Never-ending growth plundering the earth

[quinton]

Canada's economy, like every other nation's economy on planet earth, is geared towards growth.

With more people and more production of goods, where will this leave the planet's fragile ecosystems?

When does the growth stop? When is enough enough?

Who is looking at the big picture?

[margrace]

Quinton all one has to do is look at what is going on in your immediate vacinity. The new push on cleaning products is a good example. The wonderful new ways of cleaning your kitchen floor, but when the cleaning agent gets dirty you cannot wash it or use something old in its place, you must go out and buy replacements.

I was horrified when I was given one of these for christmas by my husband. The reason being that I had an operation and was not allowed to do the cleaning for the time being. My husband was too lazy to do it so bought me something that he thought would allow me to do it. Turns out that it also fits in the doctors criteria of what I could not do for the present.

Our dump needs to be replaced, people complain mightily about how much local government cost in taxes but refuse to reuse or avoid throw aways. How many people complain and then throw that item in the dump when they should not have bought it in the first place or considered it it can be recycled. Every little plastic bottle or cloth creates a problem, but people don't care do they.

[scribblet]

Canada's economy, like every other nation's economy on planet earth, is geared towards growth.

With more people and more production of goods, where will this leave the planet's fragile ecosystems?

When does the growth stop? When is enough enough?

Who is looking at the big picture?

IMHO, overpopulation is the cause of most of the world's problems. Canada and the environment cannot afford any more people, we should be just replacing ourselves, zero population growth, until something is done, nothing will change. We as individuals may recycle and reuse etc., but its a drop in the bucket.

Remember Dr. Paul Ehrlich's book The Population Bomb in the late 60's ? Many of his dire predictions have not come true however, food production has increased and there has not been any mass worldwide starvation; so, maybe there is hope afterall.

http://www.populationconnection.org/ formerly Zero Population Growth.

If you can't feed em, don't breed em !

[quinton]

What about Canada's 1% annual population growth due to immigration?

This is done to increase economic growth, but it comes with a severe price to the environment.

When is enough enough?

[Renegade]

What about Canada's 1% annual population growth due to immigration?

This is done to increase economic growth, but it comes with a severe price to the environment.

When is enough enough?

To remove the dependance on growth you have to restructure the programs which depend upon increased population. Programs such as CPP, and OAS, and healthcare depend upon larger and larger population in order to support the programs. Only once we fix the programs so that we are paying the true cost of the benefit received, and not depending upon future working generations to fund them, will our dependance on growth cease.

[quinton]

Our environment is paying the true cost of the "benefit" received.

We perceive growth of money as a benefit, without realizing that with more people, a large amount of money today is worth less than a small amount of money yesterday.

[Hicksey]

I don't believe that things are as dire as portrayed here, but I do beleive that wherever there's an economically viable environmentally friendly product that the unfriendly product should be phased out as quickly as possible.

For example, with the upcoming ULSD standard and the advent of particulate filters most diesels will become cleaner burning than gasoline engines, and they're about 10-15% more fuel efficient. So why can Europe survive on diesel, but North America still depends on gasoline?

A pickup or SUV with a V8 gasoline engine is lucky to get 20 miles to the gallion on the highway. A pickup with an I6 turbodiesel can achieve more than 30 miles per gallon on the highway. Yet 80% of all pickups and SUVs are sold with gasoline engines. Even though there is a premium to be paid on vehicles with diesel engines, with the corresponding volume that comes with 80% of that market the price could be brought down significantly. So why isn't the government requiring this change? IMO ... the Auto Lobby.

Another example is the Mr. Clean Magic Eraser. Why can't they sell the liquid instead of a disposable sponge thats destined to go to landfill?

[Riverwind]

Even though there is a premium to be paid on vehicles with diesel engines, with the corresponding volume that comes with 80% of that market the price could be brought down significantly. So why isn't the government requiring this change? IMO ... the Auto Lobby.

Actually, I think american lawmakers are the biggest problem - diesel is taxed more heavily in the US because truckers are not a powerful lobby group. So there is no economic incentive to buy diesel vehicles in the US. This affects Canada because automakers produce the same vehicles for both markets.

[quinton]

Hicksey, none of that will amount to a hill of beans unless the population stops growing.

Technology won't save us. Technology harms more than it helps as it is being used at present.

[August1991]

I disagree much in this thread.

