Environmentalism and Climate Change

[KichigaiNeko]

"Explain the main differences between Free Market Environmentalism, Eco-Feminism and Christian approaches to the Environment.

Explain how these differences may influence the perception of Climate Change as an issue and how it should be addressed"

The above is an essay question posted by my daughter on FB. What I am seeking here is the forum's thoughts.

For me (in a discussion with Zen Badger) we have come up with....

The 3 forces will alienate people by demographics and will equal nothing more than serving the demographic agenda. Which will result in nothing being done for the proposed Climate Change. Pretty much equivalent to the Carbon Taxes currently world wide and will only serve the marketing $$$ return of any company or organisation that indulges in such activities and so justify their $$ returns at the expense of any real opportunities to instigate real change.

The 3 forces have not considered the fact that the climate and the Earth and astrophysics and geological forces couldn't give a tinker's cus about these so called forces of political endeavour.

Essentially I find that these so called forces will (like the Carbon Tax) eventuate in nothing being done; no new enterprises being established, no curbing of pollution (which this exorbitant tax is supposed to do), and certainly nothing more than religious grand standing which we are all rather weary of.

Your thoughts??

[Tiberius]

Free Market Environmentalism: Producers depend on Consumers. Most Consumers like the environment and don't want it polluted. Producers who pollute the environment will be less likely to attract Consumers. Producers want to attract the largest amount of Consumers possible. Therefore, Producers should do as much as possible to lower the amount of damage they do to the environment.

Eco-Feminism...srsly?

Christian: There is no such thing as a "Christian approach" to the environment. Other than believing that Jesus is the Son of God, there are a multitude of differing beliefs that Christians can have. Some Christians want to protect the environment, some don't give a fuck.

[Justtristo]

Well there is no unified Christian view when it comes to the environment, for example some Christians (including Evangelicals) are dare I say hardcore environmentalists.

While other Christians who are young earth creationists would question Anthropogenic climate change (ACC). Because they don't believe the earth has existed for more than say 10,000 years. If I were a Christian I would be a Young Earth creationist and deny ACC. Because of the old earth assumptions of those who hypothesis ACC.

[KichigaiNeko]

---

Free Market Environmentalism: Producers depend on Consumers. Most Consumers like the environment and don't want it polluted. Producers who pollute the environment will be less likely to attract Consumers. Producers want to attract the largest amount of Consumers possible. Therefore, Producers should do as much as possible to lower the amount of damage they do to the environment.

Eco-Feminism...srsly?

Christian: There is no such thing as a "Christian approach" to the environment. Other than believing that Jesus is the Son of God, there are a multitude of differing beliefs that Christians can have. Some Christians want to protect the environment, some don't give a fuck.

---

[Darth]

I would also add that part and parcel with free market environmentalism is property rights, its (U.S) libertarian environmentalism essentially no? You can't negatively affect your neighbours property without their consent, you can't polite the river, unless you own it or have the owners permission*, you can't pollute the air unless you keep that pollution from escaping your property and effectively assaulting other people... else they owner/individuals can sue you.

*And then, that pollution can't find it's way to somebody else's property...

I wouldn't think the argument wouldn't be 'let the businesses do whatever they want, and that will solve many of the current environmental issues', they would be arguing 'let them do what they want to/on their own property, but not on other people's, and that will solve many of the current environmental issues.' That's a current problem, businesses can do a lot to the commons and other people's property at the moment (not to mention other people) =(.

[popeyespappy]

I've posted this before but since it is relevant to the OP so I'll throw it out there again.

TAKING PROPERTY RIGHTS SERIOUSLY: THE CASE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

[popeyespappy]

TAKING PROPERTY RIGHTS SERIOUSLY: THE CASE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

No takers?

Well let me break it down for you then. This paper was written by a libertarian lawyer that specializes in environmental law. In it he makes a free market environmentalism case for a carbon tax based on property rights. It’s a thought that would send most of the self-proclaimed libertarian Americans that I have talked to into an instant rage. They would be wrong though because they don’t really understand the system they advocate for.

Here is how it works. Under the libertarian idea of property rights people that own property are entitled to compensation from those that damage their property. Anthropogenic global warming is real and is mainly caused by the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Unless something is done to mitigate the effects of AGW it is going to cause the climate of our planet to change. Temperatures are going to increase. Sea levels are going to rise. Some areas are going to become drier than they have been for thousands of years.

These changes are going to damage the property of many people. Coastal areas will be inundated. Productive farmland will become too dry to farm profitably. People in the affected areas will be entitled to compensation from those responsible for the damage to their property. i.e. us. The worst of the damage is going to be far enough in the future that we, i.e. those most responsible for the damage, aren’t going to be around to take responsibility for our actions. Therefore we should be putting money aside to compensate those whose property will be damaged by our actions.

We need to provide the means for people living in Bangladesh and Virginia Beach to buy new property when theirs is inundated. We need to provide the means for Rhythm’s ten times great grandchildren to buy a new tomato farm in Canada after Northern Kentucky becomes too dry for them to make a living there. A carbon tax is the logical way to accomplish this. Make the people responsible for putting excessive levels of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere take responsibility for their actions by paying for them. That’s how the ideal of free market environmentalism is supposed to work.

[Minimalist]

Therefore, Producers should do as much as possible to lower the amount of damage they do to the environment.

Of course, that's largely horseshit and major energy companies dump prodigious amounts of shit into the environment and then hire "scientists" to say that man has no effect on the environment.

[Anomalocaris]

exactly how does "free" market make the factories of china churning out toasters and Ipads for America pay for the inundation of Bangladesh?

[popeyespappy]

Therefore, Producers should do as much as possible to lower the amount of damage they do to the environment.

Of course, that's largely horseshit and major energy companies dump prodigious amounts of shit into the environment and then hire "scientists" to say that man has no effect on the environment.

History tells us it is completely horse shit. That's why an involuntary tax makes since. Don't give them a choice. Make them pay for the damage they are doing, and give them an incentive to reduce the amount of CO2 they produce.

---

exactly how does "free" market make the factories of china churning out toasters and Ipads for America pay for the inundation of Bangladesh?

According to the libertarian paper the same way the rest of us do. Taxes. If they won't play by the rules voluntarily then the rest of us should hit their products with tariffs.