Great post. I’m going thru this nightmare of registering a car in CA. The system does not work, but is expensive, so leave it to the poor to pay for expensive repairs. California even offers to “retire” your car, paying for a car that may cost $5,000 a couple of hundreds. Okay, I just paid $3,000 for a car, and the emissions are fine, but because a little light doesn’t turn on I either have to pay $2000 to fix it or get rid of the car for a few bucks. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE PEOPLE? This system is hurting inmigrants/poor people who usually buy used cars and cannot afford to fix these stupids repairs.

In other words, it is precisely because China is poor that the Chinese use so much coal. The same regressive pattern is inherent in all contentious environmental goals. Including the smog check.

When you add costs to emissions, you discourage them. The people who benefit most are those poor people who have to live near the emissions.

Additionally, the smog created in China isn’t caused by poverty. Poverty only assures that people who might otherwise desire clean air, won’t fight for it. Pollution’s caused by the fact that there’s heavy investment in China, and the money is used to purchase factories that produce the pollution. Their products are sold around the world, and to the global rich. If you want to reduce pollution in China, you raise trade barriers.

I know I’m stating the obvious, but, the obvious is often forgotten when people are bashing rich environmentalists.

My main point here was twofold: to point out the very real and important trade-off that often exists in environmental debates (environment vs. the poor) and to (hopefully) show pompous environmentalists that many times it is their privilege that blinds them to the importance of the other side (poverty reduction).

I was just having this discussion over the dinner table w/ my fiance. I stated how financially impractical it is to stay abreast w/ eco-friendly movements - even vegetarianism! So, I can agree w/ you, but not be as cynical.

But really, HP if companies cry over the expense of cutting down on waste and everyone does the same, where does that get us? Nowhere.

If one could argue, as done so in a previous post of yours, that buying American is akin to racism, then it can also be argued that the environmentalism movement is a form of class warfare. I had heard of the smog chck fees out in California, but was not aware of the details until I read this post. This is a very slippery slope. Today, every Californian has to pay this extra smog check fee. What’s next? Are the environmentalistas going to lobby the state legislature to outlaw any automobile that isn’t a Prius or some other hybrid vehicle? I’m sure your SUV-loving Governor and all those vatos who love their lowriders would have something to say about that…

I have no problem with recycling or other forms to improve the environment, but they should be done without government coercion. I’m curious, do Californians who drive cars that didn’t pass the smog check get a big fat fine, or do they get jail time in your state’s infamous prison system?

Exactly. Then we agree.

That is just reality. It’s the nature of any element that affects society. That is why we must be sensitive to the impact such decisions have on people, especially the poor. If industry elites were the only people making these decisions they would likely choose policy that would only support investment growth and not consider the human impact. Examples of this can be seen throughout the industrial revolution. If environmental extremists were the only people making these decisions, our economic growth would ultimately suffer beyond a level we would be comfortable with.

I actually saw a great film the other day called “Manufactured Landscapes.” It was made by a photographer who has spent his life photographing the impact humans have had on the environment and he focuses heavily on China. He states at the beginning of the film that he is not trying to push either agenda. He agrees that growth, sometimes painful growth, is necessary for economic expansion. But he also shows the magnitude of change going on in the developing world. The photography is fantastic.

The rich have many luxuries. That is precisely why most of us aspire to be rich.

Again, take the production of carbon dioxide as just one example. Global warming, pollution, and most other environmental concerns affect everybody relatively the same. If the world is going to end, and/or if we are looking at catastrophic problems in the future, the difference between how that affects the poor vs. the rich is minor, at best. Yet the regulations, as I have explained above, are almost completely one sided. The poor pay almost the entire burden yet the benefits (a reduction in the p(global warming) ) is shared by all. In other words, luxury of the rich.

A slight clarification: I did not “attack the idea of carbon credits”. I am not against them per se, I am merely pointing out how they are used. Frankly, it reminds me of the indulgences in the Catholic Church before the reformation(and, shows how environmentalism has become alot like a religion to environmentalists) - it gives the wealthier the ability to get around their carbon dioxide production whereas the poor are forced to live with a smaller “carbon footprint”. Again, luxury of the rich.

Also, virtually every economic and environmental factor affects those at the bottom more than those at the top. It’s almost pointless to say because it is the nature of the system. Unemployment and inflation will affect the poorest. Global climate change, for example, is often projected to affect the poorest. Pollution affects the poorest people. War affects the poorest. Being poor also means being vulnerable.

It’s also easy to pick on somebody like Al Gore for using a jet, taking an SUV around town, or living in a gigantic house that has a disgusting carbon footprint. I tend to agree with that but I think if you point the finger at him you have to consider his overall impact. He has undoubtedly encouraged more people around the world to curb their use of carbon-based energy. The aggregate change brought about by his campaign surely outweighs his carbon footprint by a high factor.

I find it strange that you seem to attack the idea of carbon credits. As somebody who is a strong free-market advocate, I’m surprised you are not all over this. It turns the idea of carbon reduction into a market-based commodity. As I stated in my previous reply, it’s easier for some sectors to reduce their environmental impact than it others. If a corporation, for example, can reduce output by a large percentage and finance the endeavor via carbon credits (and make a profit from it), isn’t that a nice free-market solution to the problem? It’s not perfect, nothing is, but it’s a nice alternative from a purely governmental approach.

And to your last point: democracy doesn’t work that way. People don’t work that way. Obviously people would not choose to have less money. There could also be a requirement that said “if you voted for the war, you have to serve in it.” That is not how the system works, for better or worse. If you own a car, you are required to pay fees and meet a minimum standard of environmental laws. It’s not the idealistic free-market thing where people do what they please. We have these laws because we have decided they are important to us. It’s not just the environment, but it’s other issues such as safety, welfare, security, etc. Nobody debates whether we should be required to have and use seatbelts in cars, or whether it should be legal to sell children on the free-market. Just the same, we have laws that dictate what limits we can have on environmental impact. They are not perfect, but the point of a democracy is to work towards perfecting them and find a solution in which everybody participates.