How About Making Capitalism More Clean? | The Coffeehouse

iStation
Fuujin

Making Capitalism More Creative - TIME
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1828069,00.html

How about investing in solar power business, Bill?

We need more Clean Creative Capitalism!
Look, the air pollution in China...

Bass
www.spreadfirefox.com/5years/

With a man with as money as Bill Gates I wouldn't be surprised if he has a significant amount of money in solar power already. He seems to have money almost everywhere else.

Europ1

I think the Internet is still underestimated. When people in new markets like South America, parts of Asia and Africa could have cheap Internet access and cheap pc's notebooks or netbooks they can all participate on the global market and not only express themselves. What about solar powered Netbooks and Internet access? Is that possible? Development money should also be used for WiMax and to get people connected.

Dr Herbie
Horses for courses

In reply to Europ1

#Aug 3rd, 2008 @ 3:34 AM

Capitalism is about making money within the given law of a country. Capitalism has no other consederations.
It is the job of government to set laws within which capitalism must work. If we want 'cleaner' capitalism, then governments must make it easier for companies to make money by being clean than by not being clean. This almost always means changing taxation on business so that it become unproductive for a company not to be clean.
This also means that fines for environmental pollution need to be high enough so that companies cannot show a profit even after paying such fines.

Unfortunately, many governments are 'unduely influenced' by the businesses that they are supopsed to be governing.

I doubt there's much the Bill Gates can do about that.

Herbie

iStation
Fuujin

In reply to Europ1

#Aug 3rd, 2008 @ 3:34 AM

Yes, solar powered PC is interesting!

However to realize that, we need much cheaper solar cell. Fabrication of cheap solar cell requires cheap electric energy.

I want to ask Bill to invest in construction of nuclear power plants in China and India to supply their solar cell manufacturers with cheap electric power.

If succeed in the production of ultra cheep solar cell, we will be able to use them not only for PC but also for alleviating pollution, high-energy price and poverty in poor countries.

Nuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Power_Plant

Cypress CEO: Time to take a different tack on energy - CNET News.com
http://news.cnet.com/Cypress-CEO-Time-to-take-a-different-tack-on-energy/2008-11395_3-6095437.html

phreaks

In reply to Dr Herbie

#Aug 3rd, 2008 @ 4:22 AM

I think that would effect a trend of companies relocating to another country, among other things.

If you increase the tax barrier and make it difficult to turn a profit, then historically the trend is higher unemployment rates and more companies relocating offshore.

Dr Herbie
Horses for courses

In reply to phreaks

#Aug 3rd, 2008 @ 10:52 AM

This is probably why I'm not a politician Smiley

Multinationals would certainly threaten to move out, which is a threat they already use to get 'special relationships with the tax office' as I have heard it called.

Certainly in this case, the carrot should be favoured over the stick, but I do feel that sometimes the "we'll take out business abroad" bluff should be called.
Some things are worth more than money to our society. Unfortunately, the only people aggressive and obsessive enough to gain power seem to value money as their scorecard in their personal competition to prove who's best.

Herbie

phreaks

In reply to Dr Herbie

#Aug 3rd, 2008 @ 11:47 AM

Well, there are other implications with raising corporate taxes as well.

If you increase the tax liability on (especially) small business owners, they have no incentive to expand. If biz isn't growing, then either is employment growth.

If I am making $400k annually because I own 2 pizza places, and the government decides to raise corporate taxes, and I see my profits plummet, then I am not going to have much incentive to open a third pizza place, if there is such little viability of finacial gain or economic safety. I might even close one of the shops if the tax to profit ratio settles a little one way or the other.

Dr Herbie
Horses for courses

In reply to phreaks

#Aug 3rd, 2008 @ 7:23 PM

Yes, but if you got t tax break for using more fuel efficient ovens in your pizza place (or even a government grant to help you buy more fuel efficient ovens in the first place) then you might make more money and be able to expand a little faster.

Herbie

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

In reply to Dr Herbie

#Aug 3rd, 2008 @ 10:05 PM

... Or the government should subsidize the green energy industry as much as the dirty energy industry.

I remember a couple years ago, some Senators chastized the oil industry for asking for $5B in "exploration" money, so they can go find more oil. While their industry was seeing record profits.

Of course, they got it anyway.

I remember reading somewhere that the government subsidies in green energy is in the low $10's M.

But consumers can drive capitalism, too. If clean energy is important to them, then eventually business will go that route. Toyota has announced that by 2025, all their cars will either be electric or hybrid. No more gas-only cars.

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

In reply to Minh

#Aug 3rd, 2008 @ 10:37 PM

Minh said:

But consumers can drive capitalism, too. If clean energy is important to them, then eventually business will go that route.

That sentiment means that consumers who care have to pay extraordinarilly more than consumers that don't about any issue if the issue is a genuinely global one.