With more people and more production of goods, where will this leave the planet's fragile ecosystems?

When does the growth stop? When is enough enough?

Wrong questions.

To remove the dependance on growth you have to restructure the programs which depend upon increased population. Programs such as CPP, and OAS, and healthcare depend upon larger and larger population in order to support the programs. Only once we fix the programs so that we are paying the true cost of the benefit received, and not depending upon future working generations to fund them, will our dependance on growth cease.

Misses the point.

I don't believe that things are as dire as portrayed here, but I do beleive that wherever there's an economically viable environmentally friendly product that the unfriendly product should be phased out as quickly as possible.

Here too I disagree. With good reason, I think the situation is likely worse than it is portrayed.

Our environment is paying the true cost of the "benefit" received.

We perceive growth of money as a benefit, without realizing that with more people, a large amount of money today is worth less than a small amount of money yesterday.

Misses the point again.

----

Taken alone, there is nothing wrong with economic growth, and there is no harm in having a larger population. Neither economic growth nor increased population are the cause of our environmental problems.

The cause is to be found elsewhere.

If an employer hires someone to work, the employer has to pay (compensate) the person for the use of their time. At present, we can all use the environment for "free", without having to compensate the environment for its use. The environment is like our slave.

There is an obvious technical solution but it poses numerous political problems. We must pay for the use of the environment. And who should receive the revenues from the environment's use? We ourselves should get it. We would be paying ourselves for the use of a collective good we all, in a sense, own.

To give a practical sense to this solution, we could have a carbon tax in Canada but the revenues from the tax would be distributed to everyone in Canada - or only those in Alberta.

A pickup or SUV with a V8 gasoline engine is lucky to get 20 miles to the gallion on the highway. A pickup with an I6 turbodiesel can achieve more than 30 miles per gallon on the highway. Yet 80% of all pickups and SUVs are sold with gasoline engines.

Some economic activities have no effect on the environment, others have terrible effects. Sometimes it's not obvious what is good and what is bad. I wouldn't say so quickly that diesel fuel is better than gasoline.

[Hicksey]

Hicksey, none of that will amount to a hill of beans unless the population stops growing.

Technology won't save us. Technology harms more than it helps as it is being used at present.

So, what then? Sterilize people after two kids?

[Canuck E Stan]

August 1991 said:

To give a practical sense to this solution, we could have a carbon tax in Canada but the revenues from the tax would be distributed to everyone in Canada - or only those in Alberta.

At the same time place an heavy environmental tax on the excessive number of Ontario and Quebec automobile owners whose cars polute the Ozone atmospere in the eastfor more days a year than not. Force them to buy small fuel efficient cars and tax the 6 and 8 cylinder vehicles to the point that they would only afford to drive the small cars or rely on transit to get them where they want to go.Tax people who drive more than 15 kilometers from their house to go to work.Give massive tax credit to those who live close to their work place, and don't use cars.Get gas up to $5 a litre so people think about living hours from their work and doing excessive driving and poluting of the atmosphere.Just little things like this would help the excessiveness.

[August1991]

Canuck E. Stan, I am merely arguing that if the use of something appears to be "free", people will probably use it "too much".

That is the case of the environment now.

The obvious technical solution is that people should pay for the use of the environment. But that raises the political question of who "owns" the environment and "who" should receive payments for its use.

Western countries abolished human slavery (the free use of humans without compensation) in the 19th century. Maybe this century will abolish environmental slavery ( the free use of the environment without compensation).

[Hicksey]

August 1991 said:

To give a practical sense to this solution, we could have a carbon tax in Canada but the revenues from the tax would be distributed to everyone in Canada - or only those in Alberta.

At the same time place an heavy environmental tax on the excessive number of Ontario and Quebec automobile owners whose cars polute the Ozone atmospere in the eastfor more days a year than not. Force them to buy small fuel efficient cars and tax the 6 and 8 cylinder vehicles to the point that they would only afford to drive the small cars or rely on transit to get them where they want to go.Tax people who drive more than 15 kilometers from their house to go to work.Give massive tax credit to those who live close to their work place, and don't use cars.Get gas up to $5 a litre so people think about living hours from their work and doing excessive driving and poluting of the atmosphere.Just little things like this would help the excessiveness.

I drive 25km to work because thats where I get the best pay. There's no openings for the work I do in my current city. Unless I want to go long-haul and never see my family again, there's no work for me here.

