2014, New Light bulbs a ' comin, theres dancing tonight.

[John Cuthber]

I'm about to go to the pub so I can't be bothered, at the moment, to look up the name that economists give to the cost of something that isn't included in the price.

 

For example it is said that we benefit from high energy use because we burn lots of fuel. The people in low lying areas get their homes flooded by rising sea levels.

(ignore the issue of whether or not that's true- it's just an illustration).

 

In a true "free market" the cost of fuel would include the cost of compensating those people, but it doesn't. If it did then we wouldn't burn as much.

 

Part of the "hidden" cost of cheap light bulbs is a longer unemployment line, another part is a lot of dead people in China due to poor working conditions.

[rigney]

Then why do you talk negatively about "furriners," and say they should be kept out? If you don't see yourself as superior, what gives you more entitlement to the US than anyone else, in your mind?

 

Lemur, don't be an 'ass" and go further! If you think I will bend and bow to your questioning, you're full of it and I feel sorry for you. Let's just leave this part of it go. OK?

 

I'm about to go to the pub so I can't be bothered, at the moment, to look up the name that economists give to the cost of something that isn't included in the price.

 

For example it is said that we benefit from high energy use because we burn lots of fuel. The people in low lying areas get their homes flooded by rising sea levels.

(ignore the issue of whether or not that's true- it's just an illustration).

 

In a true "free market" the cost of fuel would include the cost of compensating those people, but it doesn't. If it did then we wouldn't burn as much.

 

Part of the "hidden" cost of cheap light bulbs is a longer unemployment line, another part is a lot of dead people in China due to poor working conditions.

 

Have a pint on, or for me. I'd love to buy you one and be in England again to enjoy it. June of 54 was my only visit, as I remember? Edited April 8, 2011 by rigney

[lemur]

lemur; Unfortunately, I've been around long before today's "Environmental Movement" or the EPA. I've pacify watched over time as groups, with trivial objectives, join others to the point everything now is saving the planet from any human activity. The only thing that's happened, is the individual has suffered, both in cost or freedom of choice and I don't think anything that's been eliminated has satisfied any of them, only bringing up the next complaint.

That is logical if they have a vision for a cleaner future that hasn't been reached yet.

 

Lemur, don't be an 'ass" and go further! If you think I will bend and bow to your questioning, you're full of it and I feel sorry for you. Let's just leave this part of it go. OK?

Whose being the ass? If you don't want to respond to my question, why post a response at all? It's behavior like yours that makes nationalism synonymous with bullying.

 

 

[rigney]

Then why do you talk negatively about "furriners," and say they should be kept out? If you don't see yourself as superior, what gives you more entitlement to the US than anyone else, in your mind?

 

Don't be duped lemur while patting yourself on the back. Superority is not Americas or any other super power to have for long. "Dominance is what counts". Weaklings will never getthe job done. Best you remember that! "Now, get off your ASS before Darfur kicks you silly. Edited April 8, 2011 by rigney

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Before this goes any further, rigney, lemur, stop it.

Don't express shock that you didn't realize this sniping would be considered unacceptable. In fact, don't make any attempt at all to respond here. This is a pre-emptive shush.

[Phi for All]

Unfortunately, I've been around long before today's "Environmental Movement" or the EPA. I've pacify watched over time as groups, with trivial objectives, join others to the point everything now is saving the planet from any human activity. The only thing that's happened, is the individual has suffered, both in cost or freedom of choice and I don't think anything that's been eliminated has satisfied any of them, only bringing up the next complaint.

I think the planet will be just fine, but my environment concerns me very much. I don't think businesses have my environment uppermost in their minds when they make products, so that's why some regulation is necessary. Holding manufacturers to a higher standard is the perfect job for my federal government. And don't forget that many of the laws the feds pass are lobbied for BY the business groups.

 

 

 

Lemur, don't be an 'ass" and go further! If you think I will bend and bow to your questioning, you're full of it and I feel sorry for you.

