Assuming the folk in question are sincere in their theology-based energy policy, maybe someone needs to frame this to them as a test from the Lord. "Would you say that folk near Las Vegas should all be going in and gambling because the Lord gave them all those casinos? Or that they have a special challenge to find favor in His sight by resisting such temptation to follow the path of sin and greed?"
Alabama state officials: We won’t comply with the EPA because God gave us coal
Alabama state officials say that EPA carbon standards violate God’s law. Seriously.
109 view(s)
God gave us uranium; it's our duty to launch nuclear strikes!
Even James Watt doesn't believe this, according to his article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052001333.html
= = =
Moyers received an environmental award from Harvard University. About three paragraphs into the speech, after attacking the Bush administration, Moyers said: "James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, 'After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.' Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true — one-third of the American electorate if a recent Gallup poll is accurate."
I never said it. Never believed it. Never even thought it. I know no Christian who believes or preaches such error. The Bible commands conservation — that we as Christians be careful stewards of the land and resources entrusted to us by the Creator.
= = =
God gave us farts, too, but that doesn't mean we should fart in the elevator.
imho.
Then fine them heavily and move on. That's how this works. They can refuse to comply with the mandatory dictum to reduce externalities, so then we just make those externalities internal.
We need some way to ensure that the price of the product covers all of the costs it generates. If the companies were on the hook for the full cost of cleaning the air, we'd eventually use less coal and other highly polluting energy sources.
+Paula Moore That's a worthwhile thing in principle, but in reality it would be difficult to do, dependent not only on a lot of estimates, but subject to arbitrary line drawing as to what externalities upstream and downstream to include. I'm not saying it's not something worth trying at some level, but it's not clear that it would be easy to do.
To complicate matters, externalities are so external that they cross borders, and are reputed to cross oceans.
Hell, it's tough enough to measure carbon impact, let alone all costs.
That said, that there are externalities that get paid for by someone other than the person making the money off the product is worth reminding people, at the very least.
I was amused once when I saw a Libertarian candidate who was against government-run mass transit, and strongly argued that people should use highways instead.
Most Libertarians, of course, are more thoughtful than that one.
+John E. Bredehoft If I were confident about that, I'd feel better about the libertarian movement.