[Damn True]

Heard an interesting interview on KQED (SF NPR affiliate) this morning. The dude being interviewed was an environmentalist and economist with a rather interesting view of current environmentalism. I will summarize his most poignant illustration.

Through the 40's-50's-60's and 70's the US steel industry was among the worst polluters in the world. They consumed coal at enormous rates causing all the usual side effects of minning and burning the stuff. They polluted the rivers near the plants etc.

Did the industry need to clean up its act? Absolutely.

But....

The environmental movement may have done too much too fast and actually caused more damage, both environmental and economic in the process.

The movement came down on the industry and Washington with such intensity that sweeping legislation was enacted to force the industry to clean things up and do it fast. The problem with that is that it was prohibitavely expensive to do so. So much in fact that the industry for the most part closed it's doors, pulled up stakes and moved overseas. It was far cheaper to build plants in Asia and South America than to immediately comply with the new laws.

So the environmentalists short sighted NIMBY (not in my back yard) view on the issue got the pollution stopped but at what cost?

The effect is that hundreds of thousands of Americans were put out of work and the economy of countless American towns and cities (much of the midwest) is forever damaged, if not destroyed.
Of course, hundereds of thousands of people were put to work elsewhere, but without protection of OSHA and labor laws.
The coal is still being mined and burned....it's just being done elsewhere.
The rivers are still being horribly polluted....it's just being done elsewhere.
Furthermore, there is no environmental restriction to speak of in many of the places the replacement plants now exist in (that why they were chosen).

The guys point was that US environmentalists need to take a larger view of their actions. Would it not have been better to take a more measured process oriented approach to the issue. To develop a series of small non-cost prohibitive changes that the steel industry could have made to clean things up over time rather than requireing sweeping change? What good does it do to clean up one river in Ohio at the cost of one in China or Venezuela? What of the cost to people?

Discuss.....

 

[ohio]

1) If environmental legislation hadn't driven them away, American labor rates and real-estate prices would have soon enough.
2) US Steel is all that's left. They are still a highly successful and highly profitable company producing steel in the US thanks to the extreme steel shortage resulting from Chinese demand. They would have trouble remaining profitable given the labor rates they have to pay if China hadn't built up a steel industry.
3) China has better environmental standards on their steel plants than we do
4) The population density surrounding OH and PA steel prooduction is quite high. Even if the environmental impact is a wash, I would be curious to know the direct human impact.
5) Since when do you value foreigners' lives equal to Americans' lives? We've got to protect the homeland first, right?

 

[Damn True]

1) If environmental legislation hadn't driven them away, American labor rates and real-estate prices would have soon enough.

So that makes it ok? By that logic we ought to just keep taxing the heck out of corporations in CA (at a rate 30% higher than most other states) because real estate prices might someday drive them out even if the taxes dont? Huh?
Many of the steel companies still own the land and the plants because corporate asseture=real value irrespective of revenue. Which is why so many of them are still sitting fallow. If the real estate was so valuable why hasn't it been bought up and built up?

2) US Steel is all that's left. They are still a highly successful and highly profitable company producing steel in the US thanks to the extreme steel shortage resulting from Chinese demand. They would have trouble remaining profitable given the labor rates they have to pay if China hadn't built up a steel industry.

Their operations in the US are a shadow of what they once were. From what the dude on NPR said most of their production in the US is military contract stuff (for contracts that specifiy US made materials) or really exotic stuff for the tech industry. In either case it's a drop in the bucket compared to what they used to produce in the US and what they now produce overseas. From what I understand there is more steel produced now in Cleveland than in all of PA.

3) China has better environmental standards on their steel plants than we do

Not entirely true. When those steel companies were looking for new places to live. They were able to get local and national governments in Asia and South America to relax and in some cases completely abandon their environmental laws in the name of brining $$$ and jobs into their economies.

4) The population density surrounding OH and PA steel prooduction is quite high. Even if the environmental impact is a wash, I would be curious to know the direct human impact.

The overall population of the states is probably largely unchanged, but how many steel towns (big and small) are rotting shells? If Joe Schmoe has to leave his home and uproot his family because the steel mill he was working in (in many cases the only game in town) closed down, Id call that a negative human impact.

5) Since when do you value foreigners' lives equal to Americans' lives? We've got to protect the homeland first, right?

Wow...what was the point of that? Is it not disconcerting to you that hunderds of thousands of Americans were rendered jobless and an equal number of people in other nations are now doing the jobs without the luxury of OSHA and labor laws? Nobody is making the companies provide hearing protection, breathing protection, safe equipment etc. Nobody is ensuring the companies pay the employees a fair wage.