Whose being the ass? If you don't want to respond to my question, why post a response at all? It's behavior like yours that makes nationalism synonymous with bullying.

Don't be duped lemur while patting yourself on the back. Superority is not Americas or any other super power to have for long. "Dominance is what counts". Weaklings will never getthe job done. Best you remember that! "Now, get off your ASS before Darfur kicks you silly.

This is inefficient. Personal attacks are old technology.

[jackson33]

That is logical if they have a vision for a cleaner future that hasn't been reached yet. [/Quote]

 

lemur; No it's not logical and my two fold point in that post, was the incremental increases over the years in what was the "cleaner future" and what, how, why the new vision is today. The other point was cost and we're well beyond spending to satisfy those with impossible expectation.

 

Since your being somewhat realistic in you discussion with me and I'm somewhat aware of your ideology, Ill give you an example. Even in the 1950's, while the US imported no Crude, gas war's were common and gas sold for 15-25 cents per gallon, people were insisting the planet would soon run out of crude oil. What later became the "Peak Oil" scare had auto producers making more efficient engines and in the 60's some cars/vans were getting up to 40-60MPG. Peak Oil advocates were increasingly getting new production in the US shut down and the cost in the US began to rise, allowing OPEC and others to export to meet our needs. This lead to the OPEC embargo and to the "Cafe Standards", which later lead to those mileage standards being raised to include emission controls. This is really trying to put a book into a paragraph and I'm leaving out many other factors, but the main changes have resulted are lower fuel mileage, a great deal more of imported oil (over 60% today), increases in car prices to refining cost to conform to 50 plus different and new regulation has already been written for the next 20 years, which will simply add to all the above.

 

What I believe is that the cart (Government) is leading the horse (Individualism/Consumer Choice) nearing the point cost will go beyond the average persons ability pay the price. All the subsidizing going on from Ethanol, Nuclear power or any alternative energy dream (today) IMO, has long passed the point of any kind of a productive end cost. Said another way, if advanced technology, the free market, had been left alone, we would be very near to what is already, at less than half the cost. a coincidental government intrusion, related to Gas Stations; In the 40-60's a great many teenage boys pumped gas in all 48-50 States....What are they doing today?

 

I think the planet will be just fine, but my environment concerns me very much. I don't think businesses have my environment uppermost in their minds when they make products, so that's why some regulation is necessary. Holding manufacturers to a higher standard is the perfect job for my federal government. And don't forget that many of the laws the feds pass are lobbied for BY the business groups.[/Quote]

 

Phil; I understand your position, even swansont's or the many people advocating personal freedom restriction, but we went past reasonable or objective analysis years ago and NO Government IMO has efficiently done what Industry has done or more importantly done anything truly constructive. Added up in my mind, the cost have not produced the results that they should have. Whether it's a War of Poverty, a war on Drugs or any well intended program, I'm not sure any one program as had constructive end results, other than IMO dehumanizing folks into a state of dependency.

[Phi for All]

Phil; I understand your position, even swansont's or the many people advocating personal freedom restriction, but we went past reasonable or objective analysis years ago and NO Government IMO has efficiently done what Industry has done or more importantly done anything truly constructive. Added up in my mind, the cost have not produced the results that they should have. Whether it's a War of Poverty, a war on Drugs or any well intended program, I'm not sure any one program as had constructive end results, other than IMO dehumanizing folks into a state of dependency.

Part of the problem is setting up government agencies and then either underfunding them or pulling their teeth when it comes to enforcement. This has been a pull and push between Dems and Reps for a long time.

 

Another part of the problem is poor methodology. The War on Drugs isn't winnable with punitive measures. The fines, even imprisonment, is seen as an acceptable risk for what is gained. The war wages on simply because prisons make money and solve many political problems. The War on Terror isn't winnable through aggression, but it sells a lot of munitions, so on and on it goes.

 

Industry is not really always efficient. They would rather not re-tool to make more efficient products as long as they can keep us buying the old ones. More profit can be had doing things the old way.

