Austin Convention Center and the environment

[Aristos Queue]

NI Week each year is held at the Austin Convention Center. The building has undergone some serious transformation to make it a much more environmentally friendly building, and that has lead to a significant reduction of operating expenses. The building is being held up as an example of the kind of green-envrionment-meets-green-finances success that more businesses might be able to achieve in the future. Part of their success comes from educating visitors about how to handle trash. In other words, when you visit Austin, please make sure you put stuff in the right bucket! :-)

http://www.forefrontaustin.com/feature/forefront-two-solid-green-investments

[asbo]

I wish the US would catch on to more environmentally-friend waste handling. When I lived in Europe for a few months, *everywhere* had segmented trash bins with sections for recyclables, bio-degradable waste, and whatever else. I thought that was awesome and got accustomed to throwing things away into separate containers. Maybe they just dumped it all into the same incinerator when I wasn't looking, but at least I felt better about it, and that's what's important, right?

[Daklu]

I wish the US would catch on to more environmentally-friend waste handling. When I lived in Europe for a few months, *everywhere* had segmented trash bins with sections for recyclables, bio-degradable waste, and whatever else.

That's fairly common in the pacific northwest area. I assumed it was a nation-wide trend. I take it your neck of the woods is different?

Anyhoo, the one immutable and unrevokable law regarding any public policy is the law of unintended consequences. What sounds like a good idea today will be identified as the root cause of some crisis 20 years from now. When I was a kid catalytic converters were going to save the world from the terrible evil of automobile pollution. All the bad stuff coming out of the exhaust pipe will be replaced by natural and harmless elements: oxygen, water, and carbon dioxide. 35 years later we're told automobiles are one of the primary sources of greenhouse gases. So much for harmless...

Don't get me wrong, I think it's good to be concerned about the environment and do our best to avoid negatively impacting it. At the same time, I think green technologies and promises of environmental friendliness are oversold to the public. Human civilization requires more resources every year. There's no way to extract those resources from the planetary system and deliver them to where they are needed without impacting the environment. *shrug*

What can be bad about separating trash, biodegradables, and recyclables? I don't really know. I suppose having 3 trucks pick up the waste instead of 1 adds a certain amount of pollution to the air. Purchasing and maintaining extra trucks and employing additional drivers adds cost to the collection service, which in turn is passed on to consumer. Maybe the extra disposal trucks add to traffic congestion, keeping everyone on the road longer and multiplying the pollution effect. Maybe these are real effects, maybe they aren't. But I'll lay dollars to donuts there is some crisis lurking in the shadows waiting to attack our collective conscience in a couple decades.

[jcarmody]

[...] the one immutable and unrevokable law regarding any public policy is the law of unintended consequences. [...]

Don't forget about the unstated, but intended, consequences. I suspect that, often, the unintended consequences are anticipated but ignored because of these. Where's my tin-foil hat?

PS - You responded without being unkind; I usually come across as a jerk. I've self-diagnosed my condition as Economic/Political Tourett Syndrome.

[drjdpowell]

Minor point: catalytic converters don’t increase the amount of greenhouse gases, so this can’t be an example of “unintended consequences”.

[gleichman]

that has lead to a significant reduction of operating expenses.

Has the savings from additional work of convention attendies been passed back to NI?

[Daklu]

Minor point: catalytic converters don’t increase the amount of greenhouse gases, so this can’t be an example of “unintended consequences”.

Can you clarify? Are you saying carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide aren't greenhouse gases, or catalytic converters don't cause more of those gases to be released into the atmosphere?

I suspect that, often, the unintended consequences are anticipated but ignored because of these.

Maybe sometimes... but often? That would require a level of foresight and understanding of complex systems we just don't have. My favorite podcast of all time, Freakonomics, frequently talks about unintended consequences. Here's an article talking about the unintended consequences of three well-meaning laws and how they may do more harm than good.

