Comments on: Make green tech, not green legislation

Is the green movement really the greed movement in disguise? Are politicians, lawyers, lobbyists and so-called environmentalists the only ones who really benefit?

[afterhours]

let's take your thinking to a logical end

Let's not regulate anything. Enron was GOOD for your state. That's the
analysis I get from your shortsightedness. California highways are made for
Hummers -- and let's consume as much as we can before the next generation
gets any. I like where you're going with this. In fact, a lot of 'personal
liability' has been stripped away by your reconning -- and there shouldn't be
restrictions on most things. 2x2s are perfectly good for roof trusses -- you
should be able to build in a mudslide zone (aka San Diego) -- hey, let's face
it, there's nothing wrong with child labor or thalidomide. Rail against the
environmentalists -- they saved your precious Yosemite, cleaned up your
smoggy L.A. air and polluted waters of the City by the Bay. The likes of you
never lifted a finger -- just whined.

[Chaku01]

We're all greedy humans...

You are missing one "little" point here, even though I do not support legislation that tells us to put diapers on, or to go at least twice a day to pee, humans are greedy by nature. Basically it means that if you solely rely on the market to develop a long term sustainable way of life, you will drive your hummer over the cliff before you see it... The market only represents the greedy personal desires of the people that do not take into account anything else than their own satisfaction. I consider myself aware of the waste and pollution I make every day, though it doesn't make me trade my brand new car for a "green hybrid" one, because I don't like it as much and I want to satisfy my greedy desire. If legislation did not impose car manufacturers to lower the vehicules pollution output, cars you're driving now would probably pollute 1000 times more... I think initiatives should be taken to promote energy efficiency and low polluting technology, and houses are big sources of energy spilling. Any initiative is good, but if as you say, it is proved that it doesn't work, it should be replaced for another one but not abandon this to the "invisible hand" of the money making centred economy...

[stobak]

It's all about balance

Of course, I presented a controversial viewpoint to make a point. I agree that balance is needed. But when legislation goes overboard, to the point where it insights wasteful behavior that thwarts its original purpose, it means we're out of balance.

Steve Tobak

[tgdalton]

What an idiot...

Wait until that one child you and your wife are able to conceive has autism, and
then sit and wonder if that situation is related to unfettered markets and
companies like DuPont "just doing business."

[stobak]

What flavor Kool-Aid is it today?

EOM.

Steve Tobak

[robertjsmithiii]

Applying California standards of legislation to affix blame to all different levels of green legislation [and all associated legislative actors] is not only presumptuous of you but it is also incorrect. Requirements in California always force a level of regulation that tends to keep citizens' pockets out of the equation. Heck, even corporations such as utilities companies suffer by regulation that imposes a mandate but does not offer an incentive. In fledgling green states such as Virginia, my home state, incentives are beginning to be offered for various levels of affirmative green change but mandatory regulation is not imposed. The result is simple. Look at the University of Mary Washington; their voluntary alignment with Noresco [Massachusetts-based energy solutions corporation] in achieving levels of green change has saved the school $400,000 per annum. The bottom line is that the Commonwealth of Virginia itself saves $400,000 per annum just from that one institute of higher education; whether Virginia wants to rescind the difference from education funding in its biennial budget is up to the General Assembly. The money can be forwarded to effect green change in other domains of the Commonwealth. The conclusion is simple: not all [or even most] green legislation is "crap". In fact, the only "crap" that I can think of is the insistence of maintaining or expanding nuclear energy, a format that requires enormous amounts of regulation [based on simple risk-assessment] and, consequently, a lot of state spending on management and other issues of regulation. California may be a different world but their test run on green energy is inspiring different frameworks of approach in other states that aren't so intent on regulation.

My site is under construction but up if you would like to visit it. www.gogreenvirginia.org.


Regards,

Robert J. Smith, III
Richmond, Virginia
Advocate, 25