HereForTheBeer: I don't disagree, but I'll also note that there's nothing wrong with doing these things to make profit (in case anyone was reading "profit" as a four-letter word). If you have a 'dirty' product and can make inroads in the market against your competition by cleaning up your product in comparison to the the rest of the market, then more power to ya.
It becomes a win-win-win: the marketplace gets what it wants (greener products), the business gets what it wants (more market share), and the industry sees that business's success from the strategic move and thus follows suit.
It has happened that companies made profit out of eco-friendly practices, but there are also a lot of cases where the company cut corners environmentally to bring about a cheaper product (and outsell it's competitors) or if it is a monopoly, just to make more profits.
In the case of a cheaper product, buyers are of course equally to blame and having both parties (producer and consumers) behaving in such a way outlines a situation where the agents in a free market won't regulate themselves and need external assistance to make the right call.
This is the direct result of the shorter term profit not being conductive to long term prosperity (greedy algorithm causing a race toward a local maximum as opposed to an absolute one) or just externalities (basically people not involved in the production/purchase process footing the bill for environmental damages).
HereForTheBeer: Of course, as you state, much of that comes from legislation and regulation. On the other hand, a lot comes from within industry, being proactive. Chasing the dollar? Definitely. But the result is a better, safer, greener, product.
As written above, sometimes, it is. Often, it isn't. That's why you need an external force not involved in the profit making process to evaluate those things. Let the market go when it works and regulate it or just replace it with something else when it doesn't.
HereForTheBeer: One example: that perennial whipping boy, Big Oil, and the improvements in their products over the years. "Top Tier" fuels is an industry creation that uses efficiency and green matters to help market this alternative product as something better than the standard product.
Actually, it would be best if we got off the oil as soon as possible everywhere we can.
Big oil is the poster child for free market not only not working, but also corrupting the entire process using it's economical muscles to subvert democracy.
Here in Canada, the Conservative government who has strong ties to Big Oil has literally muzzled the scientific community whenever climate change was concerned.
Concerning Big Oil having environmentally friendly practices, you should see some of the desolated areas they left in their wake in third world countries when they were finished. They aren't footing the bill for that. That's externalities for you.
HereForTheBeer: There's a big picture, and regulation, marketplace, profit, technology, overhead, and competition all play a role.
We are in agreement about that.
HereForTheBeer: I argued in another thread maybe a year back that it doesn't matter if the conservative side of things buys into man-made climate change: if the fixes are marketed properly, you can sell them the ideas and changes necessary to put a halt to man's effects. The problem is, nobody is marketing it to them so it ends up as an us-versus-them. Given that us and them provide a healthy chunk of the funding necessary to implement those changes, it'll be an uphill battle until they can be brought on board.
The main problem is that oil is cheaper in the short term, but a lot more expensive in the long term and our economical system is geared heavily toward shorter term consideration.
That and Big Oil has fought tooth and nail to keep drilling and keep selling their ware. For them, it's the rational course of action to take. For everyone else, it's ticking bomb.
HereForTheBeer: Here's what I mean: regardless of the 'why' behind switching to energy-conserving products, sell them on the advantages it provides to them in terms
other than climate change. Are you a backer of solar (I am, and have some plans for the future)? Then market it to say that it pays for itself after a while, adds equity to the property, can be manufactured domestically (this is difficult when competing against the Far East - just ask Solyndra - but can be done), and helps provide energy independence. Those are all things that should appeal to a conservative or GOP-voter and help them get over the significant hurdle of the upfront investment cost. Hardly anyone markets it this way, and the opportunity goes unrealized. Much of the climate change fight goes like this.
I'm really glad you are pro-solar energy, but I don't think you are going with the market on this (beyond the fact that oil interests are controlled by juggernaughs and you couldn't make much of an entry there ;).
As I wrote above, that works if the alternatives are cheaper in the shorter term.
I'll give that to Big Oil, they aren't.
So, we will go where we can save the most today and climb that small hill. We'll climb the crazy ass steep mountain tomorrow. Heck, a big chunk of that climb will have to be done by our descendants. That's another externality for you.