[drjdpowell]

Can you clarify? Are you saying carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide aren't greenhouse gases, or catalytic converters don't cause more of those gases to be released into the atmosphere?

The noxious gases that the catalytic converter works on are only a very small fraction of the gases produced, so it doesn’t make a meaningful difference. Also, the sun’s UV light will eventually complete the oxidation of the carbon in those gases to CO2. Too slowly to affect ground-level pollution, but fast on a timescale of climate change.

[asbo]

That's fairly common in the pacific northwest area. I assumed it was a nation-wide trend. I take it your neck of the woods is different?

Anyhoo, the one immutable and unrevokable law regarding any public policy is the law of unintended consequences. What sounds like a good idea today will be identified as the root cause of some crisis 20 years from now.

Indeed. We have trash pickup and recycles pickup and trimmings pickup at home, but public trash facilities are always a combination bin. I haven't actually been to the northwest, but I've been number of places along the eastern seaboard, some in California, and places in-between and I haven't seen anything like that. Large metropolises like LA, Chicago, and NYC would be critical to accept this kind of policy and, as far as I know, none of them have really tried.

America benefits from having significantly more surface area than European countries, which is probably why our oversea friends are much more concerned with what they do with their waste products. Us, we can just dig a hole out in the countryside and bury it, and we do that a lot. Our population is still growing rapidly, but I think it will be a while before we really start to suffer the consequences of this.

[jcarmody]

Maybe sometimes... but often? That would require a level of foresight and understanding of complex systems we just don't have.

I understand. I'm not suggesting that the unintended consequences are known, just that there will be some. I'm just suggesting that the unstated intended consequence (wealth transfer, power grab) is enough to get our rulers to not care.

[John Lokanis]

I'll lay dollars to donuts there is some crisis...

Too many donuts is part of the problem... At least in the US.

Also, too many people in the world. With limited resources (energy, water, clean air, a place to dump our trash), we will always be on a course to destruction until we all learn to limit our population to a sustainable level. If we don't, someday the planet will do it for us. (famine, disease, etc...)

But, on a more positive note and back to the original topic, I hope this means I won't need a sweater when attending NI Week this year!

-John

[ShaunR]

The technology to sort and segregate trash has been around a long time (even recycling tyers). But why spend shareholders investments on machines when you can get the peasants to do it for free

[Anders Björk]

That's fairly common in the pacific northwest area. I assumed it was a nation-wide trend. I take it your neck of the woods is different?

Anyhoo, the one immutable and unrevokable law regarding any public policy is the law of unintended consequences. What sounds like a good idea today will be identified as the root cause of some crisis 20 years from now. When I was a kid catalytic converters were going to save the world from the terrible evil of automobile pollution. All the bad stuff coming out of the exhaust pipe will be replaced by natural and harmless elements: oxygen, water, and carbon dioxide. 35 years later we're told automobiles are one of the primary sources of greenhouse gases. So much for harmless...

Don't get me wrong, I think it's good to be concerned about the environment and do our best to avoid negatively impacting it. At the same time, I think green technologies and promises of environmental friendliness are oversold to the public. Human civilization requires more resources every year. There's no way to extract those resources from the planetary system and deliver them to where they are needed without impacting the environment. *shrug*

What can be bad about separating trash, biodegradables, and recyclables? I don't really know. I suppose having 3 trucks pick up the waste instead of 1 adds a certain amount of pollution to the air. Purchasing and maintaining extra trucks and employing additional drivers adds cost to the collection service, which in turn is passed on to consumer. Maybe the extra disposal trucks add to traffic congestion, keeping everyone on the road longer and multiplying the pollution effect. Maybe these are real effects, maybe they aren't. But I'll lay dollars to donuts there is some crisis lurking in the shadows waiting to attack our collective conscience in a couple decades.

In fact it is the fossil technology that is subsidised in US and that the green solution would have greater economy if the subsides for the old was not there (Sorry do not have a link on this but read a good article on it recently).