 

You see some of these things as restrictions on personal freedom; I see them as clinging to wasteful but familiar ways. Sometimes we need the collective risk pool to keep us moving forward.

[swansont]

in the 60's some cars/vans were getting up to 40-60MPG

 

What cars were getting 60 mpg, or even 40? (And how much did they pollute?)

[CaptainPanic]

CP; Please note, PO is a motive and generated by the Corporate world, primarily to insure future success, NOT Government dictation through regulation.

The Corporate world constantly influences the government to make new laws - it's called lobbying.

The Corporate world constantly tries to kill competition through lobbying, and they have created obsolescence through regulations many times before.

 

Those people in the movie of the OP are effectively saying that they do not want certain kinds of lobbying anymore... but they're probably motivated to say that by just another lobby group. It's hypocritical.

 

(Or did you think there's no multi-billion industry with its own lobby behind the energy saving lights?)

 

In the American Society, the newer bulbs have been gaining success and logically it would be a matter of time sales would drop so low, manufacturing would not be worthwhile. I use them myself, have little trouble noting a difference, but I do leave them on, especially in the bathroom, to prevent going through warm up light distraction. Another form of PO, can be found in Electronics best practiced best by Apple Computers, where current product sold might be second to the best developed.

By the sound of it, your "new" energy saving lights are practically antique. Energy saving light bulbs with a 'warm up time' of less than a second have been on the market for at least 5 years, if not 10.

The life time of the newer lights is really remarkable, isn't it?

 

What cars were getting 60 mpg, or even 40? (And how much did they pollute?)

Citroen 2CV? 50.9 mpg. In production from 1948 until 1990.

Edited April 11, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[swansont]

Citroen 2CV? 50.9 mpg. In production from 1948 until 1990.

 

No available in the US, I'm guessing.

[CaptainPanic]

No available in the US, I'm guessing.

I'd be very surprised indeed if that car was ever on the US market.

In those days, Americans were driving around in cars the size of a continent.

 

But let's get the discussion back onto lighting.

[rigney]

What cars were getting 60 mpg, or even 40? (And how much did they pollute?)

 

I don't want to change the game at all, but just picked this up off the internet. It's about gas MPGs and I really don't know the validity, since such bunk has been around for years.

http://www.triplegasmileage.com/

[John Cuthber]

"I don't want to change the game at all, "

Then don't. It's complete bull anyway- they don't seem to remember to add the cost of the electricity.

 

Since ordinary light bulbs and CFL light bulbs both have well documented life expectations they are both clear examples of built in obsolescence.

Why mention this?

All the govt. has done is insist you change from one form of PO to another.

[john5746]

And no legitimate Company pollutes anything to "make bigger profits", more spin.

 

IMO, a company that doesn't pollute in order to lower costs would be an exception. I have worked for a few Fortune 500's in my day and I have seen decisions made that were to the detriment of the environment and possibly consumer safety, in order to make the numbers. In fact, in one case, part of my job was to provide statistics that would satisfy QA to avoid excessive recalls. These were rather small cases, I doubt any CEO would even be aware of the situations - but that is partly the point. If the numbers are good, the top doesn't ask questions and everyone is happy. These kind of bottom line decisions are made all the time.

 

Anyone who has been under pressure in a job should understand that without regulation or some threat, it is just too difficult to expect the B workers to do the right thing. Keeping production costs down is the constant pressure applied daily. The competition is making a better or sufficient mouse trap at lower costs - that is what you fight against. Not who does it greener or nicer, etc.

 

You make some good points in regards to markets, etc. But statements like this are right up there with not believing in evolution.

[Phi for All]

What I believe is that the cart (Government) is leading the horse (Individualism/Consumer Choice) nearing the point cost will go beyond the average persons ability pay the price.

I think all we're seeing here is the spike that occurs whenever a new standard is adopted. The market forces will adjust pricing downwards once the investment in the new standard is made.