Why should a consumer who cares about the environment pay out $5,000 more of their own hard cash to help the environment by buying a more expensive but efficient car when the benefits are not to him/her personally, but to society as a whole? Surely it would make more sense for government to subsidize things which are good for society and penalize things that are bad for it, rather than taking the default "the consumer should take the fall for it" line.

iStation
Fuujin

Steel magnate Andrew Carnegie, the richest man of his day, endowed 2,509 libraries and shed 90% of his wealth before he died. [TIME August 11, 2008]

clean adj.
1. not dirty or messy
2. not containing or producing anything that is dirty or harmful, such as poisons
3. having a simple and attractive style or design

creative adj.
1. marked by the ability or power to create
2. having the quality of something imaginative

capitalism n.
1. an economic system marked by private ownership, in which a free market distributes goods

Clean + Creative + Capitalism = Clean Creative Capitalist -> Go for it, BG!

Build "Nuclear Power Plants" to ignite "Solar Power Era"!

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

In reply to iStation

#Aug 4th, 2008 @ 3:01 AM

Why should we expect the obscenely rich to give their wealth selflessly for everyone else's gain when governments can simply incentivise everyone to give a little-bit towards the common goal, totalling vastly more resources and without the reliance on the obscenely rich giving their money to charity rather than on multiple mansions and private jets?

It's fine to say that these individuals should be encouraged to give money to society/environment etc, but isn't government there solely to provide collective incentives for the benefit of society where otherwise the individual's greed would lead individuals to work for their own ends and thus leave helping society until later.

If the government cared about carbon emissions, they'd put a tax on emissions on a per-unit-carbon basis and let capitalism drive efficiencies after that. It's not a hard concept, and it's called a carbon economy. The reason government is taxing car emissions and planes seperately is because they want to be seen to be making a difference, rather than actually making a difference.

Maddus Mattus
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda

In reply to evildictaitor

#Aug 4th, 2008 @ 3:53 AM

Carbon emmisions are just that, a political tool. The human race is so full of themselves. We are so arrogant to think that our actions contribute to climate change. One valcano outburst alone produces more CO2 then all of humankind ever did. I call global warming due to CO2 emissions a big fat hoax.

Every day we get some kind of commision that says we have to put more money into alternative energy. Then you look at the commision and their mandate and you see that their conclusions match their mandate! Ofcourse they match! Or they would be out of a job!

All this enviroment bull-crap getting shoved down my throat, I've had it.

Conserving energy at the expense of giving up the quality of my life, is *not* an option. And neither is it for nobel prize winner Al "the world is going to end" Gore. His house consumes three times as much energy as the average American home. And guess what? The world will survive us! It has done so for at least 4 billion years, it will for another couple!

The question is; "Will we survive ourselves?". The answer is; "No.". But that's ok, it was fun while it lasted!

wisemx
Live it

The problem in China is interesting if you consider what their own Scientists believe...
As China grew in this modern age technology was a natural part of that growth.
Added to the resources needed to create growing cities is the huge amount of resources that need to be removed, i.e. waste.

PBS recently ran an inside look, 5 of the world’s most polluted cities are currently in China.
http://www.pbs.org/kqed/chinainside/

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

In reply to Maddus Mattus

#Aug 4th, 2008 @ 4:19 AM

Science says you're wrong.

If it were greenpeace saying global warming was the thing, I'd take it with a pinch of salt. If the IPCC, British Antarctic Survey and a truckload of empirical evidence suggests that global warming is happening, I'll take their word for it.

Maddus Mattus said:

We are so arrogant to think that our actions contribute to climate change

Surely the arrogant thing is thinking that you know better than people who've spent the past two decades looking at the evidence on this matter and concluding that they're obviously wrong.

Maddus Mattus
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda

In reply to evildictaitor

#Aug 4th, 2008 @ 4:40 AM

Where does science say that?

I only read that science is seeing a trend, but can only speculate about what causes it.

The politicians on the other hand, present these speculations as fact and use it for their own political agenda.

Do you know why they say that in 50 years the earth is gone? Because then they will be gone and cannot be held accountable for their actions.

Edit;

All the organisations you listed there, are concluding on the "facts" that their mandate is supported by their own research. If you do this in accountancy you can get bankrupted.

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

In reply to Maddus Mattus

#Aug 4th, 2008 @ 4:44 AM

Seeing a trend and relating it to causes is what science is about, and frankly it's pretty darned good at it.

The politicians, if anything, are ignoring the longer term impacts of GCC much to the irritation of organisations such as the IPCC. It's not the politicians who are concocting a clever story to fool voters; it's dedicated researchers looking at the evidence, finding likely causes and reporting the facts as they see them.

I don't mind people coming up with evidence as to why they think GCC isn't happening (publish your results in a peer-reviewed journal if it's got any credibility to it), but "deciding" that GCC isn't happening because it makes you happier just makes you a self-deluded fool.

