Zarathustra wrote:Fist and Faith wrote:What about environmental regulation? Don't the wealthy want to be able to do what they want, regardless of the damage to the environment, because it would be easier to make a profit that way?
That's a stereotype. You think the wealthy want to live in a dirty, poisonous, collapsing environment? You think no wealthy person or corporation ever takes steps on their own to clean up the environment without government force? Sure, there are a few guilty parties who make everyone else look bad, but to generalize from them to all rich people is a stereotype.
I worded that poorly. I certainly don't believe all wealthy people are evil. My thought is that the people who do not support environmental protection are the people who want to be able to do things that will harm the environment. And those people want to do so because it will make them money. Why else?
Zarathustra wrote:A dirty environment is more prevalent in poor countries, not rich ones.
Are we talking about the same kind of dirty? Do the poor countries have the huge factories dumping incredible poison into the atmosphere and water? I know sanitation problems can be considered a dirty environment. But nature will wash that clean in short order if allowed to. Nature can't get the PCBs out of the Hudson River.
Zarathustra wrote:All the environmental measures for a clean environment were already starting to improve before the government put into place major environmental regulation (like creating the EPA).
But not, according to the link you give in your next post, before
local governments put environmental regulations into place:
Local government efforts to control air quality problems began long before 1970. Chart 8 shows the growth in local air pollution control agencies that occurred with the growth in the public perception of air pollution as a major problem. Very early in the twentieth century, visible air pollution, especially smoke, was identified as a problem to be reduced. More invisible forms of pollution, especially ozone, were more slowly recognized.
The environmental measures for a clean environment seem not to have begun until they were required by the local governments.
But yes, it was improving before the EPA. Would that have been sufficient? The production of the PCBs I just mentioned was not banned until 1977,
by the EPA, seven years after it began operation. I don't know too many issues, so don't know how many other similar stories there are. I'd be willing to bet more than a few. (I live several miles from the Hudson, so I happen to have heard about this one quite often.) A local government can't ban the production of anything outside of its own jurisdiction.
Zarathustra wrote:The government is without a doubt the worst polluter, btw, and responsible for more destruction of the environment than any private business.
The government is the worst
everything.
Zarathustra wrote:Fist and Faith wrote: The only people I ever hear talking about saving the environment are the grass roots movements, putting up signs, picketing, etc. Would that be necessary if the wealthy wanted to protect the environment? Wouldn't it be a simple matter for them to get the laws put into place? Would there be any need for such laws if the wealthy wanted to protect the environment?
I think this is a collection of misconceptions.
(That's a great sentence. Those two words sound interesting together. Heh) It's true that I don't follow stories deeply enough to know that the wealthy don't join in the picket lines, or chain themselves to trees. But I have to assume the turnout for these events would be a whole lot bigger if Trump had a few hundred of his closest employees turn up with him. And the fliers that are put under windshield wipers would be much better quality if someone with a ton of money was getting them printed.