Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: For economic growth, tougher environmental laws?

  1. #1
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default For economic growth, tougher environmental laws?

    In 20 years, the US has gone from leading the world in wind-energy manufacturing - with at least a dozen enterprising firms - to lagging badly. Companies in Germany, Denmark, Spain, and elsewhere have grabbed the technological lead and now hold roughly 80 percent of a $8 billion market that's growing 25 to 35 percent a year.


    http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0224/p15s02-sten.html

  2. #2
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: For economic growth, tougher environmental laws?

    this has happened repeatedly once an American business leaves the 'glorified research and development' stage, and attempts to manufacture in quantity. All of a sudden, when the business is faced from expanding from a handful of dedicated entrepreneurs and friends hand-building glorified prototypes for sale, to hiring employees off the street for large scale production operations, issues like prevailing US wage and benefit costs, business and property taxes, EPA regulation compliance, OSHA compliance, Union representation and worker productivity etc. start to kick in big time. From an international competition standpoint, issues like foreign gov't subsidies to international competitors, US legal prohibitions against vertical integration (i.e. the maker of a US windmill must buy generators from another company, where the maker of European windmills is allowed to own a generator company) also come into play.

    Exactly the same phenomena occurred in the Variable Frequency Drive industry which vastly reduce the energy requirements of pumps, fans and HVAC equipment, which was discussed earlier in another thread. Basically the researching and practical development of the device as a viable commercial product was all done by US entrepreneurs, but once it came to mass production US manufacturers found themselves in a very difficult competitive situation for all of the reasons I listed above. Today essentially ALL of the original US VFD companies have either been acquired by foreign competitors and taken off the market, or simply went bankrupt.

  3. #3
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: For economic growth, tougher environmental laws?

    While I wouldn't argue the facts of the article, I do take issue with some of the author's conclusions. A more accurate statement would have read as follows:

    Some experts point to lax clean-air laws in the US. That's right. Weak environmental regulations may hurt, not help, (some)industries by blunting their technological edge. Such contrarian logic, controversial among economists, is about to be put to the test.

    The author mentions installing scrubbers in power plants. The money for all those scrubbers didn't not materialize out of thin air. Somebody had to write a check for them. That was good news for the scrubber industry. However, if you were a power company worker that got laid off because the power company had to reduce its expenses due to all the money spent on scrubbers, that's not so good news/

    Also this one:

    The country that's first with the toughest regulations becomes the biggest net exporter of pollution-control equipment," says Robert McIlvaine, an industry analyst.

    While that may be true in the specific examples he cites, that is only true if other countries adopt the same tough standards. Say the U.S. were to order all power plants to reduce NOX emissions to half what Germany and Japan allow. Let's say that this regulation forces a massive increase in research, the result of which is an American company invents some magical new NOX-buster. There is no guarantee that Germany, Japan, or any other country would adopt the same new regulation. Futhermore, who is to say that Germany and Japan wouldn't wait until their own industries came up with their own NOX-buster, then adopt regulations favoring their home-grown solution? Staking a bet on the whims of a bunch of foreign bureacrats doesn't seem like the best business plan a company could follow to me.

    The author seems to be arguing that a country can regulate itself to prosperity. He calls such logic contrarian. I'd call it foolish.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  4. #4
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: For economic growth, tougher environmental laws?

    There's no debate. Countries with stricter environmental laws are ahead in alternative technologies (read: technologies that lead to future solutions free of fossil fuel addiction) have more active development in these areas. Employment is up, profits are being made.

    Of course, these are also countries that prefer not to outsource, and have pretty tough import regs and generally care about protecting their own quality of life.,

    Not like modern US, I understand...

  5. #5
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: For economic growth, tougher environmental laws?

    Of course, these are also countries that prefer not to outsource, and have pretty tough import regs and generally care about protecting their own quality of life.,
    Bullshit.

