RE: [pf] Risks, imposed or chosen

by David A

18 December 2000 01:12 UTC

tully wrote:
> David A wrote:
> >By this argument, then, shouldn't your power bill come with a note
> >saying [...]
> Yes.  This would begin the long process of accounting for 
> the "hidden" costs, that we capitalists so enjoy sweeping under 
> the rug.  The "right" to burn gasoline in our cars needs to be 
> viewed from a new perspective, one that accounts for the intangible
> costs to our environment, our health, the world 
> situation, etc. instead of just the tangibles of bringing the 
> fuel to the gas stations for our use.  These hidden costs need to 
> be tallied and I see real value in taxing these values to death, 
> a real "pollution" tax, if you will.

Then why do you not equally call for labels on this product, which *has* 
been shown to have deleterious effects on health and the environment? 
This is the essence, as I understand it, of those who believe there is 
no need for labels -- that anti-GM folks are calling for restrictions on 
a food product for which there is scant-to-no evidence of negative 
effects while ignoring more serious risks all around us because they 
have accepted them. That is, that they're acting emotionally and 
out-of-proportion to the true danger involved.

>> Should you be "given" the option of
>> buying your power from a solar-energy power producer instead?
>> Nuclear, if you so choose?
> 
> This would indeed be good to see.  Renting out power lines like the > 
> phone companies were forced to do with their networks.  If the 
> hidden costs were taxed, the alternative energy sources could indeed > 
> begin to compete.

Are you willing to pay for the added costs of these new, alternative, 
parallel infrastructure choices? 

David