emission rights

[kandrathe]

To get back to the topic, I don't see how a smaller government could lead to a better environmental track-record.

Ironically, large polluters are currently shielded by exemptions to Federal laws. Our State wants to force them to reduce emissions.

Or it should be something like this: smaller government and lower taxes>state becomes weak

Or, rather, state becomes more focused and better at the things it does.

> state can't take care of citizens anymore

Or, the citizens are better able to take care of themselves.

> instability> poverty> less consumption>

Isn't that the way Greece has gone? Promises, hand outs, dependency, corruption, and finally riots (tantrums) when austerity measures are enforced.

The problem is much more in waht Jester and Pete said. People care not about the general wellbeing of our species/planet but about their own wallet. That is why environmental law is so badly enforces and why nobody does anything to close the loopholes.

I said this as well. But, I suggested that you cannot force people to hug trees and mean it. Since the environment persists beyond any individual, we need to ensure that exploitation of the environment is one area that is well regulated. Then, you need to couple the cost of protection, and in minimizing harm with the exploitation (e.g. timber harvesting followed by reforestation, oil drilling coupled with spill prevention and preparedness).

Earlier this year there was this conference in Doha (I believe) about protecting animal species. 100s of people have been there discussing for a week, and the only thing decided is not to protect endangered species because we want to make more money of them.

The problem here is the flip side of the coin I described earlier. Just as lawyers are drawn to become politicians. Who do you think attends these conferences on behalf of their nations? Environmentalists? It seems to me the problem is inherent in the system.

"By design, CITES regulates and monitors trade in the manner of a "negative list" such that trade in all species is permitted and unregulated unless the species in question appears on the Appendices or looks very much like one of those taxa ... then and only then, trade is regulated or constrained. Because the remit of the Convention covers millions of species of plants and animals, and tens of thousands of these taxa are potentially of economic value, in practice this negative list approach effectively forces CITES signatories to expend limited resources on just a select few, leaving many species to be traded with neither constraint nor review."

So, in summary, "the environment" is not protected. Merely the trade of lists of enumerated species that enough people notice and raise a fuss about.