    Nations that are addicted to export-based economics don't have a choice--their domestic markets will not support their internal economies. This is why the US is in a perpetual trade deficit; we are the sink for export-dependent nations, particularly Asian nations, but also much of Western Europe.

    Countries with stricter environmental laws are ahead in alternative technologies (read: technologies that lead to future solutions free of fossil fuel addiction) have more active development in these areas. Employment is up, profits are being made.
    More bullshit. Germany is suffering its highest unemployment since 1933. France is still in double-digit unemployment even with a mandated 35-hour work week. Pretending that European manufacturers aren't subsidized into existence to support the very export-economy they need to prop up their socialist system is sheer ignorance; if the US government handed out even more corporate welfare to energy system manufacturers than they already do, the US would have more producers. Oh, and you might want to tell GE that they're insignificant in the wind turbine market; they only have 7,000 units installed across the globe.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  6. #6
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: For economic growth, tougher environmental laws?

    Countries with stricter environmental laws may be ahead in the alternative technologies field. However, that field is so small it doesn't give a true picture of a country's economy. In the last four years, economic output in the U.S. has increased 8%, in Japan economic output has declined 11%, while in the European Union it has declined 33% (sorry, I couldn't find figures for just Germany). Germany's unemployment rate was 12.6 per cent in January, Japan’s unemployment rate recently hit 4.9%. While that would appear to be lower than the rate of 5.4% here in the U.S., there are significant differences in the way the two countries measure unemployment and Japan has been in a serious recession for the last ten years. The bottom line with any rule, policy, or regulation is this, "does it improve the quality of life of people?" By almost any measure, the quality of life here in the U.S. is far superior than that in either Germany or Japan.

    There is certainly a place for government regulation in enhancing the quality of it's citizen's lives. However, I'll say again, there is no country that has ever regulated itself to prosperity.

    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  7. #7
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: For economic growth, tougher environmental laws?

    Countries with stricter environmental laws are ahead in alternative technologies (read: technologies that lead to future solutions free of fossil fuel addiction) have more active development in these areas. Employment is up, profits are being made.
    You had better try and sell that idea to the Germans, who are suffering from record high unemployment, as well as paying out record high gov't subsidies to businesses - particularly those businesses involved in alternative technologies.

  8. #8
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: For economic growth, tougher environmental laws?

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    This is why the US is in a perpetual trade deficit; we are the sink for export-dependent nations, particularly Asian nations, but also much of Western Europe.
    Has nothing to do with the fact we'd rather import products and export pollution? If export-based economies are so bad, then why is a trade deficit considered bad enough for news reports and other studies?


    More bullshit. Germany is suffering its highest unemployment since 1933. France is still in double-digit unemployment even with a mandated 35-hour work week.
    I didn't say anything about their overall economy, I spoke about this specific business sector, using the above-linked article and its experts as backing

    if the US government handed out even more corporate welfare to energy system manufacturers than they already do, the US would have more producers.
    Not suggesting that, just
    a) increase the environmental laws so more US companies will use the products and
    B) remove the subsidies for fossil fuel industries, and redirect those subsidies (if you want, balance would be better than what we have now) to the energy options that have more than a few decades' worth of viability.

    Oh, and you might want to tell GE that they're insignificant in the wind turbine market; they only have 7,000 units installed across the globe.
    First, the comment wasthat small and entrepreneurs are doing better. GE is far from either of these

    Again, I'm not saying insignificant, simply relying on the articleI quoted. How many units are there globally - maybe 7000 is small

    Even GE isn't the favorite or largest player in the industry, and where is their factory (overseas I bet at least for components)

  9. #9
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: For economic growth, tougher environmental laws?

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    However, I'll say again, there is no country that has ever regulated itself to prosperity.
    Agreed. So take away the subsidies for fossil fuels, big agribusiness and other existing industries and let the free markets do their work. Right now, we don't have free market forces at work, we have regulated activity with subsidies to support old money interests.

  10. #10
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: For economic growth, tougher environmental laws?

