HIV vaccine a reality!

[Zenda]

Wouldn't it be nice, yes, if people would start seeing the problem as it is, namely their own.

Why talk about incentives for consumers to trick them into doing the right things, when we ourselves are those consumers? Do we really need to deceive ourselves? And why would ecological damageing industries be punished, if we can simply decide not to use the products those make?

Here is where the principles of 'free market' might actually work better as more socialist approaches (which I usually prefer). Consumers have the power to decide which producers are succesful. All they need to do is think about what they buy. Seems a small effort to me, if you really want to 'save' the earth.

The implications of population growth and urbanization for climate change

"This paper considers the implications of population growth and urbanization for climate change. It emphasizes that it is not the growth in (urban or rural) populations that drives the growth in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions but rather, the growth in consumers and in their levels of consumption."

[--Pete]

Hi,

Wouldn't it be nice, yes, if people would start seeing the problem as it is, namely their own.

Why talk about incentives for consumers to trick them into doing the right things, when we ourselves are those consumers? Do we really need to deceive ourselves? And why would ecological damageing industries be punished, if we can simply decide not to use the products those make?

This argument completely depends on your clever glossing of your dual use of 'we'. If by 'we' you mean the posters on this forum, then it might be possible to both know and do the right thing. If by 'we' you mean the population at large, then their ignorance, their apathy, their stupidity, and their greed will make it impossible to change the cause of the problem into its solution.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

This argument completely depends on your clever glossing of your dual use of 'we'. If by 'we' you mean the posters on this forum, then it might be possible to both know and do the right thing. If by 'we' you mean the population at large, then their ignorance, their apathy, their stupidity, and their greed will make it impossible to change the cause of the problem into its solution.

"We" are better motivated by directly suffering the consequences of our own actions. I see a global trend of irresponsibility, with leadership by the USA; massive debt to pay for avarice today, ecological damage which future generations will need to deal with, over consumption of natural resources with little heed to future needs.

"We" will only stop when what we do has a real consequence for the "now".

{This is not an endorsement of the Obama Curb Trade and Tax program.} :)

[Jester]

Wouldn't it be nice, yes, if people would start seeing the problem as it is, namely their own.

Why talk about incentives for consumers to trick them into doing the right things, when we ourselves are those consumers? Do we really need to deceive ourselves? And why would ecological damageing industries be punished, if we can simply decide not to use the products those make?

Because all that good work could be quickly undone by a small minority of people who do not care about the environment.

If 90% of people get out of the market for products that cause pollution, the price for those goods will drop through the floor. Then, 10% of people who are still in the market will buy up the production, because the marginal utility of buying a massively under priced commodity will be very high.

You can't boycott polluting industries out of business unless consumers act so uniformly that they have market power - a monopsony. Getting such a thing would be nearly impossible, unless you can convince practically everyone not only to believe in your idea, but to act accordingly. This is especially true of fungible, polluting products like steel, energy, or oil. You will be undone by the law of one price.

We need incentives. Real ones. Pigovian ones. Otherwise, we're just essentially giving people who don't care about the environment an enormous gift of cheap goods. I believe it was you who once pointed out the Jevons Paradox - a similar principle is in play here.

-Jester

[Zenda]

If by 'we' you mean the posters on this forum, then it might be possible to both know and do the right thing. If by 'we' you mean the population at large, then their ignorance, their apathy, their stupidity, and their greed ...

If everyone would refuse to do the right thing until anyone else does too, we wouldn't get very far, is it? Apparantly, some people have really good excuses;)

If 90% of people get out of the market for products that cause pollution, the price for those goods will drop through the floor.

Only if producers would be prepared to drop the prices, hoping customers would return. Since those wouldn't (knowing the problem would also return if they did), production would have to be scaled down to 10%, which in turn would increase prices, possibly driving away even more customers. That's basic capitalism, not?

The Jevons Paradox basically says that if your production becomes more efficient, it will not result in using less resources, because consumption will grow. We are talking about decreasing consumption here, so I don't think this Paradox applies. Maybe you are implying that the remaining 10% customers could consume and pollute as much as the previous 100%? That would be quite a feat, seeing what we do now.

Boycotting works. And in a 'free market' system, you don't even need to reach 90% cooperation. Especially in economic weak periods like this, a few extra % market loss can be devastating for some companies. The current crisis is quite good, really, from a certain point of view.

