Nfp & Overpopulation

[Anomaly]

The Government should invest in solar panels.

[Nihil Obstat]

The government should invest in getting the floopy out of the market.

[size=1](DVD killed the [url="http://cws.gtc.edu/departments/Library/Library%20Technology%20Tips%20webpage/floppy.jpg"]floopy disc[/url] star.)[/size]

Edited September 25, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1348540871' post='2486317']
The government should invest in getting the floopy out of the market.

[size=1](DVD killed the [url="http://cws.gtc.edu/departments/Library/Library%20Technology%20Tips%20webpage/floppy.jpg"]floopy disc[/url] star.)[/size]
[/quote]What's wrong with ethanol subsidies and Solyndra? The Gov doesn't invest without a plan. It didn't allow that nasty Keystone pipe pump oil pollution into America.

And it's FLOPPY Disc, not Floopy Disc and CD's, not DVD's. Are you a diclexis?

[Papist]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1348535124' post='2486257']
The Government should invest in solar panels.
[/quote]
Why?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1348580118' post='2486462']
Why?
[/quote]To save jobs at Solyndra. duh.

[Papist]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1348580543' post='2486467']
To save jobs at Solyndra. duh.
[/quote]
In that case, the government should invest in America.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1348584630' post='2486491']
In that case, the government should invest in America.
[/quote]Why? We already have everything.
The government should buy Haiti.

[Papist]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1348584880' post='2486495']
Why? We already have everything.
The government should buy Haiti.
[/quote]
Or we all can just light our money on fire.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1348584976' post='2486497']
Or we all can just light our money on fire.
[/quote]Naysayer. A coat of paint, new management, and it could be sold to the DR at a profit. Trust me.

[GregorMendel]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1348532604' post='2486239']
Actually, no. That would be NASA's budget, which has been slashed within an inch of it's life. And we do have jet packs, if you have the cash. And hovercrafts, for that matter. Russia has rocket-ship commutes, as we retired our space elevator shuttle this past week. And have you heard of a roomba? It's this magical robot that you turn on and it vacuums the floor all by its self!

Since you seem to be so passionate about the subject, what do you suggest we actually do, Socrates? Ignore any kind of stewardship of the earth? Use up all of our oil deposits and just hope for the best? I'm not saying I'm an expert on the auto industry. Clearly I'm not, and it's a bad example. But my point still stands. I'm saying that those who have the most power to influence how our society deals with the problem of "overpopulation" and right use of our natural resources aren't making sustainability a true priority.
[/quote]


Well put.

As I have seen a lot of bias and vitriol in this thread so far, I thought I'd introduce some facts. Socrates, when it comes down to it, economic intervention and manipulation by "Big Government" (whatever that means) poses less of a threat to our economy than current unsustainable practices by companies themselves, which will inevitably impact the environment, or what I assume is more important to fiscal conservatives, natural resource management, and force a change in energy use and production anyway.

If success in a capitalist economic system reveals who is right (rich) and who is wrong (poor), then the very best argument I can make that clearly shows the superiority of sustainable practices is the fact that [i]companies which engage in such practices consistently outperform those who dont.[/i]


[url="http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/09/sustainable_investing_time_to.html?referral=00563&cm_mmc=email-_-newsletter-_-daily_alert-_-alert_date&utm_source=newsletter_daily_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alert_date"]"Companies that Invest in Sustainability do Financially Better", Harvard Business Review Blog Network[/url]

[quote][color=#000000][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]It's a common misperception that responsible or sustainable investments are all in the hug yourself, warm feeling, good intention category, the inevitable consequence of which is diminished investment return.[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]Nothing could be further from the truth.[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]In the past decade, investor demand has increased transparency and communication, creating a large and growing pool of data on corporate sustainability. With this, objective decision-making can happen. Analysis of the data shows two important relationships:[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]Resource efficient companies — those that use less energy and water and create less waste in generating a unit of revenue — tend to produce [url="http://www.osmosisim.com/investment-strategies/the-model-of-resource-efficiency/more-world/"]higher investment returns[/url] than their less resource-efficient rivals.[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][url="http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/assets_c/2012/09/sust_inv_chart1_580x158-2322.html"][img]http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/assets_c/2012/09/sust_inv_chart1_580x158-thumb-580x158-2322.jpg[/img][/url][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]Resource-efficient companies also display [url="http://www.osmosisim.com/category/case-study/"]high levels of innovation and entrepreneurship[/url], pushing core value metrics above the average large cap global business.[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3][url="http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/assets_c/2012/09/sust_inv_chart2_580x92-2325.html"][img]http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/assets_c/2012/09/sust_inv_chart2_580x92-thumb-580x92-2325.jpg[/img][/url][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]What these findings suggest is that [url="http://www.osmosisim.com/resource_efficiency_shareholder/"]an investment strategy based on resource efficiency[/url] not only produces returns in excess of global benchmarks, it also identifies management teams that are forward thinking, aware of the economic imperatives brought about by resource constraint. Just the kinds of companies a responsible investment manager would put clients' money into.[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]And while a global portfolio constructed around a resource efficiency metric will certainly include less well-known global firms like Lundin Petroleum and Shire Ltd, it will mostly be comprised of household names. The data on sustainability shows that companies like Boeing, BMW, UPS, and L'Oreal are highly resource efficient in their respective industries.[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][size=3]Resource efficiency, therefore, is not just some nice-to-have quality. It is a leading indicator of economic performance and one that every investment manager should be tracking. It's about time that the financial community woke up to this fact and started to take advantage of the data.[/size][/font][/color][/quote]


Regardless of the rationale, whether it be...