Good solutions in waste management combines several waste bins on the same truck, it has been in use in Europe for +20 years or so and is profitable. You need to look at how much energy has gone in to make the plastic or the metals and compare what different scenarios for end life will be and processes needed. The approach to compare different system approaches include the use of life cycle assessment (LCA). Also separating different waste raises the possibility for getting a higher yield of the different fractions to a low cost.

Regarding a Energy plan for US I recommend this TED-video

Amory Lovins: A 50-year plan for energy

Edited May 7, 2012 by Anders Björk

[Daklu]

I'm just suggesting that the unstated intended consequence (wealth transfer, power grab) is enough to get our rulers to not care.

I see. When I'm feeling cynical I would agree with you. Usually I prefer to believe people are generally good and, for the most part, those in government are trying to do the right thing. I may disagree that what they are doing is the right thing, but I believe they think it is the right thing.

If we don't, someday the planet will do it for us. (famine, disease, etc...)

Yeah, I agree. It may be 5 years, 50 years, or 500 years, but at some point the problems will outpace our ability to develop technology to overcome them. Personally I don't think humanity will be willing to make the necessary changes until after some worldwide catastrophe. Society as a whole operates reactively rather than proactively. The story of Easter Island is an interesting microcosm of what the future may hold for us.

(As an aside, I smile inside every time I hear someone say "earth first" or some other eco-friendly catch phrase. I'm pretty sure earth will survive no matter how badly we abuse it. What possibly won't survive is people. Shouldn't they be saying "people first?")

In fact it is the fossil technology that is subsidised in US and that the green solution would have greater economy

Green solutions are subsidized too so I have a hard time accepting that as a valid argument. All large industries are subsidized to some extent, either through tax breaks, grant money, favorable contract terms, or whatever. I'm not disagreeing with what you said, just pointing out why I don't find the argument particularly convincing.

In fact, economic viability and ecological impact aren't really related to my point--well meaning actions taken today will have some negative impact not discovered or understood until many years in the future. Often the impact is due to changes in our behavior. Recycling gives us the feeling we are "doing our part" to help the environment. What is the logical result of that? I suggest one likely outcome is less aversion to purchasing packaged products, which ironically leads to more packaging being in the system.

Does the savings from recycling offset the impact recycling has on our overall behavior? I don't know... studies suggest people tend to modify their behaviors in a way that cancels out the benefits of the change. Change to flurescent light bulb? People leave lights on. Switch to a high mileage car? People drive more. Give NFL players a helmet to prevent head injuries? They become less concerned for their own safety and head injuries increase. The pattern is there. I'd be surprised if it didn't extend into our environmental behaviors.

The noxious gases that the catalytic converter works on are only a very small fraction of the gases produced, so it doesn’t make a meaningful difference.

I don't know enough about chemistry or the processes involved to speak about this knowledgably, but apparently the EPA disagrees with you.

"But researchers have suspected for years that the converters sometimes rearrange the nitrogen-oxygen compounds to form nitrous oxide, known as laughing gas. And nitrous oxide is more than 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide, the most common of the gases that trap heat and warm the atmosphere like in a greenhouse, experts say..."

"In contrast, an older car without a catalytic converter produces much larger amounts of nitrogen oxides, but only about a tenth as much nitrous oxide, the greenhouse gas."

[John Lokanis]

Usually I prefer to believe people are generally good and, for the most part, those in government are trying to do the right thing. I may disagree that what they are doing is the right thing, but I believe they think it is the right thing.

While the majority of people may have good intentions, our society has built a construct (the corporation) to allow a group of people to shed all their morals. Now, I am not saying that all companies are immoral, but there is a strong incentive (profit, maximizing shareholder value) to take actions without considering consequence that do not effect profit. So, a corporation is not necessarily evil, but like a shark in the ocean, it will take every opportunity to eat (profit), regardless if it is a fish, a seal or a surfer that it eats. So, it is very dangerous to allow that kind of motivation to go unchecked. That is why I feel government is the peoples response to the corporate construct. Our job is to erect the shark barriers so we don't get eaten in the process.