[Jester]

If everyone would refuse to do the right thing until anyone else does too, we wouldn't get very far, is it? Apparantly, some people have really good excuses;)

Only if producers would be prepared to drop the prices, hoping customers would return. Since those wouldn't (knowing the problem would also return if they did), production would have to be scaled down to 10%, which in turn would increase prices, possibly driving away even more customers. That's basic capitalism, not?

The Jevons Paradox basically says that if your production becomes more efficient, it will not result in using less resources, because consumption will grow. We are talking about decreasing consumption here, so I don't think this Paradox applies. Maybe you are implying that the remaining 10% customers could consume and pollute as much as the previous 100%? That would be quite a feat, seeing what we do now.

Boycotting works. And in a 'free market' system, you don't even need to reach 90% cooperation. Especially in economic weak periods like this, a few extra % market loss can be devastating for some companies. The current crisis is quite good, really, from a certain point of view.

I don't think you understand the economics at work here. This is just basic elasticity. Unless you can control the demand curve (market power), you can't control anything else. "Do the right thing" is meaningless, so long as there are more than a tiny few people in the economy who don't share your beliefs - they will not just contribute their share of the problems, they will take advantage of your altruism to their own benefit.

Boycotts are also not particularly useful for targeting the products that contribute the most pollution - basic stuff like energy, oil, mining, metals, chemicals, and so on. A boycott of those products would require the participation of almost the entire economy to be successful, not just consumers, but downstream producers as well. These are low-visibility products that are elemental to almost everything the economy does. How would you successfully boycott them? The informational costs alone would be staggering. And, in the case of producers, the 10% "boycott breakers" would soon be able to purchase 100% of capacity - because they would crush their competitors out of business with cheaper inputs.

-Jester

[eppie]

Here is where the principles of 'free market' might actually work better as more socialist approaches (which I usually prefer).

Zenda,

this subject for me is a clear instance in which free market economy and also Kandrathe's libertarian solutions won't work. The subject of collective problems and collective solutions is for me a reason not to fully embrace the free market economy.
People are A not smart enough, and B to selfish to really change something as an unorganized group.
It required a trendy movie from Al Gore to make people think about climate change.....20 years after the CO2/extra heating connection was found 95 % true......we have been watsing 20 years to go from a 95% certainty to a 99% certainty....and in that time oru energy use has skyrocketed.....the sale of SUVs in europe to people that only use there car in town or in the highway has increased 100 fold.

Now it needed a big crisis and a lot of bankrupt companies to finally start making some progress in the commercialization of hybrid and electrical cars......if GM, Ford, Toyota etc. cpould still make loads of money on SUVs we still wouldn't have seen any change.


The problem is the invisibility of the problem and the invisibiltiy of the use of protecting the environment.
If every time when you went on holiday to a beach on the other end of the world you would see dying panda's and deadly ill babies people would cut back on flying. With the CO2/heating, you don't get to see the results of behaving responsibly.....maybe after 20 years you see (hopefully nothing) something. Mix that with people claiming that the climate issue is all a hoax, and it is very easy for people not to do anything.

I consider myself a responsible person in this sense but I also now that I could probably cut my energy use down 30 % without major problems. What would you think people that think gloabl warming doesn't exist or people that don't care would do?

We need rules for consumers and for industry to make sure everybody does his share.

[Zenda]

Unless you can control the demand curve (market power), you can't control anything else.

Demand is what consumers want. So if demand for ecological damageing products decreases by 90%, production has to decrease too. There is no 'elasticity' here, because the responsible consumers we are talking about don't come back for cheap prices.

they will take advantage of your altruism to their own benefit.

Even if that's true, so what? I was doing it for myself, remember? If we keep rejecting every solution that might benefit others more then ourselves, nothing will happen.

A boycott of those products would require the participation of almost the entire economy to be successful, not just consumers, but downstream producers as well.

Why? If end-consumers stay away, it doesn't matter what producers in the middle do.

And, in the case of producers, the 10% "boycott breakers" would soon be able to purchase 100% of capacity - because they would crush their competitors out of business with cheaper inputs.

The ones doing the boycott are consumers, not competing industry owners. Let them buy all 100% capacity. They still have only 10% of the former market.

People are A not smart enough, and B to selfish to really change something as an unorganized group.

Individual people are smart and altruistic enough, but (organized) groups usually are not. Groups need to be popular to attract members. Besides, if low human intelligence was the real problem, we might as well give up now. Any government applying Pigovian taxes, for example, would be voted away too. This would mean that only non-democratic forms of government would be able to solve problems like this.