If I move there as you suggest, how do I ever see my parents again given that there's no public transportation between here and there and under your plan I would never be able to afford a car?

What you call little things is actually extreme.

[August1991]

I drive 25km to work because thats where I get the best pay.

But Hicksey, you use a slave (the environment) to get the pay. It is as if a slave carried you to your work.

If you had to pay for the slave's work, would you work as you do?

If you were the slave, would you work as you do?

[Hicksey]

I drive 25km to work because thats where I get the best pay.

But Hicksey, you use a slave (the environment) to get the pay. It is as if a slave carried you to your work.

If you had to pay for the slave's work, would you work as you do?

If you were the slave, would you work as you do?

If I didn't do as I do I wouldn't have a roof over my head. Your argument would hold some merit if the sole reason for my decision to work as I do was for extravagances. I do what I do to provide for my family. I own a 13 year old minivan, I don't own a house. The only reason I have this computer is because I built it from misfit parts. I do what I do to survive. If I don't do this, I might as well go on welfare, because the money isn't worth time away from my family.

While I know your plan is no doubt noble, if you enact it you'll accomplish no more than hurting the poor and the rich will continue to abuse.

[geoffrey]

I disagree much in this thread.

With more people and more production of goods, where will this leave the planet's fragile ecosystems?

When does the growth stop? When is enough enough?

Wrong questions.

To remove the dependance on growth you have to restructure the programs which depend upon increased population. Programs such as CPP, and OAS, and healthcare depend upon larger and larger population in order to support the programs. Only once we fix the programs so that we are paying the true cost of the benefit received, and not depending upon future working generations to fund them, will our dependance on growth cease.

Misses the point.

I don't believe that things are as dire as portrayed here, but I do beleive that wherever there's an economically viable environmentally friendly product that the unfriendly product should be phased out as quickly as possible.

Here too I disagree. With good reason, I think the situation is likely worse than it is portrayed.

Our environment is paying the true cost of the "benefit" received.

We perceive growth of money as a benefit, without realizing that with more people, a large amount of money today is worth less than a small amount of money yesterday.

Misses the point again.

----

Taken alone, there is nothing wrong with economic growth, and there is no harm in having a larger population. Neither economic growth nor increased population are the cause of our environmental problems.

The cause is to be found elsewhere.

If an employer hires someone to work, the employer has to pay (compensate) the person for the use of their time. At present, we can all use the environment for "free", without having to compensate the environment for its use. The environment is like our slave.

There is an obvious technical solution but it poses numerous political problems. We must pay for the use of the environment. And who should receive the revenues from the environment's use? We ourselves should get it. We would be paying ourselves for the use of a collective good we all, in a sense, own.

To give a practical sense to this solution, we could have a carbon tax in Canada but the revenues from the tax would be distributed to everyone in Canada - or only those in Alberta.

A pickup or SUV with a V8 gasoline engine is lucky to get 20 miles to the gallion on the highway. A pickup with an I6 turbodiesel can achieve more than 30 miles per gallon on the highway. Yet 80% of all pickups and SUVs are sold with gasoline engines.

Some economic activities have no effect on the environment, others have terrible effects. Sometimes it's not obvious what is good and what is bad. I wouldn't say so quickly that diesel fuel is better than gasoline.

August,

Companies do pay in the resource industry for their use of the environment. Oil companies pay royalties (considerably higher than you might think) and logging companies pay stumpage fees.

Both are expected to on top of that return the environment to its previous state within reason.

The only industry that really gets away with pollution with no cost is Ontario's corporate welfare auto industry. And thats to protect some jobs and therefore some votes.

We are already very very heavily taxed on the gas we use, both in the the home and in cars.

I think we've already internalized the externalities so to speak. We do pay for the damage we do to the environment, you can argue not enough, but I think we pay more than enough. That is, if those dollars were actually used for environmental purposes.

[Renegade]

If an employer hires someone to work, the employer has to pay (compensate) the person for the use of their time. At present, we can all use the environment for "free", without having to compensate the environment for its use. The environment is like our slave.

There is an obvious technical solution but it poses numerous political problems. We must pay for the use of the environment. And who should receive the revenues from the environment's use? We ourselves should get it. We would be paying ourselves for the use of a collective good we all, in a sense, own.

To give a practical sense to this solution, we could have a carbon tax in Canada but the revenues from the tax would be distributed to everyone in Canada - or only those in Alberta.

