'Green' lightbulbs poison workers

Southern Man said:
What I'm referring to specifically is these agencies declaring certain types of land off limits to development, thereby making the value of such land close to zero, in effect taking the land from the owner. The Constitution allows the government to take private property for the public good, but only after just compensation.
Click to expand...

You have the wrong agency. That's not EPA. You're also under an erroneous premis that because the government does not allow the development of Public lands that it has no value. It is because that land has value in it's present state that the government prohibits development. You're argument is bogus.
 
Damocles said:
So. To shorten a long story. (Bullet Point Version)

1. The government required people to buy light bulbs that will save energy.
2. In order to make it more cost effective people bought bulbs imported from China.
3. Those bulbs are made in a way that harms the environment more than incandescent bulbs as well as the workers who are forced to work in crappy conditions in order to keep costs down.
4. Many people ignore the unintended consequences to attack the messenger.
Click to expand...

1. No.
2. Yes .
3. No. Incandescent lamps do more harm to the environment. Yes, Chinese workers lack the worker protections US workers have.
4. What unintended consequences are you refering to and which messenger is being attacked?
 
WinterBorn said:
There are many situations where the protection of the land is a concern of more than just the land owner.

For example, if I live up stream from you, allowing me to pollute the stream is allowing me to cause direct harm to you.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that it violates the property rights of those down stream of you.
 
uscitizen said:
Yes a good point and I mostly agree. However we do need clean drinking water.

How about the limiting what you can do on your land? AKA zoning.
If I want to build a strip club next to a church should I be able to do that?

Or a pig farm next to a sub division?

Yes I have problems with land use limitations too. But some is society driven and some is ecologically driven. Which is really more important in the long run?
Click to expand...

Actually he has a lousy point and he wasn't talking about limiting the use of private property for commercial purposes. He was talking about prohibiting development of public properties and he's way off base.
 
uscitizen said:
Yeah should I have to put in a septic system just because you live downstream from me?
Click to expand...

If you're dumping raw sewage onto you're property and it's migrating to others property, private or public, then hell yes you should be required to put in a septic tank or some sewage treatment system.
 
Mottleydude said:
1. No.
2. Yes .
3. No. Incandescent lamps do more harm to the environment. Yes, Chinese workers lack the worker protections US workers have.
4. What unintended consequences are you refering to and which messenger is being attacked?
Click to expand...
1. You are wrong. The story is about Britain where they have made it law that after a certain period they will be the only bulbs available. The government made it a requirement, as I had stated.
2. Good.
3. You are wrong. The mines and the way they are created do more harm than good in this case. While the savings may be better for Britain, if they only think of Britain, they are negative when taken as a whole. They could choose to "require" again and force them to only purchase from companies that make them responsibly I guess. But then they open a whole new can of worms.
4. Unintended consequences, the harm wreaked on both the people they purchase them from, and the land, as well as secondary consequences that relate to the disposal of the items they have yet to start tossing regularly. It's okay, they can't see them suffer or see the death and consequences of the pollutants, they are somewhere else, and that company probably bought offsets anyway....
 
Southern Man said:
My policy on land use is consistent with any other type of human behavior. Do with what's yours whatever the hell you please as long as it doesn't have an adverse effect of your neighbor. That's why I support reasonable environmental legislation as well as reasonable zoning laws. Now if the government makes a law after someone has purchased land or after they have made improvements and it adversely affects its value, then the government owes that landowner just compensation.
Click to expand...

That's a good but niave argument, if you know what I mean? Good luck with getting just compensation.
 
Mottleydude said:
#1. Who said anything about EPA? I didn't.

#2. You're wrong. EPA does more than any government agency to protect private property cause you don't have the right to dump your trash on my property or on public property. EPA protects our private property rights.
Click to expand...
How ironic. :)
 
Mottleydude said:
You have the wrong agency. That's not EPA. You're also under an erroneous premis that because the government does not allow the development of Public lands that it has no value. It is because that land has value in it's present state that the government prohibits development. You're argument is bogus.
Click to expand...
Who mentioned the EPA?, I didn't. Nor was I discussing public lands here.
 
Damocles said:
1. You are wrong. The story is about Britain where they have made it law that after a certain period they will be the only bulbs available. The government made it a requirement, as I had stated.
2. Good.
3. You are wrong. The mines and the way they are created do more harm than good in this case. While the savings may be better for Britain, if they only think of Britain, they are negative when taken as a whole. They could choose to "require" again and force them to only purchase from companies that make them responsibly I guess. But then they open a whole new can of worms.
4. Unintended consequences, the harm wreaked on both the people they purchase them from, and the land, as well as secondary consequences that relate to the disposal of the items they have yet to start tossing regularly. It's okay, they can't see them suffer or see the death and consequences of the pollutants, they are somewhere else, and that company probably bought offsets anyway....
Click to expand...

Cool, back to the subject.

Greenies like to think there is always some magical solution to gain any amount of efficiency increase they desire.

We want people to do X so we'll make Y this much more costly for them.

They never ever see the whole picture and it seems they fail to understand that human behavior is like water. It will find the path of least resistance
 
uscitizen said:
LOL. NO!

do you deny that most Republicans want to do away with the EPA, Unions, and OSHA?
To state a fact is not partisan.
Click to expand...


LOL how did I miss this strawman? Man, is that funny. That's an insane "fact" which I'm certain you have zero evidence to substantiate.
 
tinfoil said:
LOL how did I miss this strawman? Man, is that funny. That's an insane "fact" which I'm certain you have zero evidence to substantiate.
Click to expand...

It is like the fact that unless everything ends the sun will come up tomorrow.
Some things just are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top