If it was legal and Exxon could make more money grinding up baby seals and selling them to you as Seal Soda, then they would. Morals don't come into pay, only profits.

An excellent example of this in the news today is the cyber warfare bills. The government want companies to invest in security to protect the internet from cyber attacks. And while these attacks have the potential to be devastating to the country's infrastructure, the corporations don't want to pay for it because it does not lead to greater profits. But, since the internet backbone is privately owned, the government cannot just implement the security measures themselves. So, we are all left vulnerable because there is no money to be made in being safe.

So, what are we (the government) to do? Force the corporations to pay? Pay the tab out of taxpayer money? Or declare eminent domain over the internet and take it away from the corporations?

(I would just like to note that in my last post, I tried to get this thread back on topic. Looks like that didn't work and I admit this post only makes it worse. Let's see if we can get this even further off topic now...)

[drjdpowell]

I don't know enough about chemistry or the processes involved to speak about this knowledgably, but apparently the EPA disagrees with you.

"But researchers have suspected for years that the converters sometimes rearrange the nitrogen-oxygen compounds to form nitrous oxide, known as laughing gas. And nitrous oxide is more than 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide, the most common of the gases that trap heat and warm the atmosphere like in a greenhouse, experts say..."

"In contrast, an older car without a catalytic converter produces much larger amounts of nitrogen oxides, but only about a tenth as much nitrous oxide, the greenhouse gas."

Interesting. I didn’t know N2O had enough greenhouse potential to be an issue despite it’s small concentration. But it’s still isn’t significant, as the greenhouse effect of the N2O from vehicles is only a bit over 1% of the effect of CO2 from the same vehicles (if I read this correctly).

[ShaunR]

Now, I am not saying that all companies are immoral,

<mounts soap-box>

Indeed. They are all amoral (as an entity). There is no conscience. No guilt. No compassion. No moral obligation to "do the right thing" or indeed any sort of social contract toward community outside those imposed by law. Whilst the beings that constitute the corporate entity may have all these;in itself, it has only one objective - to increase it's market share towards a monopoly via the vehicle of profit.

The Victorians knew this. That is why they made a definitive distinction between corporate and social. The banks were the guardians of corporate. The government, the guardian of the social. The govt kept the banks in line with laws, and the people kept the government in line with votes. What happens when corporate merges with government? Either the corporations MAKE the laws and your/our vote is worth as much as chocolate fire-guard, or we all start calling each other "comrade" and espouse the merits of the mother-land.

<climbs back off the soap-box>

[Daklu]

While the majority of people may have good intentions, our society has built a construct (the corporation) to allow a group of people to shed all their morals.

You're an employee of a corporation. Have you shed all your morals? Contrary to popular belief, I certainly didn't check my morals at the door when I was part of Microsoft. I've run across people who seem to have few moral guidelines, but they didn't become that way because they were part of a corporation.

...there is a strong incentive (profit, maximizing shareholder value) to take actions without considering consequence that do not effect profit.

I agree with this. I disagree the fault lies with corporations--I lay the blame squarely at our own feet. Corporations chase profits because that's what the public has told them to do, as evidenced by where we invest our retirement money and stick our children's college tuition. I'm also unconvinced corporations should consider morals outside of laws and tacit agreements made with their customers.

If it was legal and Exxon could make more money grinding up baby seals and selling them to you as Seal Soda, then they would. Morals don't come into pay, only profits.

If there was demand for Seal Soda and it was legal, then yes, I expect some company would step in and provide it. Morals are nothing more than one's idea of what's right and what's wrong. When enough people agree a particular behavior is immoral, the moral code is made into law and imposed on the entire society. However repulsive I find it personally, I'd argue the legality and demand for Seal Soda is sufficient to show grinding up baby seals isn't universally immoral.

