Remember, the ONLY cure for <x> is larger government, world regulation, higher taxes, and lower standards of living (except for the powerful and political) in the west. It will also be helpful if as many unaccountable NGO's as possible are involved so that my nieces and nephews can get good jobs and spend as much time as possible in Fiji and Davos. _XC
That's not at all true. Most anyone with half a clue knows that "eating and doing less" is only a "lower standard of living" if you are wholly and completely committed to an aggressively materialist lifestyle. Teenagers of today are radically better for the environment than teenagers of 20 years ago, for example, for the simple reason that they drive a hell of a lot less to hang out (thanks to Facebook et. al.). Hate it all you want, but a new Prius C is a hell of a lot better for the environment than a new F250. An old F250 is hella better than a new Prius C, though, because the pickup already exists. This isn't about terking yer jerbs, it's about having an open, rational discussion about the externalizations of our collective lifestyle, east, west and in between.
On the flip side, they are big contributors to the junk food industry, who are among the biggest polluters on the planet, along with cow or pig farmers. I don't think the role of food choices is given nearly enough time in the media when we talk about solutions for the environment. Sure, I drive a car that gets shitty gas mileage, but its a rare day when I eat a steak or a bag of Doritos. That's a point well taken about new vs. used cars. Remember the hilarity of '08 when they were pushing "cash for clunkers" as an "environmental" strategy?Teenagers of today are radically better for the environment than teenagers of 20 years ago, for example, for the simple reason that they drive a hell of a lot less to hang out (thanks to Facebook et. al.).
Junk food does not make the following list: http://www.environment911.org/164.The_Worlds_5_Biggest_Pollu... Further, teenagers are generally not responsible for their family's purchases, they are merely influencers. Even if teenagers ran on coal and wood pulp you can't hold them responsible unless they're the ones cutting the checks. "Cash for clunkers" was an economic strategy couched in environmental terms. The most common durable goods purchased by consumers are automobiles and appliances and all the appliances are made in China. Considering the automotive industry in the United States was heading the way of British Leyland, a boondoggle to get everyone buying cars wasn't a bad play. You get to soothe the oil independence libertarians through raising the fleet fuel economy. You get to soothe the hippies by getting a bunch of gas guzzlers off the road. You get to sop the midwest with red meat by aiding the auto industry through good old-fashioned capitalism (sorta). And you inject a bunch of money into the economy in a vein NOT controlled by the banking industry, everyone's favorite villain.
Cash for clunkers was a good program for its time and place (economically speaking); I just thought it was sold dishonestly. I understand they were towing a political line and trying to please multiple interested parties, but that doesn't mean we don't get to call bullshit when they spout things that are verifiably false (e.g. this program is good for the environment). And the junk food thing I was kind of wrapping into agribusiness. Junk food is obviously only one component of a much larger problem.
As i said: pricing externalism is always for thee and not for me. When I was a teenager lo these many years ago I had five t-shirts, two pairs of jeans, two pairs of gym shorts, and a pair of Nike Court that had to last me all year. I had a two transistor AM radio and a six year old five speed bike for amusement and the family shared a 12" color TV. Unless you're not around kids, then you are smoking crack if you think they consume less than we did. -XC
You have a sample size of one. If AM radios were common when you were a teenager, Brezhnev had yet to take Afghanistan. Which meant you lived in a world without recycling, where "compact cars" were 3500lb monstrosities like the AMC Pacer. Ask yourself: which consumes more resources to make, a Motorola AM radio powered by 9V batteries or an iPhone? Which consumes more resources to operate? I'll also point out that I in no way insulted you. Just because I've read studies and can back my statements up with facts does not mean I'm "smoking crack."
I am pretty cynical when it comes to the World Bank, and I agree with you, they probably won't be a big part of any solution. As I see it, we face a problem that does not motivate the markets to produce solutions until the consequences are well-advanced. Few want to pay for more expensive energy today to prevent a warmer climate tomorrow. So as a result, we wait until pain points start to motivate us. Global governance will try to apply pain points, but as your response indicates, even speculation on action brings criticism, -often valid, because they've done such a bang-up job in other sectors. I don't see that we will prevent this. More likely, we will only adjust.
Remember, when people say they want to "price the externalities" they only want to price the externalities they disapprove of. I was getting quite a lecture from a DINK friend of mine about "conspicuous consumption." I mildly pointed out to him that as he is white, married, and without kids he should be paying 30% - 50% more for social security and not taking it very soon either, where as I, with a history of heart disease and three kids should pay less and retire sooner. Sorta ended the conversation. -XC