 

I think we're at a point in our history where we need to start focusing on efficient use of resources, and the market isn't the best way to achieve that at the early stages. Frankly, after privatization of most of the country's utilities under Clinton and Bush caused prices to skyrocket, I'm surprised that anyone would want electric devices that aren't running at peak efficiency.

 

All the subsidizing going on from Ethanol, Nuclear power or any alternative energy dream (today) IMO, has long passed the point of any kind of a productive end cost. Said another way, if advanced technology, the free market, had been left alone, we would be very near to what is already, at less than half the cost.

Ethanol was, and still is, a poor choice for subsidization as a biofuel. Other alternatives make more sense.

 

a coincidental government intrusion, related to Gas Stations; In the 40-60's a great many teenage boys pumped gas in all 48-50 States....What are they doing today?

I didn't think self-service gas-pumping had anything to do with the government. Wasn't that just an option offered from the oil companies to reduce price at the pumps? I remember seeing some stations in California 7 years ago offering full-service at a higher price, but I don't know if they still do it.

 

And no legitimate Company pollutes anything to "make bigger profits", more spin.

Pollution by industry happens. If spending part of their profits on certain tested methods reduces that pollution, then it follows that not spending it is the same as polluting to "make bigger profits". How are you spinning it any differently?

[jackson33]

john5746; Rather than further arguing the point, most all the DOW, S&P 500 and the vast majority of other public Companies in the US, the UK and Europe for legal reasons, farm out anything that might be hazardous to the environment. Although the reasons are to prevent suits against them by hundreds of environmentalist groups, Government Agencies or to pacify their Insurance Carriers, "Waste Management" and other Corporations devoted in part or total, have made this method simply cost/effective.

 

I'm sure "Farmer Joe" in his quest to make a few more dollars, opposed to spending, might let a little more drainage flow into some creek or river, but in my opinion those that cater for profit from the publics consumer are more interested in a Good Image, than what profits would be saved.

 

The Corporate world constantly influences the government to make new laws - it's called lobbying. The Corporate world constantly tries to kill competition through lobbying, and they have created obsolescence through regulations many times before. [/Quote]

 

CP; I don't disagree, in some cases Corporate interest are behind Government Regulation, but it's historically pretty rare this involves making a product illegal to sell over another like product. What's changed are the "said" reasons for the regulation and a made up excuse to justify intrusion into the free market, being the environment, conservation or as I would suggest, the imposition of one's opinion on others. That is the choice of Merchandise, Products, Services and the Companies that produce them are now at the Government discretion.

 

I'd like to pursue your definition of "lobbying", but in the US and maybe in my opinion, most of this is done by non-business, socially interested organizations, interested in self preservation, not the Corporate World.

 

The life time of the newer lights is really remarkable, isn't it?[/Quote]

 

Well my local Motel Owner friend, tells me they average about 3 to 5 days, before being stolen and has gone back to using the old 60W Bulbs, here in NM, we still have some time to stock up. He has also had to change rooms for a few that broke a bulb or when full paid for them to go elsewhere. His sign requires about 200 bulbs and he doesn't know what to do about that, but think he will go neon. I always used 6 ft. internal florescent bulbs, but he likes the flashing thing...

 

I think all we're seeing here is the spike that occurs whenever a new standard is adopted. The market forces will adjust pricing downwards once the investment in the new standard is made. [/Quote]

 

Phil; New standards, more often better quality, have always been paid for by those that pay the first prices, that's a free market at work. We started out with expensive 6 inch B&W TV's in the forties and now have 32 in Flat Screen HD TV's selling for less than those 6 inch, inflation adjusted and you can pay the price for getting even better things, today.

 

Here's another angle, though I don't know what's going on in California today, but they had intended to outlaw some TV's because they use too much energy and in all States and the Federal are thinking about adding a mileage tax to compensate for lost revenue from Gasoline Consumption, in part brought on by their own "CAFE Standards".