So, what are we (the government) to do? Force the corporations to pay? Pay the tab out of taxpayer money? Or declare eminent domain over the internet and take it away from the corporations?

Why do any of those things? Why do anything at all? I don't think it's the government's responsibility to protect us from All The Bad Things in the World That Might Happen . (I'm not real popular with either of the major political parties.)

Democracy and the free market are pretty good at giving us what we want. They are not good at giving us what we need but don't want. We'd have to toss out the constitution and create a benevolent dictatorship (how's that for an oxymoron) with broad enough power to implement things against our will. Frankly I don't see that happening any time soon.

[Corporations] are all amoral (as an entity). There is no conscience. No guilt. No compassion. No moral obligation to "do the right thing" or indeed any sort of social contract toward community outside those imposed by law. Whilst the beings that constitute the corporate entity may have all these...

I agree with this part...

in itself, it has only one objective - to increase it's market share towards a monopoly via the vehicle of profit.

...but not this. A corporation in itself is nothing more than a legal construct. It has no will, no morals, and no objectives independent of the people who make up the corporation.

[John Lokanis]

You're an employee of a corporation. Have you shed all your morals? Contrary to popular belief, I certainly didn't check my morals at the door when I was part of Microsoft. I've run across people who seem to have few moral guidelines, but they didn't become that way because they were part of a corporation.

My point was the people who run the corporations hide behind the construct to justify immoral or more correctly amoral behavior. Even CEOs will say not to blame them for what their company does to the environment, citizens, other entities as long as they follow the law and do these things in the name of 'increasing shareholder value'.

So, since corporations are amoral, we need to take away these 'human rights' that were incorrectly granted them. We need deal with them for what they really are. That is one reason I get upset at people who deride government regulations. "We the government" are the only thing keeping corporations in check. You cannot expect the free market to enforce moral behavior on an amoral entity. If you try that, you may find yourself in a can of Daklu soda...

[Daklu]

My point was the people who run the corporations hide behind the construct to justify immoral or more correctly amoral behavior. Even CEOs will say not to blame them for what their company does to the environment, citizens, other entities as long as they follow the law and do these things in the name of 'increasing shareholder value'.

I'm getting a decidedly anti-corporate tone from your posts. Forgive me if I'm reading too much into them.

If I understand correctly, you are essentially criticizing corporations because they are inherently amoral and you believe they should be held to a moral code outside of the law. I believe expecting a corporation to behave morally outside of a legal framework is irrational and impractical. Just as well to criticize a tiger for eating meat.

First, there is no universally accepted moral code. What I think is moral may be different from what you think is moral. Whose moral code should businesses adhere to? I agree sometimes corporations act in ways that upset me. Consumers have a couple ways of influencing the legal but morally questionably actions done by businesses--we can choose not to purchase their products and services (unless the business is a monopoly over a necessary service) or we can lobby our legislature to create a law making the action illegal. When enough people agree their actions are immoral, the business is prompted to change their actions.

Second, there are likely to be undesirable side effects to self-imposed moral restrictions. For example, suppose a significant fraction of the population believes organ transplants are immoral. Should transportation businesses refuse to transport the organ because it is enabling immoral behavior? How do you justify that decision to a grieving mother whose child died because a suitable heart in Miami couldn't be flown to Chicago?

Third, like it or not our society is built on competition. The competition forces businesses to seek ways to do things faster and cheaper. There's very little room in the business environment for a business to voluntarily adopt purely moral policies that increase costs. That puts the business at a competitive disadvantage, possibly to the point of causing the business to shut down. Who suffers most when that happens? The employee who find themselves without a job and the shareholders now holding worthless stocks. In the case of public companies the executives and board of directors are caretakers of the public's money. Unnecessarily decreasing profits is irresponsible use of the shareholder's money.