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    I didn't say anything about their overall economy, I spoke about this specific business sector, using the above-linked article and its experts as backing

    Not suggesting that, just
    a) increase the environmental laws so more US companies will use the products and
    B) remove the subsidies for fossil fuel industries, and redirect those subsidies
    But regulations and economic policy are not made in a vacum, you have to keep the overall economy in mind. And if tougher laws are so good for the economy, why stop at just evironmental laws? Why not pass tougher safety laws so more U.S. consumers will use the products? Why not have the government pass a law requiring everyone to have a fire extinguisher in their car? Such a law would be an economic boom for the fire extinguisher industry. The idea of the government attempting to use regulations to stimulate certain segments of the economy sounds eerily like the central planning that the Soviet Union tried. It didn't lead to prosperty for the Soviets, and I doubt it would lead to greater prosperity for us.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  11. #11
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: For economic growth, tougher environmental laws?

    But you also can't blame the economy's ills on the single factor of environmental laws. What I'm saying is what is true for one MAY be true for the other...but there's limited correlation. One industry may thrive in a bad economy, another dies in a good.

    Environmental laws are not to blame for poor european economy, or we'd be kicking butt right now!

  12. #12
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: For economic growth, tougher environmental laws?

    Environmental laws are not to blame for poor european economy, or we'd be kicking butt right now!
    Actually, western european environmental laws are very much a contributing factor to Germany's and France's poor economy, as major industries (specific example the chemical industry) have essentially been forced to close up shop and relocate to Poland, former Czechloslovakia etc. where regulations are much less strict. The very same migration which was being discussed in terms of the US and Mexico has been going on for some years already in regard to Western Europe and Eastern Europe, and actually started soon after the reunification of East and West Germany when East German industries able to operate under much looser environmental restraints were allowed to export to the West and also able to dramatically undersell western european competitors forced to operate under tighter environmental restraints.

    But you also can't blame the economy's ills on the single factor of environmental laws.
    True. Europe has Labor laws which make it much more difficult for a business to lay off employees, which has resulted in outright bankruptcies rather than relocations out of the country in many cases. Europe also has 35 hour per week labor laws, unbelievably high taxes etc. which place a burden on the entire industrial sector. However for those industries which deal with processes that require the use of chemicals, last decimal point environmental compliance regulations and costs are the #1 factor towards bankruptcy. You really should see what the Cologne area of Germany (former home of their chemical industry) looks like right now !
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-19-2005 at 03:11 AM.

  13. #13
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: For economic growth, tougher environmental laws?

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    Actually, western european environmental laws are very much a contributing factor to Germany's and France's poor economy, as major industries (specific example the chemical industry) have essentially been forced to close up shop and relocate to Poland, former Czechloslovakia etc. where regulations are much less strict.
    1. havent seen the data, so can't be too specific...but I think it's at least a FAR oversimploification to point ONLY to environmental laws for the decline, and to put the ENTIRE blame for an economy on the declien of an an industry

    2. You're aware that my policy (listed in the other thread) would solve this, and level the playing field , if EU wanted to adopt such controls on its imports?

    Exporting pollution, and paying later to clean it up and mediate health issues, does NOT save a society money...though it sure makes a company more profitable until they close and take their profits home. Just ask the PA or VA coal communities now using federal/state money to clean up the mess by essentially unregulated mining companies. Taxpayers subsidizing an industry that wasn't forced to live up to good safety and environmental controls. I offer a solution, even if there are challenges...it still is a solution. what do you offer?

    Oh, and you're aware the largest global chemical company has many of its faciliteis in the US...and has such big profits they recently bought Morton Salt? They do have overseas operations and I don't know the environmental or safety issues there, but strong regs don't kill industries - they (if applied fairly to imports also) make us stronger.


