Quote:
Originally Posted by doucanoe
I do also (cap and trade that is).
Being in the housing and commercial construction industry for almost 25 years now, I am very attuned to "green" efforts how many have jumped on board for profit and to conform to regulation. If you could see some of the inner workings of it, I believe you might see a lot of it as a bit of a joke. Be that as it may, jobs are jobs as long as they aren't all just built on the notion of green.
We really need to start to produce a viable product in this country soon or it's going to be government and service related jobs for all of us. If you subscribe any to the notion that government does produce a product as such, we had better start investing in the private sector.
For those of you who say, well, don't just bitch, provide some solutions I give you this...
Maybe a good place to start would be to tax the hell out of corporate entities that wish to produce products overseas and at the same time, wish to bring them back for sale here. At the same time, provide incentives to manufactures that produce a product here for sale here. This would stimulate job growth here by allowing companies who wish to play by the rules the additional capitol to grow and hire.
Maybe thats just a naive approach to things from a guy who likes to cut to the chase  I'm just a guy who would like to get to the heart of the problem (some of it anyway) and deal with it accordingly.
Sorry about the somewhat off topic rant. I just can't help myself 
RC |
Now that I have a few minutes to digest this, I will engage in what could be a very enlightening discussion.
First, with respect to cap and trade, I have a fundamental issue with the idea that an appropriate resolution for issues of environmental degradation is to buy, sell and trade licenses to pollute. (Assuming that the best available science is accurate in projecting environmental effects of various enterprises.)
I agree that "green" has been overused and abused. When public awareness of environmental issues increased, even if on a very superficial level, the green paintbrush became a very useful tool for those in the marketing business. I do believe, however, that the increasing level of energy consumption, and the increasing level of dependence on foreign oil are very real environmental and economic issues. Support for the development of commercially viable products that decrease energy consumption is the type of investment that will pay long term dividends. There will always be those who want to collect those dividends without the investment, but that shouldn't result in wholesale rejection of technologies that reduce energy consumption.
To provide some purely anecdotal evidence, we have taken two significant steps in reducing energy consumption (besides shipping the boys away to school). We replaced almost every light bulb in the house with the CFDs. Within a few months, we noticed about a $10 per month decrease in the electric bills. By necessity we replaced our old furnace and air conditioner with a heat pump and much more efficient gas furnace. Because we had our bills on average pay, the decrease in the bills was gradual. Now, after two years, even with increased energy rates, our gas and electric bills are about 60% of what they were. Multiply that experience by thousands of homes, and we would see a substantial reduction in energy consumption.
Next, I agree that we need to again invest brain power in making the best products possible, and to make that a priority over making the most money possible. Those of us who are fans of vintage audio see what happens to products when the bean counters prevail over the product designers. Obviously, a big part of the shift was in response to consumer demand and to price competition. Consumers seem either satisfied with or addicted to cheap, throw-away products. They don't think about spending more to buy five different generations of a crappy product manufactured overseas, when the life of one well-made product could be extended by paying a local repairman. Who else here is old enough to remember when the TV repairman made house calls?
I don't mean to take too much pleasure in seeing one, who often takes a conservative point of view, use the phrase "tax the hell out of . . . "
I really couldn't agree with you more that corporations should not profit from taking productive capacity out of the United States. How many corporate bosses received obscene bonuses as a result of ripping the livelihood from hundreds or thousands of American workers under the guise of cost-cutting?
I hope you don't mind my coloring your completely pragmatic ideas with a little lefty rhetoric. (And, yes, I realize that it is unfair and inaccurate to label you as a conservative, liberal or any other limiting term) Although it was necessary for me to maintain proper decorum, when I read your kwityerbitchen suggestion, my mind, at least was yelling yes, yes.
Regards,
D-Ray