[tw]

Originally Posted by Beestie

Your logic only works if all parties are subject to the same set of regulations. If a Chinese company can just dump their untreated toxic waste into the Yellow River and eject their untreated fumes straight into the sky and make their employees work 10 hours a day with no benefits, no breaks for $1.50 per hour but I have to sanitize what I put into the river and clean what I put into the sky and pay a decent wage with benefits and not work my employees to death than who do you think is going to have the lower price and, therefore, all of the business? And if they price me out of the market, then they experience job growth and I don't.

My problem with Kyoto is pretty much that.

If your reasonings were correct, then Americans in 1980 were massively unemployed because American vehicles and industries had to meet 1970 pollution control. Industries that innovated (ie oil companies) ended up selling their American innovation all over the world - more jobs. Companies that fought such innovations ended up firing American workers and running to government for protection as those same technologies appeared in superior Japanese and European products. Why does Ford now have to license technology from Toyota?

Are we now poorer because the Cuyahoga River no longer catches fire? Are we poorer because NYC no longer dumps their garbage and sewage raw in the Atlantic Ocean? Of course not. When Americans innovated to meet those 1970 pollution control requirements, then more jobs resulted. Solutions even created increased productivity. Like it or not, that is the reality of history. Yes, some jobs were lost. But then computers also put thousands of accountants and factory workers out of work. Should we stop innovation because jobs are lost?

Agreed that government should not have to force innovation. But then car companies would not even install seat belts or safety glass until forced to by government regulation. Clearly since other nations did not require that, then other nations had more jobs? Nonsense. Telcos would not provide DSL until forced to by government regulation. Clearly we are all poorer because government mandated innovation? Oil companies would not remove lead from gasoline until forced to by regulation. For every case where jobs were lost are just as many cases were more jobs were created. Meanwhile standards of living increased.

Are you telling us we would all be wealthier and healthier if government did not remove lead from gas or stop widespread air pollution? Are you saying we would all be drinking clean water if use and disposal of trichloralethylene had not been banned by government regulation? Do you know how we once cleaned PC boards? Freely usage of ozone depleting solvents. What resulted? PC boards now constructed using materials that reduced costs; electronic boards cleaned in a dishwasher (an eye opener among those who fear wet electronics).

Europeans will now ban lead in all electronics. Therefore Europeans will lose electronics markets due to higher costs? No. That technology is all but being imposed even upon Americans. Clearly Europeans are losing jobs because government requires no more lead? Only where American solutions to lead free are better. Americans were required to install GFCIs in all homes. Does that mean jobs lost? Of course not. GFCI technology was then exported to other nations - more wealth from new markets.

History demonstrates there is little relationship between job losses and environmental regulations. When jobs are lost, well, the environmental threat did not exist. But global warming and its negative consequences do exist. Those who do address the problem will own the technologies and industries that will be necessary. Furthermore, we know from history that a vast number of these solutions mean less manufacturing costs.

Why should the Chinese change? Their realized gains in 8% growth are countered by unrealized losses estimated as high as 15% annually. Clearly they have a better and wealthier future? That is what was assumed despite the numbers. Ignored is that China will have to buy equipment from those who innovated - whose designs and machines both pollute less and therefore often cost less. IOW China will remain poorer because they remain in denial - viewing only realized profits rather than all profits.

Americans have numerous safety equipment, material handling equipment, etc in semiconductor fabs. Taiwan manufacturers may literally handle hazardous materials by hand. So who has the more profitable semiconductor fabs? Well, the Taiwanese do get low margin and less sophisticated products. In one case, a complete and new fab literally burned to the ground. How do they remain competitive? Cost control. Pay employees less, lower standards of living, etc. According to principles expressed by Beestie, Taiwanese should have cornered the market on semiconductor manufacturing. They don't. Even with safety standards that are (relatively) almost non-existent, Taiwanese do not own this industry. Therefore they must cut costs elsewhere. How can this be? It is not obvious if using blanket assumptions. But Taiwanese can only complete by reaping less profits and a lower standards of living.

Nations that addressed ozone depletion, acid rain, air pollution, etc all ended up with more jobs, new products, and increased exports to those who remained in denial. Why is German equipment now so necessary in American coal plants? Because Americans refused to address environmental problems created by coal plants. Did the Germans have higher costs and fewer jobs? No. Richer Germans addressed environmental those problems. Germans imposed regulations not required anywhere else. Therefore German innovation resulted in international sales, better standard of living, and more jobs in new industries.

Beestie's logic is predicated on same myths that called computers bad only because computers destroyed factory and accounting jobs. Nations that create global warming solutions will be wealthier - have more productive jobs - as history has repeatedly demonstrated. Those solutions will be required everywhere. Who will have those jobs? Same reasons to deny air pollution in late 1960s are the exact same arguments to deny global warming solutions.