[u][b]National security[/b]:[/u] American oil extraction methods might be the most advanced and efficient in the world, [url="http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-06-21/how-much-oil-left-world"]but we hold about 2.7% of world reserves[/url], which will only spell more political and military conflict with OPEC-associated nations as our national use slowly outpaces our possible reserves over the next 80 years [thats twice the predicted time frame of remaining world reserves]. Lets not also forget that China has committed nearly [url="http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2012/08/27/china-invests-billions-cut-pollution?utm_source=E-News+from+GreenBiz&utm_campaign=4e3c59007d-GreenBuzz-2012-08-28&utm_medium=email"]$347 Billion towards energy conservation and pollution control over the next three and a half years[/url], is currently [url="http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/pubs/NewScientist_june2012.pdf"]leading the world in ecocompensation[/url] and renewable energy research which has yielded resource renewal and cap/trade growth, and has accomplished all of this facing far great pollution, far more restrictive government policies, and far more energy waste than the United States[url="http://www.cfses.com/documents/energy/CSES2010-ToC&ExecSummary.pdf"] while demonstrating the practicality of such a transition by utilizing one of our nation's most abundant resources as a crutch, natural gas[/url]. And if China doesnt do it for ya, lets not forget that [url="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2010/02/11/7266/quadrennial-defense-review-should-spark-interagency-climate-conversation/"]in 2010, the Pentagon Itself declared climate change a 'destabilizing factor'[/url] and actively pursued strategic plans to counter impending climate-based effects..

[b][u]Healthcare:[/u][/b] As diminishing air quality will only worse the state of respiratory health in the US, warming temperatures will enable wider spread of disease vectors, and since healthcare industry accounts for 16% of US GDP and 8% of greenhouse gas emissions, [url="http://blogs.hbr.org/winston/2012/06/why-kaiser-permanente-integrat.html"]Kaiser Permanente has shown that even a 'non-profit' healthcare company can expand their sustainability initiatives[/url] beyond supply and risk in the name of greater productivity,

or (and this is where a scientist gets giddy about long term, end-of-the-world possibilities:) )

[u][b]Any hope of continued Economic Productivity and Sufficient Energy Supply/Efficiency[/b][/u]: Without massive alternative and renewable energy investments and effective pollution and resource management solutions in the immediate future, it will be absolutely impossible to maintain the 2.9% US historical average annual energy growth over the coming centuries (amesome factoid: [url="http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/"]US energy demand has grown at a remarkably consistent 2.9% per year since 1650[/url]!). At 2.9% energy growth, [url="http://blogs.hbr.org/winston/2012/04/growth-isnt-going-to-last-fore.html"]we would literally need to harness 100% of the sun's energy absorbed on Earth in just 295 year[/url]s. Factor in [url="http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/"]that the 5% annual growth of the economy has outpaced energy growth since 1950[/url] (which will even at rock-bottom prices wont deem energy arbitrarily cheap, [url="http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/"]but instead limit possible economic growth[/url]) and that there is little more efficiency we can squeeze from heat (gas) engines, and it is clearly inevitable that we will need to fundamentally change our energy economy by either limiting traditional personal and business expenditure or embracing alternative and renewable forms (And I dont know about you guys, but I'd much rather have a solar panel on my roof than a cap on my gas usage imposed by the government).

...moving towards sustainable practices in the United States will ultimately prove to make us more secure, more healthy, and more productive.

Sustainable practices and practical measures to combat climate change today will only serve to benefit economic and energy growth in the long run. I understand this may be a difficult fact to swallow, and will absolutely require time and shared hardship to completely implement the necessary financial initiatives and production methods within our economy, [url="http://blogs.hbr.org/winston/2012/09/politicians-who-deny-climate-c.html"]but to avoid the issue and debase those concerned (or completely disregard decades of scientific literature) is politically, scientifically, and economically negligent[/url].

Edited September 25, 2012 by GregorMendel

[Anomaly]

So Mendel, who do you think should control and direct how money is spent in the global market place? Government?

Let's see, there was Solyndra, making solar panels. That was a financial disaster.

Why is the US way behind nuclear engergy plant construction compared to the rest of the world?

Um, how about Ethanol as a green fuel and cars to run on them. More than a third of the corn produced in the US goes to fuel production instead of food because of government manipualtions. Ethanol is not energy efficient and more is produced than what is needed/wanted/required.

How about Government promotion of outdated technology in fluorescents that caused a diminished demand and retarded the development of cleaner and more efficient LED lighting.