....all so a few people could feel good about themselves because the river in their backyard is cleaner. Yippee.

I'm just saying that if the green-weenies had taken a more measured approach we would have been able to clean up the rivers and keep the value of having that production still in the US.

 

[HarryCallahan]

Whoever Damn True was quoting makes a good point. If we demand sweeping changes on an industry or outlaw certain industries without changing our habits, all we are doing is exporting the problems.

For example, don't build any refineries in the US for a couple decades, don't improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles even as our population and the number of vehicles we drive increases, and guess what? Gas prices go up, we become more dependent on foreign oiil, and demand for drilling in the Arctic goes up.

Go beyond a ban on cutting old growth to putting unreasonable restrictions on selective harvest of trees in forests, but don't use less wood, and where do the jobs go and the trees come from? Other places: Siberia, South America, South East Asia...

 

[dan-o]

Not in my backyard!

Windfarms are great! What? I'll be able to see it from my house? Windfarms suck!

 

[Ridemonkey]

What I don't understand is why does a healthy economy require that we manufacturer more and more crap? We don't need most of it. Why can't successful economies be based on other factors? We could all live without 3 TVs, swiffers, a new car every 3 years, a room full of shoes etc etc. Yet, manufacturing declines in non-essential market sectors and suddenly there is not enough work for everyone. There is something fundamentally flawed about this.

 

[ummbikes]

Very interesting topic!

On the surface it seems like a healthy balnce should be the best solution. In the case of the steel industry I'm not really up to speed on what should have been done, but I do live in an area that was devestated by the Spotted Owl Fiasco of the 90's.

It is easy to make a statement like "logging is bad" and enact regulations that curtail harvest levels. What is more difficult is to say "logging has an impact on the environment, society, and economy" and then act.

What has happened in my neck of the woods (pun intended) is logging has been cut back. There is more fuel in the woods and we now have wild fires every summer and fall. Some people (greeners) say the fires are a result of greedy forest owners who didn't let nature take its course and let natural fires keep the forest floor clear, and the logging companies say it's the greeners who enact legislation that limits the forest product companies abilty to thin their woodlots. Who is right? Both parties.

Then there is the issue of the society. In the 1980's people in my community were out logging, working in mills, driving trucks and generally staying employed. By the time the 90's rolled around unemployment was rising, meth was hitting the area, and divorce rates were climbing. Now I live in an area where you as likely to find meth-lab dump site out in the woods as you are to see a deer. Granted there are more trees, but you can't walk through the woods because the brush is woven like a mat and is 10' tall. That is untill the catch on fire and burn not only the brush, but the trees and meth labs...

So the economy.

If you want to be a logger today you have to go to work for Weyerhauser or some other mega-logging company because they have the team of attorneys that can navigate the laws and regulations. It used to be a guy could be a small logging company. I remember in the 70's when I was little it was not uncommon for a man to own a log truck with a loader, a skidder, and some some saws and make a great living with just himself and a couple of workers. This is rare today.

My point is this.

People need to be as big a part of the equation in these matters as the environment. Both need protection.

 

[RhinofromWA]

What I don't understand is why does a healthy economy require that we manufacturer more and more crap? We don't need most of it. Why can't successful economies be based on other factors? We could all live without

here we go...

3 TVs,

bite your tongue!

swiffers,

I never understood those

a new car every 3 years,

I am on a 10 or so year plan myself

a room full of shoes etc etc.

I fear I am as bad as female about this. I have two pairs of cowboy boots. Dancing boots and Ropers, 1 dress shoe, 3 sneakers or various wear, 3 bicycling shoes, 1 pair of sandals, oh and a pair of motorcycle boots. : I am such a shoe whore.

Yet, manufacturing declines in non-essential market sectors and suddenly there is not enough work for everyone. There is something fundamentally flawed about this.

 

[pnj]

I didn't really read this but I'll add to it..

how come i get so much junk mail in my house mail box? SO much wasted paper everday. it should be illegal to send that crap out. how many trees end up in my mailbox in a month?

I hate that crap.

 

[SkaredShtles]

What I don't understand is why does a healthy economy require that we manufacturer more and more crap? We don't need most of it. Why can't successful economies be based on other factors? We could all live without 3 TVs, swiffers, a new car every 3 years, a room full of shoes etc etc. Yet, manufacturing declines in non-essential market sectors and suddenly there is not enough work for everyone. There is something fundamentally flawed about this.