Maddus Mattus
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda

In reply to evildictaitor

#Aug 4th, 2008 @ 4:57 AM

Hmmm,... very good argument! If I dont believe what everyone else is believing, I am a self-deluded fool.

I've worked in these scientific research groups. A *lot* is done on assumptions. They dont know all the facts. So they make assumptions. Every now and then these assumptions get debunked and they have to revise their theory.

This is how science works.

But now we have a politicians meddeling in the affairs of science. They invested so much money in CO2 prevention, they cannot accept the fact that maybe they were wrong.

And if you read my response correctly; I dont think CO2 is a dominant contributing factor in climate change. I am not saying climate change isnt happening. It's been happening for billions of years and will continue to do so. Did you know at the time of the egyptians, egypt had a vast forrest? Did they fly too much back then? Or have huge CO2 producing factories?

The fact of the matter is, we don't know enough to target the source of the climate change. Some say it's the CO2, some say it's the water vapor, others say it's largely contributed by the activity of the sun. But to pick one of these three options and present them as fact for your own gain, is not very scientific.

phreaks

In reply to Minh

#Aug 3rd, 2008 @ 10:37 PM

Maddus Mattus
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda

In reply to phreaks

#Aug 4th, 2008 @ 8:00 AM

priceless

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

In reply to Maddus Mattus

#Aug 4th, 2008 @ 4:19 AM

Maddus Mattus said:

Conserving energy at the expense of giving up the quality of my life, is *not* an option

You still use aerosol hair spray, don't you?

I knew it!

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

In reply to evildictaitor

#Aug 4th, 2008 @ 1:46 AM

evildictator said:

That sentiment means that consumers who care have to pay extraordinarilly more than consumers that don't about any issue if the issue is a genuinely global one.

Well, that's a political issue. Unfortunately for U.S. Americans, the last 8 years, we have seen an assault on Science from the highest office. The one good thing that came out of that is scientist have started to speak directly more to the people. More scientists that can speak on issues in layman terms have become more visible.

Maddus Mattus
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda

In reply to Minh

#Aug 4th, 2008 @ 8:24 AM

I am using gel Wink

But not for the grafiti I spraiypaint, nothing like a good aerosol spray.

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

In reply to Maddus Mattus

#Aug 4th, 2008 @ 5:09 AM

Maddus Mattus said:

Hmmm,... very good argument! If I dont believe what everyone else is believing, I am a self-deluded fool.

Going against public opinion because you don't understand the arguments, or because you can't stand the implications makes you a self-deluded fool yes. You are certainly not in the majority camp on this one, and I doubt that you have any deep or meaningful insight into the world of GCC, so you're not a pioneer, so yes, it does make you a self-deluded fool.

Maddus Mattus said:

I've worked in these scientific research groups. A *lot* is done on assumptions. They dont know all the facts. So they make assumptions. Every now and then these assumptions get debunked and they have to revise their theory.

Those assumptions help keep your computer from catching fire and planes falling out of the skies on a routine basis. The point of science is working out what assumptions you've made and making a better prediction of the future based on empirical and analytical analysis. That's what science is, and it's pretty darned good at it. If the assumptions led us to believe falsehoods we'd ditch them sharpish and go to a better model of how the world works. Given that in the latest IPCC report they said that their "assumptions" of CO2's forcing effect, while taking into account the forcing effect of other gasses etc (you can read it yourself), has an error under 5% says that they're getting the science right.

Consequently, while taking their predictions and extrapolations with a pinch of salt is reasonable, disregarding them entirely is simply stupid.

Maddus Mattus said:

But now we have a politicians meddeling in the affairs of science. They invested so much money in CO2 prevention, they cannot accept the fact that maybe they were wrong.

Really? I thought all the reports were the opposite - that politicians wern't taking GCC seriously enough and only taking "token" gestures towards a solution. Believe you me, if the opposition had the tinyest whiff that government was wasting money on GCC, don't you think they'd be the first to tell everyone how dumb the government is and how they plan on scrapping it in favour of tax cuts?

Maddus Mattus said:

The fact of the matter is, we don't know enough to target the source of the climate change.

That's why we have error bars in the estimates. That doesn't give you carte blanche to ignore them.

Maddus Mattus said:

Some say it's the CO2, some say it's the water vapor, others say it's largely contributed by the activity of the sun.

And the IPCC takes all three into account in all of it's reports. CO2 is the biggest antropomorphic heat forcing gas. Water vapour in the atmosphere has been roughly the same for the last 200,000 years and the solar cycles are cyclic. Get over it.

Maddus Mattus said:

But to pick one of these three options and present them as fact for your own gain, is not very scientific.

You remind me of these guys. You form a conclusion ("I'll be damned if I'm going to be told what to do by some damn hippies") and the search for facts to "prove" it, rather than looking at the facts, and drawing conclusions from it.

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader as to which is more scientific.