Can a nation be environmentally friendly and still be capitalistic? (party, economic)

[Mr.Retired]

Originally Posted by FrankAce

Aren't the two ideas antithetical? Isn't capitalism what's holding us back from making the necessary strides to prepare for more eco friendly world? Capitalism (Greed) is what is damaging the earth. I believe Democratic Socialism is a more appropriate economy if we want a greener tomorrow. This is used in countries like Norway and Sweden.

Excerpt: I believe Democratic Socialism is a more appropriate economy

Response:
A capitalist economy is by nature no different with the exception that there are more bells and whistles in place to raise a red flag when the engine begins to falter. This provides for a correction period and restoration back to health. Socialism by theory can runaway until it crashes and burns.....Proven over and over....

[HJ99]

Originally Posted by bobbythegreat

BTW, do I even have to point out the obvious, that countries like Norway and Sweden are Capitalist countries?

So is the People's Republic of China..... LOL Good old Red State Capitalists. It truly is a RED state, slave labor and all.


Here I grew up when it was widely known, better dead than red.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by FrankAce

Aren't the two ideas antithetical?

No.

If you were competent on the subject matter you'd know that citizens have sued and won.

If the actions of another cause you harm, and that harm is not limited to physical harm only, because it applies to psychological harm, financial harm, future financial harm etc etc etc then you are entitled to be compensated.

A company can't profit if it is spending all it's profits on legal representation and jury damage awards.

I would suggest to you that the EPA has actually caused more environmental harm than it has prevented.

Now, of course, we have the standard "poor people can't sue" nonsense.

Not too far from me, a big-brain had the smart idea to fill in a creek and then another big-brain had the smart idea to combine sewage and storm water run-off into a single 6" pipe.

Fast-foward 60 years and guess what?

The 6" pipe can't handle sewage and storm water run-off so it backs up in people's basements which is not only a health hazard, it's an environmental hazard, and they were injured because the residents and landlords had to pay for cleanup and were deprived of the use of their property.

They complained to the Metropolitan Sewer District who refused to do anything because "it cost too much."

Then they complained to the EPA who did absolutely nothing very slowly.

Then they complained to an environmental group who sued the EPA, and the Ohio EPA and the Metropolitan Sewer District.

And they won.

A federal judge said fix it by this date or be fined $100,000 per day.

It got fixed 3 months ahead of schedule.

The sewage is now in a dedicated 8" pipe and the storm water run-off in a 6'x6' conveyance box.

Also, the creek that was filled in by the big-brain was restored and the area beautified.

To pay for it, the Metropolitan Sewer District got created and built inexpensive bio-infiltration basis and other biological stuff that does a better job than man-made stuff and looks even better.

I guess it's a good thing the EPA did their job, huh?

[Ohiogirl81]

Originally Posted by self-made

They're going to have to pry plastic bags from my cold, dead hands.

And why can't those bags be made from recycled plastic, or from any number of eco-friendly materials? I buy compostable plastic bags for cat poo.

Originally Posted by Mircea

Not too far from me, a big-brain had the smart idea to fill in a creek and then another big-brain had the smart idea to combine sewage and storm water run-off into a single 6" pipe.

That mess finally was resolved? Alleluia!

[trobesmom]

Originally Posted by FrankAce

Aren't the two ideas antithetical? Isn't capitalism what's holding us back from making the necessary strides to prepare for more eco friendly world? Capitalism (Greed) is what is damaging the earth. I believe Democratic Socialism is a more appropriate economy if we want a greener tomorrow. This is used in countries like Norway and Sweden.

I don't think so because the goal of capitalism is to get more, more, more. It's exploitative and greed is at its heart, IMO.

[Hesychios]

Can a nation be environmentally friendly and still be capitalistic?

Yes.

Originally Posted by FrankAce

Aren't the two ideas antithetical?

Not exactly.

A well regulated industry can be ecologically friendly and make a handsome profit. We have seen that ourselves in this country.

The USA has a mixed economy, and it has always been this way ... which we can adjust as needed to yield the best results for the people and growth of commerce.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

Of course. Privatize everything including rivers and the owners will protect them.

In what reality is this the case? There's a long list of the Superfund sites that are the direct result of chemical companies dumping their waste in a hole on their own property. If the cost of the property is lower than the cost of running a responsible operation, there's every motive to do so. I mena - it's been tried.

If a river (or mountain, or forest) is privatized under laissez-faire capitalism, it will be used for resource extraction in a manner that maximizes profit.

[Frank DeForrest]

Reading threads like these make me so glad Ive shrugged off the veil of statism.

Best use of resources-private ownership
Most efficient use of resources - private ownership
Best stewardship of resources-private ownership

If I own the stretch of river that runs through my property and the hog farm that owns a portion upstream dumps waste into it and I can show damages, its off to court we go for compensation.
When the state owns the river, it's tragedy of the commons writ large as has been shown time and time again.
Public ownership-no real ownership, no effective stewardship, or as is too often the case, pollution for dollars with the taxpayer on the hook for any clean up.

Before a bunch of what if scenarios are lobbed, feel free to read Rothbard, Block or any other number of libertarian thinkers (as I did) on how capitalism and property rights can address environmental/conservation issues

[FrankAce]

Thanks for the responses guys. I'm doing a lot of reading on the capitalism vs. socialism vs communism. So my beliefs are still evolving.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

Best use of resources-private ownership
Most efficient use of resources - private ownership
Best stewardship of resources-private ownership

Well, if we consider the environment as essentially an aggregation of resources to be extracted, sure.