 

Ethanol was, and still is, a poor choice for subsidization as a biofuel. Other alternatives make more sense.[/Quote]

 

I really hate sounding like a broken record, but here again the free market was left out of the program and in this case with some highly destructive "unintended consequences". Corn prices today are at all time record highs, farmers are not planting other grains to grow corn and food prices are souring around the world. The same for Sugar, where in Brazil where they use sugar cane for their ethanol and sugar at an all time high.

 

I didn't think self-service gas-pumping had anything to do with the government.[/Quote]

 

Child labor laws and cost to employ under Federal regulations....I bought a C-Store near Austin in the early 80's and it was still using attendants. Since I had others, I'd have to reports any employees and he had not...They DID receive good tips (est. 5$/hr) and I could have gone "Contract Labor", but they were not old enough. Think NJ, by law must use attendants and it's my understanding it's a hassle.

 

Pollution by industry happens.[/Quote]

 

Read the first two paragraphs, this post....

[swansont]

swansont; If your trying to say, Federal mandates on a certain type of light bulb we can buy, will save lives, I'd suggest any "straw man argument" is yours. To my knowledge no person has died from using those items in there 100 year history.

 

I do wish you'd use the proper quote tags, with the name and time stamp included. It makes it easier to keep track of things.

 

"To my knowledge" is argument from ignorance. Nobody has died from pollution? Is that really the position you want to take?

 

 

By whose definition, would you base those tariffs on, the unions or maybe some environmentalist extremist opinions. All you would accomplish is the total destruction of the US economy, as most all is based on World trade in some manner, today. And no legitimate Company pollutes anything to "make bigger profits", more spin.

 

 

They would based on environmental laws in place. You need to take a consistent position — you can't complain about exportation of jobs to places that pollute at the same time as you object to this.

 

If polluting does not increase profits, why does any company pollute? GE has been cleaning up PCBs in the Hudson. That costs money. Does the money spent on the cleanup (or had it been spent preventing the pollution) somehow not reduce their profit? How?

[Phi for All]

If polluting does not increase profits, why does any company pollute? GE has been cleaning up PCBs in the Hudson. That costs money. Does the money spent on the cleanup (or had it been spent preventing the pollution) somehow not reduce their profit? How?

I was going to use the same case! Use of PCBs were outlawed back in the mid 70's, and GE fought the Hudson cleanup for over 25 years before they were forced to do it. They paid fines which were cheaper than tackling the task of doing the right thing.

 

I'm sure they're spinning it into an affinity for environmental issues; I would expect no less, it's what I would do as well if I had to pay that much. But you can't honestly believe they would have done anything to clean it up unless the government forced them to. By market rules alone, it would have been cheaper to hire PR firms to make everyone forget that you can't fish in the Hudson because of GE poisons.

[CaptainPanic]

john5746; Rather than further arguing the point, most all the DOW, S&P 500 and the vast majority of other public Companies in the US, the UK and Europe for legal reasons, farm out anything that might be hazardous to the environment. Although the reasons are to prevent suits against them by hundreds of environmentalist groups, Government Agencies or to pacify their Insurance Carriers, "Waste Management" and other Corporations devoted in part or total, have made this method simply cost/effective.

Companies they adhere strictly to regulations... which is why governments much make laws and regulations, to force companies to be clean. And that's exactly the point of this thread: new regulations to make the world cleaner. The regulations must come from governments.

 

No regulations would mean that there would be no (successful) lawsuits from environmentalist groups either.

 

It's ridiculous to suggest that the incentive to be clean lies with the corporations. They are the ones who generally oppose stricter regulations.

[Phi for All]

CP; I don't disagree, in some cases Corporate interest are behind Government Regulation, but it's historically pretty rare this involves making a product illegal to sell over another like product. What's changed are the "said" reasons for the regulation and a made up excuse to justify intrusion into the free market, being the environment, conservation or as I would suggest, the imposition of one's opinion on others. That is the choice of Merchandise, Products, Services and the Companies that produce them are now at the Government discretion.