I consider myself a responsible person in this sense but I also now that I could probably cut my energy use down 30 % without major problems.

But you don't, apparantly. Why not? Waiting for laws or high taxes to regulate your own energy use? We wouldn't need those if you didn't wait for them. Just being intelligent is not the solution, just as being dumb is not the problem. You have to act on your responsibility too;)

[kandrathe]

this subject for me is a clear instance in which free market economy and also Kandrathe's libertarian solutions won't work.

Done. eppie has spoken. The free market and any possible liberal reform is impossible.

The subject of collective problems and collective solutions is for me a reason not to fully embrace the free market economy.

And, ergo, the solution is collectivism? Or, feudalism?

People are A not smart enough, and B to selfish to really change something as an unorganized group.

There would be a movement were it not killed by the interference of government and propagandists.

It required a trendy movie from Al Gore to make people think about climate change.....20 years after the CO2/extra heating connection was found 95 % true......we have been watsing 20 years to go from a 95% certainty to a 99% certainty....and in that time oru energy use has skyrocketed.....the sale of SUVs in europe to people that only use there car in town or in the highway has increased 100 fold.

You mean the trendy propaganda, that is laced with untruth and outright deception?

Now it needed a big crisis and a lot of bankrupt companies to finally start making some progress in the commercialization of hybrid and electrical cars......if GM, Ford, Toyota etc. cpould still make loads of money on SUVs we still wouldn't have seen any change.

Nice. Maybe when other industries begin the fail, the government should just buy them up and make them produce what the Congress believes to be the "proper" products.

The problem is the invisibility of the problem and the invisibiltiy of the use of protecting the environment.

Did you know that in the USA we have the Clean Air Act, clean water laws, and a myriad of other environmental protections that are working. One big gaping hole in that are coal fired power plants which have some deal with the EPA.

If every time when you went on holiday to a beach on the other end of the world you would see dying panda's and deadly ill babies people would cut back on flying. With the CO2/heating, you don't get to see the results of behaving responsibly.....maybe after 20 years you see (hopefully nothing) something. Mix that with people claiming that the climate issue is all a hoax, and it is very easy for people not to do anything.

Yes, I'm sure that baby panda's coughing up blood on tourists would shut down the tourism industry.

I consider myself a responsible person in this sense but I also now that I could probably cut my energy use down 30 % without major problems. What would you think people that think gloabl warming doesn't exist or people that don't care would do?

That would be nice. You will be making room for the 30% increased energy use by China.

We need rules for consumers and for industry to make sure everybody does his share.

Which was what I said. The rule is... "You keep your own yard clean, or you pay to have it cleaned up for you." ...and, one backyard at a time, we clean up the planet. The government would help by making ecological tort claims easier to file, and to better hold polluters accountable.

[Zenda]

You mean the trendy propaganda, that is laced with untruth and outright deception?

The only deception was that things are far worse then pictured by Al Gore.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/21/hadl...emissions-path/

"Well, 5.5°C global warming means an average warming of 15°F over much of the inland United States. Based on two studies in the last few years:

By century’s end, extreme temperatures of up to 122°F would threaten most of the central, southern, and western U.S. Even worse, Houston and Washington, DC could experience temperatures exceeding 98°F for some 60 days a year. Much of Arizona would be subjected to temperatures of 105°F or more for 98 days out of the year–14 full weeks.

Yet that conclusion is based on studies of only 700 ppm and 850 ppm, so it could get much hotter than that."

You will be making room for the 30% increased energy use by China.

You think that using as much energy as you like will stop China and the rest of the world from doing the same?

[eppie]

Individual people are smart and altruistic enough, but (organized) groups usually are not. Groups need to be popular to attract members. Besides, if low human intelligence was the real problem, we might as well give up now.

Well this is what you see in countries with no real governments, like is the case in many countries in Africa for example. You get anarchy, and the formation of clans that battle eachother.
You also see this closer to home in former yugoslavie where neighbours of many years started killing and raping eachother when the government control fell away, and the populists took over.

We might not give up now. Some of our government system keep the people together......so that you only need a number of smart people, so that low human intelligence (on average) can be counterbalanced.
Still....I think at the moment even our average collective intelligence doesn't really stop us from destroying our planet.

[eppie]

Done. eppie has spoken. The free market and any possible liberal reform is impossible.And, ergo, the solution is collectivism? Or, feudalism?

