If we make economics the main reason for environmentalism, then we will never make effective long-term decisions.

Why? Because the problems we find ourselves in now arose from our unwillingness to long-term plan in the past. If we had stuck to fuel economy in the oil-glut 80s and 90s, oil supplies would be far higher today, and we wouldn't have the price pressures we're having. But we made fuel economy a pocketbook issue, and so when the pressure was off the pocketbook, we went back to our bad old ways. WE KNEW ALL THIS SAME STUFF IN THE EARLY '70s.

I'd even bet you that a '59 Caddy deVille gets BETTER mileage than a GMC Yukon Denial!

Why do we have to change the way we plan? Because the stakes are WAY higher now then they were back then. We may only have 10 years more worth of relatively cheap oil. We can't afford to screw up this time. NOW it is clear that we must...

-Create and implement permanent energy savings plans now or the next energy crisis, coupled with global climate change, could result in humanitarian disasters, not just inconvenience, even in the developed world.

-Concern ourselves far more with the poorest and most desperate, who will suffer far more than we comfy Westerners owing to economic whipsawing, drought, food shortages, and migrations. After all, now we have to worry not only about humanitarian disaster, but the spread of anti-Western extremism in the developing world.

If we make economics the main reason for environmentalism, then we will never make effective long-term decisions.

For the most part, we just need to change the time horizon for the economic calculations. The few remaining things that can never have economic justification are usually simply moral choices.

Rob,

Whether or not we rely on the completely economic standpoint, we cannot wait around for people to make a decision based entirely on morality.

Have you ever seen or heard of a definitive decision based on any other morally driven issue? How about abortion/reproductive rights? Stem cell research? Cloning? Enforced population control?

If we wait around for folks to make up their minds about the moral issues behind environmental efficiency, nothing will be accomplished. If we give people definitive answers about how the environmental helps them in a specific and cost-effective way, they're more likely to listen to you!

A SMART car is good for the earth. It's small and cute and urban friendly. It's fuel-efficient. It's a hybrid. It gets more mileage to the gallon than any other car in its class. Most important, though? It's cheap. Really cheap.

In the end, I'd gather that 75% of consumers are more concerned with how much money they'll conserve or how much money they'll earn than by how much rainforest they're saving.

America is driven by the consumer's dollar. It's how our society works. Let's use that to our advantage!

My councen is The monopilizing Markets , Our country
was built on dreamers the inventors . Now seems every thing is owned or countrolled By Money and power . I see The Brand FUTURE being shared creat new Global Ideas of the people and all countries
By www.futurevisionaries.com
KGA
home 701-223-0639

I'm afraid my arguments stand. My post intentionally did not discuss moral dimensions, although both replys attempted to paint my post as strictly a moral opinion. Both posters are attempting to hide the fact that democracies are empowered make choices that CANNOT be described merely as either moral or economic, but which are presaged on an improvement of the commonwealth. Describe them as ethical, common-sense, doing the right thing, good government, whatever.

(In fairness to the posts, of course, the rhetoric original post was the REAL effort to put environmentalists and greens in the same box, claming that there could only be two reasons to be an environmentalist, shame or thrift. The original post unfairly limited the number of choices available to all of us as we make political decisions.)

In fact, the MOST important legislation of the twentieth century (endangered species, social secuirty, Medicare, civil rights) were NOT cast as exclusively moral or economic undertakings, but endeavors to benefit the polity of the entire commonwealth. All that was required to pass them was the agreement of legislators, across the moral and economic spectrums, that these were things that would improve our way of life. Elite political minds refuse to acknowledge that THIS is how government actually works in America.

For example:

Establishment opinion tried to put the issue in a box after the last IPCC report, by saying "well now that it's ineveitable, there's nothing we can do about it." A complete 360 degree turn. It is another example of a dark, cynical, and pessimistic strain in American politics today which refuses to recognize that American voters pick their leaders by what works, not ideology.