I think you're looking at regulatory legislation in the wrong light. Let's say I have a new soft drink I want to sell, but the water I use exceeds the regulation 0.2 milligram per liter limit for cyanide. Actually, there's a full mg per liter and we're branding it as "Twice as cool as cigarettes and a whole lot quicker!" Are you saying the government is trying to tell people what they can and can't drink by stopping the sale of my product? My next product is a biofuel that will cost $1/gallon and runs great in existing cars but belches out a thick purple smoke. Why won't the government stay out of my business? There are tons of teenagers who think the smoke looks great billowing out of their cars and it's cheap to use. Is the government right to deny me the right to produce this great product? I'm also thinking of investing in hydroelectric infrastructure. If I can sell more inefficient incandescent light bulbs to my energy customers, we'll have to build new dams before the decade is out. Why is the government trying to tell me that energy efficiency is more important than my customer's right to buy the old bulbs?

 

I'd like to pursue your definition of "lobbying", but in the US and maybe in my opinion, most of this is done by non-business, socially interested organizations, interested in self preservation, not the Corporate World.

OMG, the biggest lobbies in the world are put together by big corporations interested in growing subsidies for sugar, oil, etc. There are also lobbying groups who simply have the ear of key politicians and sell their services to anyone who wants special earmarks and other funding. These hired guns are constantly hired to push for certain laws (one I read about was for the NFL; they hired a lobbyist to push a bill outlawing online poker because some of the sites offered gambling on football games that the NFL couldn't profit from). It got added into a bill providing more security for US ports. Omnicom, ostensibly a holding company from NYC, owns some of the top lobbying/marketing/PR companies in the world.

 

 

 

I really hate sounding like a broken record, but here again the free market was left out of the program and in this case with some highly destructive "unintended consequences". Corn prices today are at all time record highs, farmers are not planting other grains to grow corn and food prices are souring around the world. The same for Sugar, where in Brazil where they use sugar cane for their ethanol and sugar at an all time high.

Why do you say the free market was left out? The corn growers used their lobby, the National Corn Growers Association, to get us to use ethanol made from corn. They identified a market, the Federal government, and then created laws that require tax dollars from everyone to subsidize use of their product by that entity. The government did not come up with this on their own.

 

 

It's ridiculous to suggest that the incentive to be clean lies with the corporations. They are the ones who generally oppose stricter regulations.

Unless it lies in their interest to impose those regulations. The auto insurance industry in the US lobbied to allow insurers to use cheaper after-market auto parts to repair damaged vehicles, as long as the parts were certified as being comparable to the OEM parts by an independent testing group, which just happened to be set up by... the auto insurance industry.

[swansont]

Another example on the subject of corporations polluting/not polluting for profit. This isn't even byproduct pollution like smoke or accidental like a spill, it's intentional introduction of dangerous chemicals during the fracking process.

 

Companies injected large amounts of other hazardous chemicals, including 11.4 million gallons of fluids containing at least one of the toxic or carcinogenic B.T.E.X. chemicals — benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene. The companies used the highest volume of fluids containing one or more carcinogens in Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/science/earth/17gas.html?_r=1

[John Cuthber]

Do you realise that if they put crude oil back into the ground,they would have "injected large amounts of other hazardous chemicals, including 11.4 million gallons of fluids containing at least one of the toxic or carcinogenic B.T.E.X. chemicals — benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene. "?

[jackson33]

OMG, the biggest lobbies in the world are put together by big corporations interested in growing subsidies for sugar, oil, etc. There are also lobbying groups who simply have the ear of key politicians and sell their services to anyone who wants special earmarks and other funding.[/Quote]

 

 

Phil; In the US, it's virtually impossible for any single person to influence the seated Federal Government, other than their district representative and here, their local office usually only keeps poll results on issues from letters and phone calls. Adding that many States where logistics alone isolate representation, in seven States where only one house member exist covering some very large areas, Alaska, Montana coming to mind.

