This story points up just how central packaging — as opposed to the products that come in it — is to environmental issues. Most of the stuff that comes in packages is either durable or consumable … it’s the package that most frequently and immediately ends up in a landfill. And, naturally, the focus for many years has been on minimizing packaging and/or making it bio-degradable or recyclable.
How far can that movement go? There are competing priorities:
Among the false conflicts separating many libertarians from many environmentalists is the perceived incompatibility between “economic growth” and “sustainable development.”
Non-libertarian greens see libertarians as unconcerned about the environmental impact of continued and increased development, pollution, energy consumption and waste production; non-environmentalist libertarians see greens as modern-day Luddites whose proposed solutions to environmental problems all require busting the mainspring of human action — economic gain through free enterprise — and returning to the pre-industrial Dark Ages.
The chasm is deep, and it is wide. But suppose it could be bridged? Suppose, for example, that industrial waste could be turned into a renewable energy source on a scalar, self-sustaining or near-self-sustaining basis. Wouldn’t that be nice?
I’m skeptical of government attempts — regulations, treaties, etc. — to cut greenhouse emissions.
For one thing, the use of force (which is inherent to government) usually just doesn’t work as well as incentives (and when government uses incentives, it has to get them from somewhere — by force).
For another, while support for greenhouse cuts exists, it is more inchoate and more blunted by the desire for goods and services that require the generation of pollution to provide that opposition, which is funded by entities — businesses which produce the emissions or produce the products that produce the emissions — which are very clear on their priorities (i.e. profit). Even a “pro-business” libertarian recognizes that enterprise and industry are better organized to influence legislation than unaffiliated individuals.
Still, at least to the extent of targeting, treaties might have a place — if the details can be worked out. This article goes into one of those hairy details: How do the various nations split out “their shares” of emissions reductions?
This week’s editorial is a “guest column” of sorts: I’m reproducing (with the permission of author Zek Kolyma) part of a manifesto distributed at Earth Day events a few years ago. Interestingly, this site is named for the flier (”Question Earthority! Volume I, Issue I, Earth Day 2001″) in which that manifesto appeared.
In its entirety, the manifesto (”A Real Third Way”) covers the existence and operations of something called the Direct Action Group for Guerilla Extropian Revolution. That group no longer seems to exist (if it does, I can’t find it, and Zek just smiles cryptically when I ask about it), so I’ll leave that part for another time when it might be relevant. Instead, I’ll stick with the first part and an excerpt from the remainder, which address my issue of interest this week: The relationship between environmentalism and anarchism.
It seems like every week, the transition of environmental activism to a market paradigm takes another step forward. As recently as a couple of months ago, “personal carbon offsets” seemed like a thing of the future. Now I can’t swing a cat without hitting a company offering them.
It’s been going on for awhile at the “rockstar” level: As far back as 2003, rock group Pearl Jam ran a “carbon-neutral” tour. Now, musician Kelly Stoltz is offsetting the pollution costs of his new album. Companies are now in the business of letting consumers know which companies offset their environmental impacts.
In the last few months, however, it’s started to get truly personal in a visible way. Read the rest of this entry »
I continue to watch, with a mix of amusement and bewilderment, the reaction of alleged “free market” advocates to the phenomenon of “Corporate Social Responsibility.” The expressions of outrage continue to increase in frequency and vehemence, and in my opinion, they reveal a serious problem with the way “free market” ideology has evolved in tandem with unfree markets. Put simply, some defenders of business have cornered themselves in the position of attempting to defend state economic constructs — corporations — from the market itself.
I had occasion to think a little about recycling this weekend — during the usual weekly chore of packing our home bins full of two-liter bottles and such, and while tearing the last few cannibalizable (is that even a word?) parts out of some old computers and disposing of the empty cases and denuded motherboards.
The national media’s environmental focus this week is on the Clean Water Act, especially its provisions and amendments relating to “wetlands.” The US Supreme Court is entertaining two cases with the intention of resolving questions relating to the Act’s reach and the authority of the federal government to enforce it at a distance from the “navigable streams” over which the Constitution gives Congress regulatory authority.
It goes without saying that pretty much everyone favors clean water … in principle. It also goes without saying that developers and property owners object to restrictive regulations that prevent them from using their property in a manner not obviously tied to actually protecting the water supply.
As usual, I have more questions than I can find answers.
I’ve covered this topic before (in material that we lost in the server move), but it’s time for another go anyway: The debate over the meaning of “eco-terrorism” is beginning to open up. For this week’s backgrounder, I’ve chosen Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching, precisely because in order to understand accusations of “eco-terrorism” and evaluate whether or not they hold water, we need to know who is advocating (and doing) what. Another good starting point is Wikipedia’s article on the phenomenon of “eco-terrorism.”
I don’t have an issue-based editorial in the can for QE’s readers today — I just wanted to let you know that we are back. Readers will have to re-register (here) to comment. Sorry about that.
What happened while we were gone? A whole lot … and, it seems, a whole lot of nothing. The controversies which raged while the site was down are still raging. A few (for example, mine safety) were highlighted by stories of the moment, but there’s been no great sea change of any type over the last month.
President Bush noted, in his State of the Union address last week, that the US is “addicted to oil.” His plans for fixing that were not especially bold. Ford and Chevrolet unveiled “green” ad campaigns during the Super Bowl commercial sweeps yesterday, but they don’t highlight any new technology — just new marketing approaches.
As one who’s convinced that the market can deliver solutions to environmental problems (including the problem of ending our reliance on a substance which must be pipelined or tankered great distances — representing an environmental hazard the whole way — after which it is burned to the detriment of environmental and human health), I’m frankly looking for some breakthroughs instead of the constant swing of the same pendulum.
I’m also looking for guest editorials — one or two per month, 400-800 words on environmental issues from a free market perspective. If you’ve got one in mind, please drop me a line with “QE guest editorial” in the subject line. Do not include the article — after we’ve discussed it, if it’s a go, I’ll set you up to blog it yourself.
Have a great week!
edited by Thomas L. Knapp
Freedom News Daily
