but it had other minor annoying issues, it was time and I knew it.
The truth is, for my usage, the new system will actually cost me nothing over 10 years of owning it, that isn't a bad deal. The odds of the old system running for another 10 years, even with repairs, would have been slim.
Your comment of "spoiled with too much money" colors your comments with envy, green is nice in the wallet, not so much in a person's heart. Money doesn't make me better than anyone else, I've just been blessed in life with the chance to do well. But I work hard for it, so I make no apologizes for it either.
All I can say is that the electric bill went way down the month after we installed the new HVAC system, so clearly the promises made regarding energy efficiency were true.
Adding another 12" of insulation in the attic is my next project.
I don't know how to compare natural gas to oil heat, we keep our home at 74 degrees in the winter, it snows here, but usually doesn't get below 20 degrees. Winter gas bills run $250 or so, in the summer they run about $75, so the difference is the furnace heat. In the summer, the $75 covers hot water heaters, clothes dryer, and cooking (gas stove).
I am curious to know what you pay for electricity there. It is possible that your return is sooner because your cost of power is higher. Here, I can replace about 1/2 of my power use using PV panels on my roof (there isn't room to replace all of it), the cost to install those panels is about $60K. Tax credits pay for 30% of that, local credits pay for a bit more of it, but the rest is on me (about $37K). But because power here is so cheap, the payback is quite long. We pay about 8 cents per kw/h for power.
Long term value add to my house at no cost to me, same monthly bill until paid off, then free power for perhaps another 10-15 years.
My primary problem is that Solar PV panels are expensive and the up-front cost is not worth the return. You can't easily get loans for the cost of these things, not here anyway, so there are better ways of doing it.
Oh wait, you were being funny...
On a more serious note, I recently looked into solar panels as well, but those make zero economic sense. I'd love to install them, but there is just no way, it would be throwing money away, the pay back is more than 15 years...
Oh well, such is life...
In fairness however, the difference between school loans and this is that a real product is being installed that provides a real direct benefit, lower monthly utility bills. It also provides a benefit in reduced energy use and lower pollution.
Tax credits only help half the population that actually pays income tax, and even then it does the same thing, drives up the cost by paying for part of the cost of the product. The government is out the money. In this case, it is a loan that has to be paid back. It also can be secured by something, the house, that a student loan has no security for.
I'm sorry you think I'm an extremist, but the truth is, you can't pollute far enough away from me for it not to effect me.
Wood stoves? No, one doesn't matter, 50 don't matter... 50,000 across a wide area won't matter... (in one small area, yea, but across a state, no)
50 million? 500 million? What number does matter? At some point, the actions that you take as a person, which by themselves don't hurt anyone, added up by the millions, do...
The question is, do you take any responsibility for your 1/1,000,000th share of the problem? The average person can easily say, "my pollution footprint doesn't harm the Earth". No, it doesn't, not by itself. But when everyone is doing it, then it does.
Or do you expect everyone else to stop so you can continue?
This isn't a problem that we can solve one person at a time, we all have to band together to change everyone's behavior. It does not help if only half of the population change, if the other half do not.
Except smoke from wood stoves isn't hurting other people, at worst it's slightly irritating.
Well, here is the funny thing. I disagree with you there. Since we disagree on that basic point, where else is there to go with the conversation?
Regarding the cigarette comment, there is a reason smoking almost anywhere but your home or car has been outlawed, because your right to light up does not override my right to be free from the smoke.
As for them being my neighbor after the government shows up, maybe... or maybe not if they are stubborn enough.
I do see the benefits of working with people, my example was to illustrate what the options were if those efforts failed. If after trying to work with my neighbor, his constant reply is, "freedom, I can do what I want, no one can tell me otherwise". (there are plenty of these people in the world)
Well, he'll be shocked when he finds out he is mistaken. Most people are reasonable, a few are not. Those people require force because they simply won't change via any other method.
I suspect that even the EPA knows that some people disable these things, but they also know that many people don't, so even if it isn't 100% effective, at perhaps 70% effective it still will make a difference.
I agree with you on the adjustable flow rates, sometimes you're ok with less, sometimes you want everything it's got. That is a good idea. :)
First, you can make the loan repayable in the property tax. They already offer that in some state programs.
Second, that is why there is a lien against the home, you recover the money when the home is sold.
Questions:
1. How big is your house?
2. What temp do you set your HVAC to?
3. What is the average temp in the summer/winter where you live?
4. What do you pay for power where you live?
Those all effect the price of power that you pay, it is quite possible that it would make little sense for you to spend that much money. Perhaps you only have a single HVAC system, in which case the price would be $2K more instead of $4K more (since I have 2 units).
Someone from very far away might be dumping chemicals in the water (maybe in the river far upstream). My local government doesn't have any power to do anything about it, maybe it crosses state lines and so my state government has no power.
That is why we need the federal government to get involved.
Frankly, it needs to go further than that, someone in Mexico or Canada has no more right to harm the environment than someone in the USA does. Pollution doesn't respect lines on a map.
If you are doing something that I want stopped and you won't stop, my only two options are to pay the government (via taxes) to force the issue, or to force it myself.
The idea is that if someone wants to be difficult, sooner or later, someone (or multiple people) with guns will have to resolve the issue.
If two people disagree, and can just leave each other alone, fine. But if one side or the other decides that the current situation is not acceptable and the other side won't discuss it, then violence is the only remaining solution.
Works at the local level, works at the national level, we called them duels back in the day, when nations do it, we call them wars.
.........
BTW, if you missed the third option, which was to move, then you missed the whole point. I can't move, I live on Earth and have no where else to go. The pollution that humans have been doing for the past hundred years affects us all, I can't move far enough away to get away from it. You're my neighbor if you live next door, or 10,000 miles away.
Thank you for sharing... a great example of good intentions gone wrong...
I was trying to say that I'm ok to have a little less "stuff" in return for having a cleaner environment.
I don't claim to be a wood burning stove expert, but I do now know that the cost to buy a modern one is not crazy high, that there is a difference between an old bad design and the new good designs, and that burning less wood to get the same heat is generally a good thing.
Your other points about the EPA are probably fair, way too much of government is just stupid, I'm anti-government much of the time, but I'm not for "no-government", which wouldn't work either.
What do you think of the idea of requiring anything imported into the US for general sale or consumption to be manufactured under the same rules as if it had been made here?
Would that not remove much of the economic reason to make everything overseas, due to EPA laws? Yes, labor is expensive here, but that is just one part of it. Apple has said that it would cost $100 or so more to make the iPad in the USA. If the ones in China were made according to US standards, would they remain so much cheaper?
I personally would pay $599 instead of $499 to get a "green and clean" iPad made under US standards, rather than China standards.
Maybe I'm alone or perhaps the minority, but when I shop at Walmart, from time to time they have Made in the USA items next to Made in China items (coat hangers recently). The Made in the USA items cost slightly more, but I'm ok with that, I bought them.
For a business, part of what you get for the money is service and the ability to hold the company's feet to the fire. For 10 EUR a month, you more or less have no power, for 8 Million EUR, you would have some sway.
Keep in mind that if media companies could really use those 10 EUR plans, they would, they pay for the sat uplinks for a reason.
I was referring to the transmission loss over high voltage power lines.