 

Although, influencing Federal actions is nothing new, today with 310M people, along with media access to this activity or lack of it, lobbying is the persons only means to in anyway voice on issues of National importance. The person then has equal access either through "Political Action Groups" or via the interest of like minded organizations or those in their trade. Since ALL these groups are represented in today's various media outlets and dependent on them for funding (not the Government), IMO they do speak for and in the interest of their members.

 

Without going into any specific issue, I believe if you search out what's behind a great deal of the legislation your referring to, actually comes from the influence and status of the States representatives, not necessarily lobbyist. For instance, Ethanol production and corn producing States or many issues based on metropolitan areas, where a good share of House Members come from, LA in California has 23 House members alone, opposed to maybe 10 States with less representation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States

 

 

No regulations would mean that there would be no (successful) lawsuits from environmentalist groups either.[/Quote]

 

CP; Meaningless lawsuits maybe, but maybe that would be a good thing. Two things here and they are important;

 

1- Any business, that deliberately does harm to the environment (then the people) is subject to recourse of those people, WHETHER cover by regulation or not. Frankly most regulation, comes from previous findings, then punishing the vast majority that had done nothing.

 

2- Cost laid on business by regulation is passed on to the consumer or drives business to places with less regulation. IMO regulation itself, are perceived legal payola (bribes) to the City, State or Federal, to do business in their jurisdictions.

 

If polluting does not increase profits, why does any company pollute? GE has been cleaning up PCBs in the Hudson. That costs money. Does the money spent on the cleanup (or had it been spent preventing the pollution) somehow not reduce their profit? How? [/Quote]

 

swansont; Any business that produces a product or offers a service, especially in the US, is totally dependent on consumer consumption. In some cases bad or adverse publicity, based on anything, but including environmental issues can drop that consumption level below their required level to compete and many business have been hurt or gone bankrupt. Good publicity, without knowing anything about GE and PCB's in the Hudson, could actually increase consumption over what was lost, if those PCB's were a result of GE actions. All business, including BP in the Gulf or Toyota and their braking systems, regardless of fault, will try to correct any negative publicity in this manner.

 

The inquiry over hydrofracking, which was initiated by the House Energy and Commerce Committee when Mr. Waxman led it last year, also found that 14 of the nation’s most active hydraulic fracturing companies used 866 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products — not including water. More than 650 of these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or are listed as hazardous air pollutants, the report said. [/Quote]

From your newest link...

 

I'll say this again, but in recent years I've drawn away from arguing these issues because discussing hypotheses or to defend against their intended objective always brings out the extremist and it's not worth the time. In this case and in assuming hydrofracking has been going on since crude has been refined, why are people still alive (living) anyplace along the Louisiana, Texas Gulf Coast, where refining oil dominates the landscape, throwing in where a good share of Chemical and fertilizing plants exist.

[swansont]

Do you realise that if they put crude oil back into the ground,they would have "injected large amounts of other hazardous chemicals, including 11.4 million gallons of fluids containing at least one of the toxic or carcinogenic B.T.E.X. chemicals — benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene. "?

 

Not specifically, no, but I was aware that oil spills are generally considered an environmental problem.

 

swansont; Any business that produces a product or offers a service, especially in the US, is totally dependent on consumer consumption. In some cases bad or adverse publicity, based on anything, but including environmental issues can drop that consumption level below their required level to compete and many business have been hurt or gone bankrupt. Good publicity, without knowing anything about GE and PCB's in the Hudson, could actually increase consumption over what was lost, if those PCB's were a result of GE actions. All business, including BP in the Gulf or Toyota and their braking systems, regardless of fault, will try to correct any negative publicity in this manner.

 

I don't see how this addresses the issue of whether preventing pollution costs money at all.

 

Polluting CAN cause widespread adverse publicity, but it doesn't mean it MUST cause widespread adverse publicity. Pollution does, in fact, happen. Taking a position that depends on it not happening is arguing from a false premise.