I suppose you could call regulation coercion, but it would not be aimed at individuals, it would be aimed at corporate entities who have an engrained habit of externalizing costs to the environment. The air is a dumping ground for CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs, HCFCs, SF6 and other greenhouse gases. Do you think if there was no regul…
I suppose you could call regulation coercion, but it would not be aimed at individuals, it would be aimed at corporate entities who have an engrained habit of externalizing costs to the environment. The air is a dumping ground for CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs, HCFCs, SF6 and other greenhouse gases. Do you think if there was no regulation we would be moving to alternative refrigerants now? Companies will always externalize costs. There will always be people who throw plastic and aluminum cans out the window of their cars. If there were no fines for these actions do you think they would stop? Personal responsibility works if everyone participates, but even conservatives like Garret Hardin recognized that "Mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" was a necessity. We might call it good governance. Without it you get Doug Ford.
"I suppose you could call regulation coercion, but it would not be aimed at individuals"
Then you have not been following the various US Federal agencies regulating appliances (including gas ranges). While the regulations are aimed at corporations, be very sure that the aim of those regulations are individuals.
For instance, remember that Lloyd has said that he only wants people to have electric/induction ranges and not gas ones. Ditto sedans, pickups, and SUVs.
Now look at the EPA, the California CARB, and the NJ version of the EPA where unelected, unaccountable, and unassailable bureaucrats (at the urging of NJ Gov Murphy in the last example) manipulated their regulations in bending to Lloyd's wishes - the removal of ICE vehicles.
This is what happens when activists "capture" Govt's Levers of Power and remove peoples' Freedom to choose what is best for themselves. And the activists pat themselves on the back as they have achieved by the Force of Govt where they utterly failed to market their ideas to individuals.
And in doing so, became no better than the Monarchs and Royal Aristocrats that our Founders threw off 250 years ago.
Do you see the threat of continuing to burn fossil fuels? Do you read the data on indoor air pollution in relation to gas stoves? Do you know how many people die prematurely because of outdoor and indoor air pollution? The data on the impact of fossil fuels is quite clear. No environmentalist wishes to have an intrusive government go into houses and remove gas stoves to take away people's internal combustion engine cars. That is why we favor an induced, entirely non-violent, but with some pressure, change to the system of energy use. We may not see it here, but our burning of fossil fuels is killing people, coercing mass migration, and generating instability. Therefore some effort to increase the pace of change is required. It is better to push/regulate the corporate world to change the options people can choose than it is to make illegal the use of what people already have. Monarchs do the later. What we advocate for is better choices and the removal of choices that unknowingly kill.
By the way, people choose cars based on corporate marketing, not always based on the best choice. In that way you are correct, corporations are better marketers than governments. It is just that their products, whether it is glyphosate, paraquat, ICE, large cars, SUVs, pickups, guns, or leaky gas stoves, can kill.
> Do you think if there was no regulation we would be moving to alternative refrigerants now?
Without regulation, pretty much every heat pump on the market would be running some combination of R290 (propane) and R600a (isobutane), which IMO is a better outcome than what we have right now.
>>"Do you think if there was no regulation we would be moving to alternative refrigerants now?"
If it makes financial sense, absolutely. (Don't forget, PR campaigns are why most things corporations do what they do—both positive and negative.) But there are few companies who specialize in refrigerants, so that's kind of a moot point to raise about specific artificial greenhouse gases. The bigger point to make revolves around who you think corporations are, and how they operate relative to the consumer. If a corporation face onerous regulatory overreach, they will (and do!) pass those costs on to the consumer. And most consumers are invested in some manner with corporations via pensions and retirement investment accounts, even if they don't sit on the board of directors.
I suppose you could call regulation coercion, but it would not be aimed at individuals, it would be aimed at corporate entities who have an engrained habit of externalizing costs to the environment. The air is a dumping ground for CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs, HCFCs, SF6 and other greenhouse gases. Do you think if there was no regulation we would be moving to alternative refrigerants now? Companies will always externalize costs. There will always be people who throw plastic and aluminum cans out the window of their cars. If there were no fines for these actions do you think they would stop? Personal responsibility works if everyone participates, but even conservatives like Garret Hardin recognized that "Mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" was a necessity. We might call it good governance. Without it you get Doug Ford.
"I suppose you could call regulation coercion, but it would not be aimed at individuals"
Then you have not been following the various US Federal agencies regulating appliances (including gas ranges). While the regulations are aimed at corporations, be very sure that the aim of those regulations are individuals.
For instance, remember that Lloyd has said that he only wants people to have electric/induction ranges and not gas ones. Ditto sedans, pickups, and SUVs.
Now look at the EPA, the California CARB, and the NJ version of the EPA where unelected, unaccountable, and unassailable bureaucrats (at the urging of NJ Gov Murphy in the last example) manipulated their regulations in bending to Lloyd's wishes - the removal of ICE vehicles.
This is what happens when activists "capture" Govt's Levers of Power and remove peoples' Freedom to choose what is best for themselves. And the activists pat themselves on the back as they have achieved by the Force of Govt where they utterly failed to market their ideas to individuals.
And in doing so, became no better than the Monarchs and Royal Aristocrats that our Founders threw off 250 years ago.
Do y'all see the lesson here?
Do you see the threat of continuing to burn fossil fuels? Do you read the data on indoor air pollution in relation to gas stoves? Do you know how many people die prematurely because of outdoor and indoor air pollution? The data on the impact of fossil fuels is quite clear. No environmentalist wishes to have an intrusive government go into houses and remove gas stoves to take away people's internal combustion engine cars. That is why we favor an induced, entirely non-violent, but with some pressure, change to the system of energy use. We may not see it here, but our burning of fossil fuels is killing people, coercing mass migration, and generating instability. Therefore some effort to increase the pace of change is required. It is better to push/regulate the corporate world to change the options people can choose than it is to make illegal the use of what people already have. Monarchs do the later. What we advocate for is better choices and the removal of choices that unknowingly kill.
By the way, people choose cars based on corporate marketing, not always based on the best choice. In that way you are correct, corporations are better marketers than governments. It is just that their products, whether it is glyphosate, paraquat, ICE, large cars, SUVs, pickups, guns, or leaky gas stoves, can kill.
> Do you think if there was no regulation we would be moving to alternative refrigerants now?
Without regulation, pretty much every heat pump on the market would be running some combination of R290 (propane) and R600a (isobutane), which IMO is a better outcome than what we have right now.
>>"Do you think if there was no regulation we would be moving to alternative refrigerants now?"
If it makes financial sense, absolutely. (Don't forget, PR campaigns are why most things corporations do what they do—both positive and negative.) But there are few companies who specialize in refrigerants, so that's kind of a moot point to raise about specific artificial greenhouse gases. The bigger point to make revolves around who you think corporations are, and how they operate relative to the consumer. If a corporation face onerous regulatory overreach, they will (and do!) pass those costs on to the consumer. And most consumers are invested in some manner with corporations via pensions and retirement investment accounts, even if they don't sit on the board of directors.