"You can't legislate morality" is a phrase I remember hearing from many abortion rights activists. I tend to agree with that, though to be more accurate I'd say, "you shouldn't legislate undecided moral issues." I believe it is a valid general principle that helps preserve our freedom when it is applied to legislative ideas. At the end of the day the highly publicized failings aren't caused by inherent flaws in corporations or governments--they are caused by human nature. Any system preventing everyone from acting on those less desirable traits (greed, envy, etc.) will necessarily restrict our freedom to act on our more desirable traits (compassion, honor, etc.) At that point we are no longer human, we are robots.

Typically the public reaction to Something Bad Happened™ is to demand the government to do something to prevent it from ever happening again. I get the impression people believe it is their right to not have bad things happen to them. We expect to create a system which prevents imperfect beings from behaving imperfectly. The long term consequences of that mentality frightens me. Freedom means that people are free to choose actions that advance their own interests at the expense of everyone else. That's not to say there should not be consequences for those actions, just that we cannot reasonably expect to prevent everyone from participating in the action. Like I tell my kids, "Life isn't fair. Get used to it."

So, since corporations are amoral, we need to take away these 'human rights' that were incorrectly granted them.

I assume you're talking about the recent supreme court decision regarding corporate political donations? That a whole 'nother rat hole to explore. For the record I think the decision was correct even though I don't like the consequences of it. Most of the objections to the decision I've seen center around the impact of the ruling. I'm not particularly fond of having the supreme court issuing rulings based on expected side effects. Their job is to interpret the law as it was written and intended. We have a mechanism in place for changing laws and the constitution. Hoping the supreme court will short circuit the process is asking for trouble.

That is one reason I get upset at people who deride government regulations. "We the government" are the only thing keeping corporations in check.

Agreed, though regulations and regulation agencies are not the solution they are often made out to be. Often regulation agencies are captured by the industries they are designed to oversee. (See Regulatory Capture.) That can be worse than no regulation at all.

What's the solution? The agency cannot operate in a vacuum; it has to have close connections with the industry it oversees. It would be irresponsible for an agency to unilaterally impose restrictions without understanding how the businesses in the industry will be affected. It is necessary and proper for any entity--individual or corporation--to have the ability to present their point of view to those who govern them. How do you stop a business from having "improper" influence over the agency that regulates it without eliminating its ability to be heard? For that matter, how do you define what is "improper?"

If you try that, you may find yourself in a can of Daklu soda...

Not likely. There's little market for a soda that blathers on endlessly when you open it.

[John Lokanis]

I'm getting a decidedly anti-corporate tone from your posts. Forgive me if I'm reading too much into them.

Yes, you are. I am not against corporations. They are just out of control right now in our society. We need to keep them on a much shorter leash. I would much rather have slow steady growth and a planet we can still survive on then this crazy roller-coaster economy with massive concentrations of wealth and increasing ignorance of scientific facts that point to a worse future for everyone.

If I understand correctly, you are essentially criticizing corporations because they are inherently amoral and you believe they should be held to a moral code outside of the law.

Nope. Quite the opposite. I think we need better laws to govern them and limit their ability to influence those laws. I don't believe there is one standard moral code. But I know there are external costs (like pollution) that corporations are not forced to incorporate into their profit/loss calculations. This should be changed so corporations make better choices.

My main point is a corporation will never make a moral choice. They must be forced to control themselves by a society who enacts laws to govern their behavior. Too many people think corporations will do what is in the public's best interest if you leave them unfettered by regulations. That is pure fantasy.

I believe expecting a corporation to behave morally outside of a legal framework is irrational and impractical. Just as well to criticize a tiger for eating meat.

Agreed.

First, there is no universally accepted moral code....<blather deleted> ..."Life isn't fair. Get used to it."

I would simply counter with the fact that most people in our society are either unaware, uneducated or unmotivated to take any action that will result in 'free market forces' affecting corporate behavior. Try to keep in mind that you and I live in a very nice bubble of well educated and somewhat politically aware members of our society. We do not represent the majority of our country. So we cannot expect them to act in these ideal free market ways like you listed. We need specialists who understand these complex issues to help create solutions so we have a stable economy.