I wrote 'fully' meaning that I favour market economy, but with some changes (and less financial liberties compared to now)

There would be a movement were it not killed by the interference of government and propagandists.

Yeah right. If you would have left out governments I would agree. In our governments there are many people who ar in it for themselves.....these people would behave exactly the same in a libertarian society, likely doing far more damage than they do now..

You mean the trendy propaganda, that is laced with untruth and outright deception?

Kandrathe, you are so 2004.

Nice. Maybe when other industries begin the fail, the government should just buy them up and make them produce what the Congress believes to be the "proper" products.

No better let's just keep selling petrol for rediculously low prices.
Anyway, the change in products made by the car industry is market based. People buy a Prius because they want to, not because they have to.

Which was what I said. The rule is... "You keep your own yard clean, or you pay to have it cleaned up for you." ...and, one backyard at a time, we clean up the planet. The government would help by making ecological tort claims easier to file, and to better hold polluters accountable.

Almost nobody would help cleaning if it costs them. So my opinion stands, governments should push for cleaning the planet......and that is already difficult enough....if you have people like Bush, Blair, Berlusconi and Balkenende nothing will happen.....but still, I also don't think China and India would listen to a consumer organisation.

[Jester]

Demand is what consumers want. So if demand for ecological damageing products decreases by 90%, production has to decrease too. There is no 'elasticity' here, because the responsible consumers we are talking about don't come back for cheap prices.

And the consumers who are relatively poor, they're joining you in this boycott? Along with all the countries in the world? Because you'd need to make sure those products that are no longer being bought by you aren't being bought by anyone else, either, not even for export. This is not just a handful of noxious brands, but gigantic swathes of the productive capacity of the economy, things that are elementary to everyday life, everywhere: energy, metal, wood, water. Are you seriously going to keep track of *everything* that uses these products somewhere in their production stream, and where they're coming from? I know I sure don't have that much information, nor will I ever. But that's what you'd need, to enforce this kind of boycott.

This is especially for energy, which is totally fungible. It all gets put onto a grid, and it all gets taken off of a grid. How do you boycott coal power? How do you purchase wind power? You can't, not really. And you certainly aren't going to know whether the steel in your car was produced with coal power.

Even if that's true, so what? I was doing it for myself, remember? If we keep rejecting every solution that might benefit others more then ourselves, nothing will happen.

Yes, that's precisely correct. You would be doing it for *yourself*. It would not improve the overall situation in particular - but it would make you feel better.

I'm the opposite. I don't care what the solution makes me feel like, I only care whether it succeeds at the goal: reducing pollution.

Why? If end-consumers stay away, it doesn't matter what producers in the middle do.

But for many of the most polluting products (Energy, mining, metals, lumber, etc...) the middle producers are consuming the exact same product as many of the end consumers. If I switch off my lights at night, that energy is now free to be used at a steel plant. And if the steel plant doesn't use it, then some other industry will. The same is true for oil, and for all the big fungible products. Unless you had a boycott so large it constituted a consumer monopsony, with detailed information about the production streams of all products, you'd just be wasting your time.

A pigovian tax, by contrast, includes these things right in the cost of producing them, which is then reflected in the cost of consuming them. Prices go up, people consume less. As they pollute less, their cost goes down, people consume more - problem solved. No need for massive consumer solidarity, no defection problem, no informational barrier.

-Jester

[Zenda]

Because you'd need to make sure those products that are no longer being bought by you aren't being bought by anyone else, either, not even for export.

So you keep saying, yes. I still don't see what good that would do, if I'm not buying. Are others going to buy more just because I don't, perhaps?

I know I sure don't have that much information, nor will I ever. But that's what you'd need, to enforce this kind of boycott.

No enforcing is needed for voluntary boycotts. A decreasing market for harmful products is the only goal. The more, the better, but every tiny bit would help. That's also why information doesn't need to be complete.

You would be doing it for *yourself*. It would not improve the overall situation in particular - but it would make you feel better.

So, if I voluntarily use 50% less energy, it still needs to be produced? If I drive a bicycle instead of a car, I still pollute as much? If I eat less meat, we still need the same amount of cows?

I'm the opposite. I don't care what the solution makes me feel like, I only care whether it succeeds at the goal: reducing pollution.

And? Is whatever *you* do, working better?

Prices go up, people consume less. As they pollute less, their cost goes down, people consume more - problem solved.