What you're talking about is a very fundamental shift in human nature itself. Which would be a *very* hard thing indeed to do........

People want more. More stuff. More money. More things. It's pretty fundamental.

Why do people here have 5/6/7 bikes?

It's much more complicated than just saying "why don't you just buy less crap"

-S.S.-

 

[Andyman_1970]

What you're talking about is a very fundamental shift in human nature itself. Which would be a *very* hard thing indeed to do........

People want more. More stuff. More money. More things. It's pretty fundamental.

Why do people here have 5/6/7 bikes?

It's much more complicated than just saying "why don't you just buy less crap"

-S.S.-

How much of that consumptionism is a result of the last 30-40 years and the rise of things like TV and the huge influence it has with regards to advertising.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Hey RM,

After your post I thought about a country song you need to listen to. It is pretty funny.

Artist/Band: Diamond Rio
Lyrics for Song: Stuff
Lyrics for Album: One More Day
(Kelly Garrett/Tim Owens)

Catalogs fillin' up the mailbox
Home shopping on the cable box
And www dot
Oh there's no escape
Delivery truck coming up 'round the bend
Beep, beep, beep, just backing in
Sign here and here and here again
'Cause it's no money down no payments till
Your whole place is cram packed filed with

Stuff (stuff) stack it on stack it on up
(Stuff) never gonna ever get enough (stuff)
Oh it's treasure till it's mine then it ain't worth a dime
It's stuff (stuff) spreading like weeds
Dragging me under in an endless sea of stuff
(Stuff) There ain't no end
Got to get a bigger place so I can move in
More stuff

It's getting late but it's alright
The get-it-all mart opened up all night
You can catch it all with a quick swipe
It's easier everyday
Suv's and mini vans
Parading 'round in caravans
Toting off more than their tires can stand
'Cause it's no money down no payments till
Every square inch of the whole world's filled with

Stuff (stuff) stack it on stack it on up
(Stuff) never gonna ever get enough (stuff)
Oh it's treasure till it's mine then it ain't worth a dime
It's stuff (stuff) spreading like weeds
Dragging me under in an endless sea of stuff
(Stuff) There ain't no end
Got to get a bigger place so I can move in
More stuff

Drag it in, pack it in
The man with the most
He just wins more stuff

Stuff (stuff) stack it on stack it on up
(Stuff) never gonna ever get enough (stuff)
Oh it's treasure till it's mine then it ain't worth a dime
It's stuff (stuff) spreading like weeds
Dragging me under in an endless sea of stuff
(Stuff) There ain't no end
Got to get a bigger place so I can move in
More stuff

 

[SkaredShtles]

How much of that consumptionism is a result of the last 30-40 years and the rise of things like TV and the huge influence it has with regards to advertising.

Sounds like you're blaming TV for a lot of society's ills. That's *MY* line, Jack! :eviltongu

-S.S.-

 

[Damn True]

What I don't understand is why does a healthy economy require that we manufacturer more and more crap? We don't need most of it. Why can't successful economies be based on other factors? We could all live without 3 TVs, swiffers, a new car every 3 years, a room full of shoes etc etc. Yet, manufacturing declines in non-essential market sectors and suddenly there is not enough work for everyone. There is something fundamentally flawed about this.

Exports?

As for why the economy can't be based on other factors....
The world needs both durable and consumable goods, and someone has got to build them, and they have to be built someplace. Not everyone can be a software dude. If everyone had a degree in some sort of high tech field or biomed or something, who would grow the wheat that is used in the bread that was used in your sandwich?

 

[syadasti]

In some cases this kind of stance against shortsighted businesses is justified.

They only cover their short term costs and leave their long-term cost up to the public taxpayers and people's lives that die as a result of their actions (from cancer, etc...) In almost all cases its cheaper to do things the right way (ie clean way) than to clean up a few decades down the line. The true economic costs of business must be paid by the businesses themselves - they have no right to leave it for someone else down the line when the public discovers what their byproducts have been doing to others and the costs to mitigate the problems.

Why don't we remove some of these other things which are just as significant and relevant to cost of business - child labor laws, minimum wages, unions, OSHA, etc... Lots of businesses take their factories on the road for those reasons too...

 

[Ridemonkey]

Exports?

As for why the economy can't be based on other factors....
The world needs both durable and consumable goods, and someone has got to build them, and they have to be built someplace. Not everyone can be a software dude. If everyone had a degree in some sort of high tech field or biomed or something, who would grow the wheat that is used in the bread that was used in your sandwich?