I assume you're talking about the recent supreme court decision regarding corporate political donations?

Yes. And all branches of government need to consider the consequences. There is an interesting story (http://www.thisameri..._Transcript.pdf) about how McCain and Feingold sat in the court the day that was decided and commented to each other how it was clear the justices had very little understanding about how campaign financing worked.

Often regulation agencies are captured by the industries they are designed to oversee...

Yes. Best way to prevent that is to audit the regulators and to remove the perverse incentives (like allowing corporations to choose who regulated then and then having the regulatory agency budget determined by how many companies it regulates. This is one area where competition is VERY bad.)

I understand how you feel corporations should have some say in what regulations are imposed on them, but in the real world, that just does not work. Giving them the power they have now has guaranteed failure of regulatory agencies. It is just way to profitable for them to invest in lobbiest than to deal with the costs of a regulation. Go Read this: (http://www.npr.org/b...t-in-a-lobbyist)

There's little market for a soda that blathers on endlessly when you open it.

Agreed.

In a feeble attempt to get back on topic, I wonder if the incentives for the convention center to 'green up' their facility will also lead NI to do the same at their corporate headquarters? (yes, I know nobody other than myself and Dave are reading this thread anymore, but at least I tried)

Now get back to work! That FPGA must have finished compiling by now!

[jcarmody]

[...] (yes, I know nobody other than myself and Dave are reading this thread anymore, but at least I tried) [...]

Not so.

[Daklu]

I would much rather have slow steady growth... then this crazy roller-coaster economy...

I suspect most people--including me--would agree with you. I just don't think it's a realistic goal. How do you propose we do that? The economy is perhaps one of the most complex systems we deal with. It has so many inputs and interactions it is impossible to fully understand. We don't have the ability to manage it, much less control it. Heck, we don't even know how measure it adequately.

and increasing ignorance of scientific facts that point to a worse future for everyone.

It's not ignorance of scientific facts. It's distrust of scientists who have become political advocates. It's recognition that science is not, and never has been, the arbiter of truth. Beating people over the head with "facts" and "scientific consensus" is useless because it entirely misses the point. (Not that you have been doing that, but it seems to be the tactic most frequently employed by those espousing stronger environmental policy.)

I think we need better laws to govern them...

Disagree. The laws are--for the most part--adequate. Laws didn't prevent Enron or Bernie Madoff from happening.

More laws and more regulations isn't the answer. It doesn't work. Throughout history people have shown remarkable ingenuity in finding loopholes in the laws (or ignoring them altogether) to advance their own self-interest. The idea that we can create a legal system to force people to behave morally is a fallacy.

...and limit their ability to influence those laws.

Strongly disagree. How do you propose to accomplish this? A corporation is simply a group of people united in a common interest. You cannot legally limit a corporation's ability to influence government without also limiting the individual's ability to influence government. Public participation in government via voting, contacting their representative, political discussion, etc. is what democracy is all about. Corporate influence over legislation is not inherently bad. Can it be misused? Yes. Is it sometimes abused? You bet. Is that sufficient reason to trample all over the first amendment? Nope, not in my opinion.

(By the way, corporations already are more limited than citizens in their ability to affect the political process.)

But I know there are external costs (like pollution) that corporations are not forced to incorporate into their profit/loss calculations. This should be changed so corporations make better choices.

Several objections:

1. Corporations *do* pay for things like pollution and they directly affect their profit/loss calculations. They have to purchase, implement, and maintain pollution control system. They pay hazardous waste disposal fees. They are subject to penalties when systems fail or illegal emissions are discovered. They may not pay enough to induce them to behave how you think they should behave, but they do pay.

2. Before you can implement a "change so corporations make better choices," you have to define what a "better choice" is. That's far too vague to be actionable. "Better" is entirely subjective, so you'll have to be specific. You may think it is better to impose stricter environmental controls on industry, but the 400 people down at the paper plant might disagree when the plant closes because it cannot afford the costs associated with compliance.