That's a strange reasoning. Wouldn't the problem be back with the increasing consumption? What makes the pollution stay away the second time?

Anyway, Pigovian taxes are even more subject to broad cooperation as voluntary boycotts are. Imagine the benefits for a nation like the USA or China, if the rest of the world payed 'real' costs for everything, and they didn't. You think that will work? And if you do, will it happen in time? Private boycotts don't need top-level meetings that produce only concessions, you know.

Also, since you brought up the lack of information as argument against boycotting, who can tell how high the taxes on a gallon of fuel ought to be? The company that makes profit by pumping it from the ground, the government that desperately needs to keep the nation's economy going, or the mother who just lost her child to cancer?

[Jester]

So you keep saying, yes. I still don't see what good that would do, if I'm not buying. Are others going to buy more just because I don't, perhaps?

It depends on the product. If everyone in the first world stopped buying iPods, I'd bet they'd stop producing them. But if the first world stopped buying wood, or sulphur, or steel, you can bet your bottom dollar that people in the third world would eagerly snap up the now-bargain resources. The problem is, most of what creates the pollution problem is not knicknacks and luxury gadgets, but basic infrastructural products.

No enforcing is needed for voluntary boycotts.

... well, sort of. But that's like saying no police would be needed if everyone followed the law. It's utopian - never going to happen.

A decreasing market for harmful products is the only goal. The more, the better, but every tiny bit would help. That's also why information doesn't need to be complete.

This would not decrease the market by much - unless you are talking about an unrealistically large percentage of consumers around the world participating. It would mostly just transfer resources from people who care about the environment, to people who don't. This is the problem that Pigovian taxes avoid.

So, if I voluntarily use 50% less energy, it still needs to be produced? If I drive a bicycle instead of a car, I still pollute as much? If I eat less meat, we still need the same amount of cows?

Yes, no, and more or less.

If you use less energy, that lowers the price for energy by a tiny bit. That changes the marginal values for other consumers of energy, who will pick up the slack in almost exact proportion to what you saved. Even if millions of people saved most of their household electricity bills, it would not be difficult for, say, a steel manufacturer to take advantage of the reduced prices and produce extra steel that year. The world would get more steel, but it wouldn't consume much less energy.

If you use a bike instead of a car, you personally are polluting less. But you're also freeing up some congestion, a parking space, and so on, all of which is an encouragement for everyone else to drive. It's a savings, but it's much smaller than the total pollution of driving.

Meat is much the same as energy, although less fungible. You eat less > price goes down > someone else eats more > price goes back up. You put a tiny dent in the demand, but not enough to really change anything. Even a million tiny dents doesn't amount to much, so long as that meat can be sold to other people, or exported.

And? Is whatever *you* do, working better?

I haven't made any claims about what I'm doing, but rather about what will work to reduce pollution, and what won't. I walk or take public transport everywhere, and I don't consume very much (good), but I fly long distances fairly often, since I'm from Canada, my studies are in the UK, and I'm doing research in Uruguay (bad). But what I do know is that if I consumed less things, that would free everyone else to consume slightly more - whereas if they were taxed for everyone, then everyone would have the same incentive to consume less, and that would not occur.

That's a strange reasoning. Wouldn't the problem be back with the increasing consumption? What makes the pollution stay away the second time?

No. People consume X amount at Y price. If you raise the price to Y+1, people will consume X-(something), depending on the elasticity of demand. If you remove your consumption, you haven't changed the price - supply and demand still predict the same level of consumption - people who don't care about the environment will rush in to take advantage of the temporarily lowered price. But if you add a tax, then everyone will consume less, whether they care about the environment or not, because they have no choice. There's no legal way around a Pigovian tax, whereas a boycott can be broken by anyone, whenever they want, in a moment of weakness, poverty, selfishness, whatever.

Anyway, Pigovian taxes are even more subject to broad cooperation as voluntary boycotts are. Imagine the benefits for a nation like the USA or China, if the rest of the world payed 'real' costs for everything, and they didn't. You think that will work? And if you do, will it happen in time? Private boycotts don't need top-level meetings that produce only concessions, you know.

And your consumer boycott will get around this how, by convincing all consumers of all nations to join the boycott? Does that seem realistic to you? People who are in the developing world, whose incomes are increasing, want more, better, cheaper goods. Are they all going to join you in consuming less? That strikes me as a much larger obstacle than merely convincing the governments of the world to institute Pigovian taxes on pollution - at least that doesn't require global consumer unanimity.

