RE: [pf] Risks, imposed or chosen

by tully

18 December 2000 02:41 UTC

At 05:11 PM 12/17/00 -0800, David A wrote:
>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?

I'd love to see labels at each purchase that said how many pollutants that 
purchase will be responsible for spewing as it is burned and what is known 
about the associated ailments and deaths it was responsible for.  How about 
a database that records and translates all credit card fuel purchases that 
year for the person, showing the tally of pollutants so far that 
year?  Make it print out on the receipt...

>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.

This reminds me of my father's argument that asked how could I cite health 
reasons as why I would adopt all these "strange" measures (like using only 
non-homogenized milk), and still refuse to give up cigarette smoking.  Must 
it be all or nothing?  Aren't some measures in the right direction better 
than none?  There are so many things to fix, and to insist that they must 
all be fixed at once, seems to be an unrealistic approach at best.

 >> 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?

Absolutely yes.  Much could be shared like I mentioned about the power 
lines.  The solar companies should not have to place a duplicate set of 
cable infrastructure to consumer homes.  I think most power companies are 
required to pay you for any power your private power generation systems may 
deliver into their grid.  So alternative energy could use much of the 
existing infrastructure by just tying in.

I am more than willing to pay to support something that I feel is more 
environmentally sound than something else.  I'd like to see the price of 
gasoline double tomorrow.  I know there are still plenty of people who are 
screaming about the "high" prices for fuel, but I don't think those voices 
are as loud or as frequent as they used to be.  I know I no longer get near 
as many emails protesting the cost as I used to get.  True, it may have 
something to do with my opposing reply to those messages... ;) I see that 
the opposition to keeping fuel costs low is getting wider by the day and 
eventually we might even see the media pick up on it...

Besides we pay the cost anyway.  Thru medical bills for our respiratory and 
other ailments, in cleanup of water and shore from spills, in foreign aid 
and charity to help the devastation it causes in other nations, to our 
military to keep the supplies flowing, even sacrificing the lives of our 
children who soldier in our oil wars.  Yes, we pay a very dear price 
already.  Pay instead for solar or some other alternative?  I don't see 
that we have any other sane choice.