Too many people think corporations will do what is in the public's best interest if you leave them unfettered by regulations. That is pure fantasy.

I don't personally know anyone who thinks that, though I can understand how the ideas can be interpreted that way. Corporations will act in their own self interest; that is patently obvious. But you know what? Everyone acts in their own self-interest. The only difference is a corporation's self-interest is measured in dollars and an individual's self-interest can't be measured.

There is an interesting story (http://www.thisameri..._Transcript.pdf) about how McCain and Feingold sat in the court the day that was decided and commented to each other how it was clear the justices had very little understanding about how campaign financing worked.

Interesting article. Thanks for the link.

I knew McCain and Feingold were disappointed with the decision, but the conversation just reaffirms what I said earlier. They are disappointed (perhaps rightfully so) because of the immediate impact the decision has on campaign financing. Not once do they talk about the potential consequences of allowing the government to restrict political speech, which at the core is what Citizens United was about. I don't like the effect of the decision any more than you, but the effect of the opposite decision is much more frightening to me. Restricting speech is not the correct way to clean up politics.

Best way to prevent that is to audit the regulators...

Who is going to audit the auditors?

like allowing corporations to choose who regulated then

Agree that seems silly and a huge conflict of interest.

I understand how you feel corporations should have some say in what regulations are imposed on them, but in the real world, that just does not work. Giving them the power they have now has guaranteed failure of regulatory agencies.

It may be they currently have too much control over the regulations, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed input into the process. Does a judge lose objectivity because he listens to a defendant's argument? The only way a judge can act fairly is to hear arguments from both sides. Why should regulatory agencies be any different when making decisions on regulations? Regulatory agencies are in a position of power, and any form of power is subject to abuse by those who hold it. We can put checks in place to try and prevent abuse, but they are all imperfect and corrupt people find ways around them. Taking away a corporation's voice isn't the answer to corruption.

It is just way to profitable for them to invest in lobbiest than to deal with the costs of a regulation. Go Read this: (http://www.npr.org/b...t-in-a-lobbyist)

Read the article--unimpressed. Listened to the podcast--still unimpressed. Downloaded the study and read it. Now it makes more sense but I'm still unimpressed by it, and even less by the NPR article because it appears to willingly overlook the realities of the situation. (And I usually enjoy NPR.)

The article's tone strongly suggests that corporate lobbying is used to exert unethical control over legislation, broadly painting corporations, lobbiests, and congress as immoral for participating in the activity. In reality, congress' real choice was to either pass the bill allowing them to bring in the money at a 5% tax rate or not pass the bill and let the money sit offshore. The study even points out evidence that businesses often leave their offshore earnings in foreign accounts rather than pay the 35% tax rate to bring them back to the US. NPR doesn't mention that at all. Furthermore, the intent of the bill was to allow the businesses to repatriate the funds for the purposes of creating jobs. (It did not achieve that goal for a variety of reasons outlined in the study.)

The NPR article is a classic example of a false dilemma. It presents the businesses as having the option between 'being selfish' and lobbying congress for the 5% tax rate at the expense of Joe Q Public or 'being good corporate citizens' and paying the full 35% tax rate. That is inaccurate, misleading, and irresponsible. It also feeds the public perception that corporations have undue influence over the legislature, when the study doesn't claim or support that idea in any way. Who is the real immoral entity in this scenario?

[ShaunR]

Everyone acts in their own self-interest.

Yeah.. Well....You can blame game theory for that!.

Edited May 11, 2012 by ShaunR

[Daklu]

Cool video. Too bad it stops just when it was getting interesting.

I don't quite understand your comment though. Game theory is just a way to predict behavior of beings who behave according to their own self interest. It doesn't cause people to act in their own self interest.

(And to clarify, by "self interest" I mean whatever gives a person the most utility, satisfaction, etc., not what is in best long term interests.)