    East German industries able to operate under much looser environmental restraints were allowed to export to the West and also able to dramatically undersell western european competitors forced to operate under tighter environmental restraints.
    My qyestion, why was this allowed,? Give the East German businesses X years to upgrade or close. If we made Mexico part of the US...would they be permanently exempt from US law.

    Again, this circle needs to end:
    We agree the imbalance between countries in terms of overall production costs are killing industries int eh more expensive countries...right?

    Your solution is to LOWER the developed countries to the standard of living in the other countriues, accepting polluted cities, unhealthy air, unasfe factories and low worker wages (while those at the top take all the money). You accept this as part of doing business...even though we have proven in other areas it isn't

    I'm offering a balanced solution that provides for equity and sanity in your're blaming enviro and safety controls , an opportunity for domestic and imported products to have a level playing field, some of the same manufacturing costs (excepting labor, which will always be area dependent), guarranteeing clean air and water, safer working environments and LESS WORKER DEPENDENCE ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

    Your soluition is to go back , accept the workers should be abused and that companies have the right to pollute if its cheaper...I don't accept that.


    However for those industries which deal with processes that require the use of chemicals, last decimal point environmental compliance regulations and costs are the #1 factor towards bankruptcy.
    What is this "last deimal point" rule you keep pointing to? Link please

    and where did this #1 statement come from..another I can't find

    You really should see what the Cologne area of Germany (former home of their chemical industry) looks like right now !
    I hardly need to, livning in the former coal mining community of Northeastern PA. Place where anthracite (hard coal, more efficient but costly to remove) was born...former home to DOZENS of huge companies abusing workers, company houseing , etc - currently home to 10 Corps of Engineer cleanups, 4 old mine families being paid for the privilege of having their (former) company's land cleaned by the government, 2 towns wihth underground fires that had to be relocated (the towns, not the fires) with federal money, Rivers still runnning red with mine draininga 100 years later, a standard of wage lower than I've ever seen (yet everyone goes to WalMart for the laterst TV that used to be made locally but now isn't because of unfair foreign competition), high school football fields that have had ALL THE DIRT REMOVED AND REPLACED TWICE BECAUSE OF CONTAMINATION FROM INDUSTRY. Come to PA, I'll show you around.

    we also have:
    The most beautiful, pristine and important habitats on the east coast
    clean water and air, thanks to decades of federal and state cleanup efforts
    Tourism and Agriculture as #1 zand #2 industries
    a growing awareness of the natural capital we have and how to use it
    Revitalization in industry, hampered mostly by imbalanced trade from other countries - which my policy would solve WITHOUT costing health, environmental quality, standard of living or safety to go back where they were "in the day"

  14. #14
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: For economic growth, tougher environmental laws?

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    But you also can't blame the economy's ills on the single factor of environmental laws. What I'm saying is what is true for one MAY be true for the other...but there's limited correlation. One industry may thrive in a bad economy, another dies in a good.

    Environmental laws are not to blame for poor european economy, or we'd be kicking butt right now!
    First of all, we are kicking Europe's butt. See the statistics in my post above. By any economic measure you want to choose, the standard of living in the U.S. is higher than that in Europe. What I don't understand is the great fascination with Europe. Do a google search and you will find that throughout the EU, countries are beginning to realize that the economic price of their cradle to grave social spending, strict labor regulations and government subsidation of private industry is just too high. France is moving to abolish it's 35-hour work week, German leaders are openly questioning thier economic policies and leading businesses have told them things must drastically change if Germany is to remain one of the top performers in the world's economy. Are Europe's stricter environmental laws the only reason economic growth in the region is so stagnant? No, and I don't anyone, even Melonie is saying that they are. But they are a factor. Holding out the weak economies of the EU as an example for us to follow just isn't going to work.

    If you are for tougher environmental laws, great, but argue for them on the merits of public health. To try to claim that tougher environmental laws are good for the economy just doesn't make sense to me.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  15. #15
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: For economic growth, tougher environmental laws?