It is clear that many of our activities have severe environmental consequences. We do not pay for the environmental consequences of our actions, nor do we factor the environmental cost when deciding to undertake these activites.

In my view, the proper way to handle this is to force these activites to pay to the extent that it would cost to restore the environment to it's previous state. So if strip mining scars, the landscape, force the company to pay to the extent it would cost to restore the landscape. If manufacturing pollutes the air and land, collect a charge to the extent it would cost to clean up the mess.

As to who gets the money. The environment. The money should actually be spent on cleaning and restoring the environment so that the activity is sustainable. The biggest problem is that it would take cross-border cooperation. For example it is pointless for us to try and clean the air if other countries are not doing the same.

[Renegade]

If I didn't do as I do I wouldn't have a roof over my head. Your argument would hold some merit if the sole reason for my decision to work as I do was for extravagances. I do what I do to provide for my family. I own a 13 year old minivan, I don't own a house. The only reason I have this computer is because I built it from misfit parts. I do what I do to survive. If I don't do this, I might as well go on welfare, because the money isn't worth time away from my family.

While I know your plan is no doubt noble, if you enact it you'll accomplish no more than hurting the poor and the rich will continue to abuse.

Hicksey, what exactly is your point? That you shouldn't have to pay the environmetal cost for the damage you cause because you are only doing so to provide for you family? That the poor should not have to pay for the environmental damage they cause but the rich should?

[Hicksey]

If I didn't do as I do I wouldn't have a roof over my head. Your argument would hold some merit if the sole reason for my decision to work as I do was for extravagances. I do what I do to provide for my family. I own a 13 year old minivan, I don't own a house. The only reason I have this computer is because I built it from misfit parts. I do what I do to survive. If I don't do this, I might as well go on welfare, because the money isn't worth time away from my family.

While I know your plan is no doubt noble, if you enact it you'll accomplish no more than hurting the poor and the rich will continue to abuse.

Hicksey, what exactly is your point? That you shouldn't have to pay the environmetal cost for the damage you cause because you are only doing so to provide for you family? That the poor should not have to pay for the environmental damage they cause but the rich should?

Well, if I live according to the rules listed above, I'd end up on welfare and I'd have absolutely no money to pay for it. And like it or not being environmentally friendly costs money.

Being environmentally friendly has to be made economically viable and quickly. IMO that's the smarter way to proceed.

So what happens to towns more than 15km away from larger towns that house the jobs they work at? Unless they make $35-40 an hour they won't be able to afford to go to work anymore. What about people that live in the country? Unless they make the same there's no point in getting a job. Unless you take the path I've suggested you're going to create widespread poverty and nobody will be able to afford to pay the costs of being environmentally friendly.

I'm all for your cause, but the measures you suggest here ARE extreme whether or not you wish to admit it. I'm for smart legislation that works over a 5 or 10 year period to evolve the marketplace to ALL environmentally friendly products. We can make legislation and gradually enact legislation that requires recycling and punishes those who do not. We can achieve your vision, but it cannot be overnight. I'm also in favor of a taxation scheme that would kick in over that period to ensure that products unfriendly to the environment would cost significantly more than those that are.

You'll have to make it affordable to everyone before you can achieve your goal, that's reality. The difference between our proposals is that you're planning to get the world you want to live in tomorrow, instead of try to figure a relatively quick viable way to to get there from here without killing the economy. That is what will drive the change. Without the money to make change it cannot happen.

[Renegade]

Well, if I live according to the rules listed above, I'd end up on welfare and I'd have absolutely no money to pay for it. And like it or not being environmentally friendly costs money.

Being environmentally friendly has to be made economically viable and quickly. IMO that's the smarter way to proceed.

So what happens to towns more than 15km away from larger towns that house the jobs they work at? Unless they make $35-40 an hour they won't be able to afford to go to work anymore. What about people that live in the country? Unless they make the same there's no point in getting a job. Unless you take the path I've suggested you're going to create widespread poverty and nobody will be able to afford to pay the costs of being environmentally friendly.

I'm all for your cause, but the measures you suggest here ARE extreme whether or not you wish to admit it. I'm for smart legislation that works over a 5 or 10 year period to evolve the marketplace to ALL environmentally friendly products. We can make legislation and gradually enact legislation that requires recycling and punishes those who do not. We can achieve your vision, but it cannot be overnight. I'm also in favor of a taxation scheme that would kick in over that period to ensure that products unfriendly to the environment would cost significantly more than those that are.