Also, since you brought up the lack of information as argument against boycotting, who can tell how high the taxes on a gallon of fuel ought to be? The company that makes profit by pumping it from the ground, the government that desperately needs to keep the nation's economy going, or the mother who just lost her child to cancer?

You can't, strictly speaking. You set targets for various pollutants based on what you know - the dangers to public safety, the contribution to global climate change, the elimination of biodiversity, and so on, and tax accordingly, until the pollutants are within the range you find acceptable.

But how is your boycott going to manage these things? The informational problem is much worse - not only do you have to know about all the mothers with children with cancers, but you have to disseminate that information to each and every consumer so that they know exactly why or why not to buy each and every product they want. It's barely realistic to expect a government to account to keep track of all this, let alone each consumer.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I wrote 'fully' meaning that I favour market economy, but with some changes (and less financial liberties compared to now)

Again, if we can agree that one purpose of government is the protection of property, then a liberal free market is the best way to guarantee liberty. Protection of property can mean that acid rain doesn't kill my trees, or pollute my backyard pond. It can also mean that fraud, and false advertising is prohibited. It can also mean that products labels contain accurate nutrition and ingredient lists, or that detrimental ingredient are proscribed.

Yeah right. If you would have left out governments I would agree. In our governments there are many people who are in it for themselves.....these people would behave exactly the same in a libertarian society, likely doing far more damage than they do now..

Propagandists are using coercion to get power, while the government doesn't need to coerce anyone to use power.

Kandrathe, you are so 2004.

Some days I might be 1004. Gore is a twit, and will always be a twit. I'm not about to support his bid at becoming a billionaire by selling eco-indulgences.

No better let's just keep selling petrol for ridiculously low prices. Anyway, the change in products made by the car industry is market based. People buy a Prius because they want to, not because they have to.

Or, if it's heavily subsidized by the government incentives and tax breaks. Gas prices in the US are artificially determined by starting wars in the middle east, making deals with erstwhile allies and by limiting domestic energy production.

Almost nobody would help cleaning if it costs them. So my opinion stands, governments should push for cleaning the planet......and that is already difficult enough....if you have people like Bush, Blair, Berlusconi and Balkenende nothing will happen.....but still, I also don't think China and India would listen to a consumer organisation.

I don't understand your logic. Let me give you an example to illustrate. Your neighbor takes a walk everyday and tosses a banana peel onto your lawn. Each day a police officer comes by an hour later and writes you a $50 fine for having trash on your lawn. Do you 1) pay the fine everyday, 2) go pick up the banana peel every day, or 3) talk to your neighbor?

It's a simple theory. We hold each other accountable for our actions. We become responsible citizens, and hold each other accountable for our own actions. I know this is a hard concept for socialists to understand.

Because as the rules work now, the polluter pays the fine everyday since the fine is much less than they earn and it becomes a business cost. The socialists want us all to go out and pick up the banana peel because they don't want to hold anyone accountable for their own mess, or better yet, they want to use it as an opportunity to redistribute wealth again (whether or not there is any correlation between that persons wealth and pollution).

I vote for option 3. And if that doesn't work, then talk in a louder voice.

[--Pete]

hi,

Do you 1) pay the fine everyday, 2) go pick up the banana peel every day, or 3) talk to your neighbor?

. . .

I vote for option 3. And if that doesn't work, then talk in a louder voice.

And if your neighbor says that, since you have no power over him, he'll continue to toss his banana peel onto your lawn, what do you do next? Because, following your analogy, that is exactly the position we are in now.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

And if your neighbor says that, since you have no power over him, he'll continue to toss his banana peel onto your lawn, what do you do next? Because, following your analogy, that is exactly the position we are in now.

There is an ages old escalation of force that begins with legal intervention, and ends with war. :) Somewhere between those two, someone usually capitulates.

[Jester]

There is an ages old escalation of force that begins with legal intervention, and ends with war. :) Somewhere between those two, someone usually capitulates.

You might be able to convince the *governments* of China and India, although that's a tough task in and of itself. How on earth are you going to convince the *consumers* of China and India?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

You might be able to convince the *governments* of China and India, although that's a tough task in and of itself. How on earth are you going to convince the *consumers* of China and India?

You design the system to favor the result you desire. This is why the returnable glass bottle was a great idea. This is why community recycling is a great idea, especially when the recycling materials are actually recycled at a profit. There are ways to mold consumer behavior, and ways in which a government can help (other than dictate).