Wheat and bread are essential items. Swiffers and Ipods are not (although Ipods happen to be a big export which helps). Exports in general don't justify the system because as long as we have a trade deficit then the useless crap we consume is hurting us more than benefiting us.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

What I don't understand is why does a healthy economy require that we manufacturer more and more crap? We don't need most of it. Why can't successful economies be based on other factors? We could all live without 3 TVs, swiffers, a new car every 3 years, a room full of shoes etc etc. Yet, manufacturing declines in non-essential market sectors and suddenly there is not enough work for everyone. There is something fundamentally flawed about this.

well, i dont think conssumism is fundamentally flawed. i think it needs some trimming and molding, but that is essentially going in the right track.

i see it as this. since the industrial revolution, mankind has passed from a point in which the increased productivity allows very little people to supply a huge number of people with its basic needs.

back in the day, you needed hundred of farmers to plow, pick up, dig, etc a big ass farm... now you need probably 1/10th and machines...

if we were to live today solely consuming indispensable goods, then this demand could be met with little workforce... rendering at least half of mankind (that works making ipods, tvs, v10s and m3) out of the deal and of the economic cycle.
what is worse??? "better" is just a word for "the lesser of evils"..

 

[ohio]

....all so a few people could feel good about themselves because the river in their backyard is cleaner. Yippee.

I'm just saying that if the green-weenies had taken a more measured approach we would have been able to clean up the rivers and keep the value of having that production still in the US.

To answer the question moer directly:
Yes, I think we probably could have taken a more moderate and gradual approach, which would have allowed for a smoother transition. But even with that I don't think those industries would exist in their previous scale or form today. In fact, I think we'd be right where we are now: almost no steel production. Those towns might look different... maybe they would have picked up another industry, or maybe they would have gone through 10 years of recession instead of 2 years of depression, followed by abandonment. Hard to say.

If we were really concerned about the environment, we'd flex our muscles to hold foreign governments/industries to the standards we hold ourselves. This would drive up prices and make industries like steel more sustainable in the US, however, the truth is most Americans prefer having cheap crap to having jobs in someone else's town. This is why I don't like people.

 

[RhinofromWA]

If we were really concerned about the environment, we'd flex our muscles to hold foreign governments/industries to the standards we hold ourselves. This would drive up prices and make industries like steel more sustainable in the US, however, the truth is most Americans prefer having cheap crap to having jobs in someone else's town. This is why I don't like people.

How "W" of you.....

neaky:

 

[Silver]

This country is in a long downward spiral, and the only thing I can see that will pull us out of it is biotech, but that won't have a shot if the theocrats have any say. The computer "revolution"? Gone...programmers in Russian and India can do the work, China makes the hardware. You want stable job prospects? Become a nurse.

The way it's going now, we're going to end up being Brazil. I can't wait until the LAPD starts sending out death squads to the slums to murder poor orphans. Good times for all...

 

[Silver]

There's also empire, which seems to be where we are currently going. In the nuclear age, I don't think that is a strategy that will work. How long can 300 million people keep the rest of the world under their heel?

 

[fluff]

It's interesting that although it is the industrialists who have upped sticks and moved their plants to China, exposing thousands of Chinese people to pollution, it is the environmentalists that get the blame. I guess industrialists lack free will and a social conscience...

If pollution is bad it is bad everywhere yet the producers of it will try to keep it coming out as long as they can in order to maximise profits. Damn those environmentalists for making us all so greedy.

 

[fluff]

What I don't understand is why does a healthy economy require that we manufacturer more and more crap? We don't need most of it. Why can't successful economies be based on other factors? We could all live without 3 TVs, swiffers, a new car every 3 years, a room full of shoes etc etc. Yet, manufacturing declines in non-essential market sectors and suddenly there is not enough work for everyone. There is something fundamentally flawed about this.

Ah, the ever-expanding market... it's a bit like the theory that the universe may keep expanding, except that there is finite space on Earth. What we really need is a big war with millions of fatalities - all that industrial demand followed by reconstruction and room for population expansion and millions more of happy consumers.

 

[Skookum]

What I don't understand is why does a healthy economy require that we manufacturer more and more crap? We don't need most of it. Why can't successful economies be based on other factors? We could all live without 3 TVs, swiffers, a new car every 3 years, a room full of shoes etc etc. Yet, manufacturing declines in non-essential market sectors and suddenly there is not enough work for everyone. There is something fundamentally flawed about this.

Word.