You'll have to make it affordable to everyone before you can achieve your goal, that's reality. The difference between our proposals is that you're planning to get the world you want to live in tomorrow, instead of try to figure a relatively quick viable way to to get there from here without killing the economy. That is what will drive the change. Without the money to make change it cannot happen.

I am not suggesting that we should suddenly impose rules which would would cause immediate disruption to people's lives, and I can see that a transition is required.

However if in the end your current lifestyle becomes economically unviable due to the cost to the environment, then you should either change your life so that it is viable (eg move) or resign yourself to the economic hardship which will ensue.

[Hicksey]

Well, if I live according to the rules listed above, I'd end up on welfare and I'd have absolutely no money to pay for it. And like it or not being environmentally friendly costs money.

Being environmentally friendly has to be made economically viable and quickly. IMO that's the smarter way to proceed.

So what happens to towns more than 15km away from larger towns that house the jobs they work at? Unless they make $35-40 an hour they won't be able to afford to go to work anymore. What about people that live in the country? Unless they make the same there's no point in getting a job. Unless you take the path I've suggested you're going to create widespread poverty and nobody will be able to afford to pay the costs of being environmentally friendly.

I'm all for your cause, but the measures you suggest here ARE extreme whether or not you wish to admit it. I'm for smart legislation that works over a 5 or 10 year period to evolve the marketplace to ALL environmentally friendly products. We can make legislation and gradually enact legislation that requires recycling and punishes those who do not. We can achieve your vision, but it cannot be overnight. I'm also in favor of a taxation scheme that would kick in over that period to ensure that products unfriendly to the environment would cost significantly more than those that are.

You'll have to make it affordable to everyone before you can achieve your goal, that's reality. The difference between our proposals is that you're planning to get the world you want to live in tomorrow, instead of try to figure a relatively quick viable way to to get there from here without killing the economy. That is what will drive the change. Without the money to make change it cannot happen.

I am not suggesting that we should suddenly impose rules which would would cause immediate disruption to people's lives, and I can see that a transition is required.

However if in the end your current lifestyle becomes economically unviable due to the cost to the environment, then you should either change your life so that it is viable (eg move) or resign yourself to the economic hardship which will ensue.

And I am saying that hardship needn't be a part of it. We need to force society from its current crash course by changing the way things are done. We need to stop making what is bad for us cheap and what is right and healthy expensive. The healthy and environmentally friendly products should be the cheap options, not the expensive ones. If the smart choice economically becomes the environmentally friendly one people will choose it if not voluntarily, under cost duress.

[quinton]

Overpopulation !

All people must consume from the earth in order to survive.

There are too many people chasing too few resources.

The media focuses on aging populations but it is all a big lie. Virtually no countries are declining in population.

They cannot afford to because of their economic growth model which relies on more people and more production of goods.

You can never pay the true cost of environmental damage. Money has no intrinsic value. There are already too many people and too few wild areas free from human impact.

[Renegade]

And I am saying that hardship needn't be a part of it. We need to force society from its current crash course by changing the way things are done. We need to stop making what is bad for us cheap and what is right and healthy expensive. The healthy and environmentally friendly products should be the cheap options, not the expensive ones. If the smart choice economically becomes the environmentally friendly one people will choose it if not voluntarily, under cost duress.

I think you are being somewhat idealistic. It will always cost us more to do the "right" thing than the "wrong" thing. It is alway cheaper to dump garbage in the local park than to pay for garbage services. The most efffective way society can make it economicaly attractive to make environmentally-friendly choices is to include the cost of environmental damage into the other choices. Yes the net result is that regardless of the choice the overall cost will go up.

Yes I agree that if it is economically advantageous to choose an environmentally-friendly choice, then people will do so, however it is not economically feasible to indefinately "bribe" people into making such choices.

[Renegade]

Overpopulation !

All people must consume from the earth in order to survive.

There are too many people chasing too few resources.

The media focuses on aging populations but it is all a big lie. Virtually no countries are declining in population.

They cannot afford to because of their economic growth model which relies on more people and more production of goods.

You can never pay the true cost of environmental damage. Money has no intrinsic value. There are already too many people and too few wild areas free from human impact.

Aside from the rant, what exactly are you suggesting society, government, or people do?