Things take time and the market does respond to efficient innovators that can do things cheaper, better, cleaner. "Some" government support and investment is good, but too much Government regulation, supervision, and interference historically distorts the process causing significant financial inefficency for other political agendas.

[GregorMendel]

I have absolutely no opinion on the matter of government regulation, and if anything my previous post argues it is the private sector which will determine whether we will irreversibly damage the natural resources of our nation or develop the alternative energy reserves we will require in the immediate future, aided by the government only in the capacity that progressive policies might achieve (as well as subsidies and research grants of course).

I wouldn't call that government intervention, I would call that macroeconomics.

Regardless of the manner in which it is achieved, the only point I have argued for is the implementation of sustainable practices by private corporations, and I feel that I have more than adequately stated the case for its future necessity and obvious immediate value.

[arfink]

Concerning LED lighting: Cree is making these teensy little LED "stars" that consume about 3 watts and pump out 800 lumens of white light. And those aren't even the most efficient models. I could make myself a flashlight with one that's the size of a ball point pen and would outshine the headlights on most cars. MWAHAHAHAHA

[Socrates]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1348532604' post='2486239']
Actually, no. That would be NASA's budget, which has been slashed within an inch of it's life. And we do have jet packs, if you have the cash. And hovercrafts, for that matter. Russia has rocket-ship commutes, as we retired our space elevator shuttle this past week. And have you heard of a roomba? It's this magical robot that you turn on and it vacuums the floor all by its self! [/quote]
You didn't read my post carefully. I was talking real Jetson/Bladerunner flying cars - not noisy, barely-float-above-the-ground hovercraft, and real robot maids like in the Jetsons - not just automated vacuum cleaners.
But most importantly,this stuff needs to be cheap and affordable for everybody - that's all us ordinary folks, not just military specialists and professional astronauts. (And, of course, it must all be powered by cheap, renewable green energy!)

But no doubt all these wonders and much more will be available to all of us, if only we allow Dear Leader four more years and an unlimited budget of borrowed money to "invest."

[quote]Since you seem to be so passionate about the subject, what do you suggest we actually do, Socrates? Ignore any kind of stewardship of the earth? Use up all of our oil deposits and just hope for the best? I'm not saying I'm an expert on the auto industry. Clearly I'm not, and it's a bad example. But my point still stands. I'm saying that those who have the most power to influence how our society deals with the problem of "overpopulation" and right use of our natural resources aren't making sustainability a true priority.[/quote]
You can always reduce, reuse, recycle, plant trees, ride bikes, and all that jazz.

As I said earlier, I think the good ol' free market will best handle of the problems of limited resources and efficient "green" technology. As fossil fuels grow scarcer, and thus more costly, the demand for fuel-efficient, or alternative-energy vehicles will greatly increase, as well as for other forms of "green" technology. And not just from individual consumers, but from companies as well, as fuel costs sore ever higher. (This affects everything from transportation and logistics to manufacturing plants.)

There's no need for forced government interference in the market, which only leads to higher energy costs, and wasted allocation of resources.

As the demand for fuel efficiency and "green" technology grows, so will the impetus for companies to fill the demand.
"Green" vehicles are still in their infancy, and the technology will improve and become more affordable with time, as does every technology that is introduced to the market. (Compare today's cars to 1890s "horseless carriages," which were slow, inefficient, and only affordable by the rich. Or today's TV sets with '40s models, Or today's PCs with those from the late '70s). Vehicles have already become significantly more fuel efficient than in the past. Just let the laws of supply and demand work their magic.

[Socrates]

[quote name='GregorMendel' timestamp='1348596843' post='2486584']
Well put.

As I have seen a lot of bias and vitriol in this thread so far, I thought I'd introduce some facts. Socrates, . . .
[/quote]
You're attacking "arguments" I never made here.

I never said that any and all "green" initiatives are in themselves bad.
Obviously, reducing the amount of resources used (such as fuel or water) saves costs, and makes good economic sense, in addition to being responsible stewardship. Many companies are working to reduce the amount of fuel and other resources consumed by operations - as it cuts operational costs, as well as giving the company a "green" pr halo.

That's why I'm an advocate of free market solutions whenever possible, as opposed to governmental meddling in the market

My problem is with unnecessary, and frequently destructive, meddling by the government through corporate welfare grants of tax-payer money to support unproductive companies claiming to be "green," and by excessive environmental regulation which artificially increases the cost of fuel, harming the economy, and the poor most of all.

One of the greatest idiocies of our age is the idea that politicians and government bureaucrats better know how to run everyone else's business than they do. (Read Leonard Read's classic "[url="http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html"]I, Pencil[/url]" for a simple yet powerful illustration of this principle.)

I wouldn't hold up Red China's statism as any model, though I suppose it's nice they're doing something to try to undo some of their massive ecological destruction - which is among the worst in the world. Beiijng is that city where people have to wear gas masks to walk outdoors. (Of course, Western environmentalists loved to praise China for it's environmentally "enlightened" one-child policy, with its forced abortions, and the country is now facing disastrous demographic implosion.)

Edited September 25, 2012 by Socrates