    Oh, and you're aware the largest global chemical company has many of its faciliteis in the US...and has such big profits they recently bought Morton Salt? They do have overseas operations and I don't know the environmental or safety issues there, but strong regs don't kill industries - they (if applied fairly to imports also) make us stronger.
    I don't want to contribute to this circular discussion. I'll only point out that, in general, when you're talking about something like the chemical industry you'll find that remaining US facilities will include corporate headquarters, research and development labs, and a few 'high margin' manufacturing operations i.e. proprietary products, but you'll also find that the bulk chemical production facilities which produce 'low margin' standard products have been moved to places like Bhopal, India for a while now !

    I hardly need to, livning in the former coal mining community of Northeastern PA. Place where anthracite (hard coal, more efficient but costly to remove) was born...former home to DOZENS of huge companies abusing workers, company houseing , etc - currently home to 10 Corps of Engineer cleanups, 4 old mine families being paid for the privilege of having their (former) company's land cleaned by the government, 2 towns wihth underground fires that had to be relocated (the towns, not the fires) with federal money, Rivers still runnning red with mine draininga 100 years later, a standard of wage lower than I've ever seen (yet everyone goes to WalMart for the laterst TV that used to be made locally but now isn't because of unfair foreign competition), high school football fields that have had ALL THE DIRT REMOVED AND REPLACED TWICE BECAUSE OF CONTAMINATION FROM INDUSTRY. Come to PA, I'll show you around.
    I've been there as well. Everything you say is true. However everything you're speaking of is a result of industries operating essentially without ANY regulations 40 plus years ago. These industries were effectively 'reined in' by the implementation of 'reasonable' regulations put into effect some 20 years ago. I have never argued that implementing 'reasonable' regulations was in any way a bad thing. My point was that the insistence of current regulations on using the 'Best Available Technology' to achieve the last decimal point in reduced pollution volumes, regardless of the costs and other ramifications of being ordered to do so, is no longer resulting in reduced pollution on a global basis. Instead it is forcing affected US companies to escape jurisdiction or go bankrupt, and is actually increasing global pollution by allowing these companies to return to 40 year old pollution limits (if any) in other countries rather than continuing to operate in the USA under 'reasonable' 20 year old standards.

    The USA, and indeed the citizens and governments of other countries, will never be in a position to impose 'Best Available Technology' pollution abatement standards throughout the world. In the most absurd argument, if this were to ever actually happen there would no longer be an incentive for corporations to help create third world jobs and wealth, which would send the vast majority of world governments, the UN, and worldwide liberals into a tizzy.

    If the truth were spoken, there have always been and will always be third world governments who will do anything for money and/or political stability (and who don't particularly mind if the average live expectancy of their citizens are shortened in the process). There will also always be third world citizens with a long term planning horizon of next week, where factories offering a paycheck that will feed their family are regarded as a positive development, and where the possibility that they may die of cancer 30-40 years down the road due to occupational exposure to a carcinogen takes a back seat to much more urgent problems like an immediate lack of good food and water, or criminal/rebel bullets flying in their neighborhood. Thus any idealistic plan to the contrary is doomed to failure in the real world.

    In regard to your repeated requests for supporting links, you might try ...



    (snip)"Clean air? There is no such thing and never has been. There is only air with varying degrees of impurities, varying amounts of which can be removed at varying costs. Removing the kinds of things that choke our lungs or otherwise threaten our health is usually not that expensive.

    But science is becoming capable of detecting ever more minute traces of impurities with ever more insignificant consequences. Yet where is the politician who is going to resist calls for removing more impurities in the name of “clean air”? Who is going to resist calls to “save the environment”? Only an economist is likely to say, “Save it from what or from whom — and at what price?" (snip)"

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-19-2005 at 05:37 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-05-2011, 05:25 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-05-2010, 04:12 AM
  3. laws getting tougher
    By mywifdigstriprz in forum Industry Insight
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-01-2010, 12:00 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-19-2009, 08:18 AM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-12-2006, 05:57 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •