Your only half right "Tony".
Steve
--- "Chiaviello, Anthony" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hey Ray,
> You make some good points. On the constructive side, I
> think the
> solution lies with producers internalizing the costs of production
> so that
> the manufacturing process includes the costs to the environment of
> the waste
> contributed by the use of the product. This would result in higher
> prices,
> which could then be reduced, were reused materials and containers
> made to
> replace throwaways. So, pay higher prices for waste-inducing
> products and
> take advantage of the savings involved in reusing materials in
> order to pay
> lower prices.
> This can also be applied to products like gasoline, in
> which the
> pollution costs to the environment of a gallon be included in that
> gallon's
> price. Consumers would use less, refiners would work toward making
> a cleaner
> product, and automakers would build more efficient vehicles. Of
> course, the
> portion of the price that covers environmental damage could then be
> allocated to cleanup.
> Finally, restructuring the tax code to replace sales taxes
> with
> consumption taxes would shift the tax burden of cleanup to those
> who consume
> the most, encouraging conservation and rationally shifting tax
> burdens to
> put the onus on the consumer.
> Not my ideas: all this has been fully theorized and made
> practicable
> years ago. Problem is, it's not in the short-term interests of that
> segment
> of society with the most influence on the construction of social
> structure,
> who are the same people (and corps.) with the most to lose in terms
> of $$
> and profit, were such reforms to be instituted.
> -Tc
> Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
> Department of English
> University of Houston-Downtown
> One Main Street
> Houston, TX 77002-0001
> 713.221.8520 / 713.868.3979
> "Question Reality"
>
> > ----------
> > From: Ray Lanier[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 6:50 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: recycling
> >
> > Hello Sarah, Anthony and all,
> >
> > I think that I understand your argument against recycling, but I
> can't
> > seem
> > to agree with it.
> >
> > Granted this is a materialistic, throw-away culture but I don't
> see how
> > *not* recycling addresses the problem. It seems to me that we
> each should
> > follow John F.'s suggestion: conform to the 3 R's: Reduce,
> Reuse, Recycle
> > as our own individual creed. It seems to me that any
> transformation of
> > social ways begins with one's own self. Even though I may/do
> falter, it
> > is
> > necessary for the self to try to act in conformance with one's
> own
> > beliefs.
> > Having taken that step, others will follow. Gradually one may,
> in that
> > way,
> > find ways to change the "shop-til-you-drop mentality.
> >
> > What is being called for is a major paradigm shift in the way
> humans think
> > about their relations with Mother Nature. That takes a long
> time, but it
> > will never happen if each individual waits until society as a
> whole
> > changes
> > its own mind-set.
> >
> > One individual cannot change all of society; but no change will
> ever
> > happen
> > until some individuals commit themselves to *act* in a changed
> mode.
> > After
> > all, when we cash in our chips at the end of the roulette wheel
> of life,
> > we
> > need to be able to say, at least, that we *individually* tried.
> >
> > IMHO, of course, for whatever it's worth.
> >
> > Ray
> >
=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
|