An interesting debate on labor and the environment, I don't think these two issues are necessarily antagonistic. Alaska comes to mind, as one place that should be studied because of the extreme demand of opening up oil fields, and fisheries, due to demands for employment regrdless of if this route is the best to go. Could one not argue that rather than working on an oil drill an alternative job could be designing more sustainable energy sources? Could it be a better job too?

Illinois has a very strong demand on both sides and I don't know all the details of Clear Skies vs. Clean Air Act, so wouldn't venture to say one would encourage employment more than the other. I'm fairly supportive of long-term envirnmental controls and don't see the policy as being job reduced at all. If anything, needing to upgrade the technologies and production methods of industry will be a space for new employment and could pick up the 90's dotcom fall-out as far as technology design. Biotech can't pick up everything...why not envirotech? I also have to agree with the complications mentioned that are health related, and what communities tend to be most heavily affected by factory waste. Why anyone would vote to get luekemia from the tanning factory near-by just to keep their job at the tanning facotry as is surprises me. You'll lose all the money from your great job to med bills anyways.

Its broader though, since I do think the insane rise in asthma, rosation, cancer, and many other ailments due to envirnment are a big deal, and need to be addressed from the foundations up, not just on the back end in terms of medical research and production.

Voters can't afford to think that far ahead. It's not like everybody gets sick right away. Deseases like this takes years to develop, and don't affect everybody. You might have medical bills in the future, but you need to put food on the table today.

Clear skies, shmear skies, Kyoto comes into force today.

Back on topic, though:

dolce, if there was a market in envirotech, we would not need environmental legislation to make it appear; businessmen are much more savvy in spotting market opportunities than congress is. And to be sure, the market already exists. For instance, there's a market for making a factory cleaner, because otherwise the company gets slapped with lawsuits from the communities around it.

Well, why is that market not developed then? The answer is easy - environmental regulations! Think about it: if there are no regulations, then each company is responsible for whatever damage it causes in the court of law and therefore it is in their interests to cause as little damage as possible. However, with regulations the companies do just enough to stay legal, and are shielded from lawsuits, because they're complying with the regulations.

Next time you get the urge of saying "there oughta be a law!" think of the consequences first.

By the way, if the "insane rise in asthma, rosation, cancer, and many other ailments due to envirnment" is such a big deal, then how come the average life expectancy keeps on rising? Maybe living in an industrialized society does have its advantages that offset the diseases you've mentioned?

Well that's exactly why this is a society with a government of representation (in theory). Because people elect officials that they believe will act in their best interest even in the distant future. I don't hold every person to this level, but I might hold union leaders to it. I think they need to realize that first and formost, a cleaner factory may not necessarily mean less jobs, and secondly that even if it does, why glamorize the assemply line and chemical handling? Why not redirect those jobs into other fields such as development and research, and even the new technologies still need assembling, implementing, and maintenance.



Life expectancy will start dropping soon. Meds can only go so far, and these ridiculous games with access to meds with heighten the fall-out. While the average life expectancy rate in the U.S. broke 80 for the first time a few years ago, that off set by very wealthy people. I think the average life expectancy, lets say, of a Reservation Indian, is still 37. And what about lower income families. I sit all lucky having never been to a funeral in my life (and I am fortunate) but I have a friend who lost both her parents by the time she was 26. Different economic and geographic background of course. I think that life expectancy ratio is misleading.

I doubt it. Firstly, because we're not starting from scratch here. The cost of transition, etc, if it does not outweight the potential law suites, won't happen. I can list several cases (though not all of them factory) that preferred to settle a suite rather than change their ways because it actually cost less. Also, I don't see the precedence in your model, do you think that when factories at the turn of the century had freebies that they were more responsible? Because if you do, you have another thing coming for you. They set the bar is this stuff and its only through applying standards that they cleaned up a bit. While I do see your point that if a factory complies with regulations it doesn't have to go above and beyond those minimal standards, but hey, in my book that just means set the standards even higher. I do think of the consequences of "there oughta be a law" and while your model works in theory, I just have no faith or historic proof that it works in actuality. You know what, if you're ever in a society in which this ruling operates, and it works, I'll eat my words. But for now, yes, I still have a schtick about *The Big Bad Company.*

As to biotech vs. health standards, its a new field, and didn't necessarily require updating an old system. They're not rooted in out great industrial past (hence the non-coincidental teamster references). I guess my comparison wasn't exactly fair, since I think biotech isn't dealing with superceeding previous structures in the same way envirotech would be. I would like to think consumer dollar could just bring about the change, but I'm going to return to Erendis' arguements for my own use here and say most people are just biying the cheapest products to put on the table, and don't care to pay double for an environmentally sound equivalent. *Vicious Cycle* yikes! But unlike union leadership or government politicians who can make decisions for entire groups, everyone;s bank account is theirs so I don't think distance planning works except for with some of the Bobos who have the luxury of anticipating thier grandchildren's lives.

Why should life expectancy start dropping soon? The drug situation you're talking about is actually going to get better. There is a lot of drugs that are coming out of patent stage and, consequently, you'll have a whole lot of cheap drugs. Obviously life expectancy for poorer people is lower, but that's the point: if life expectancy is rising, then that means that there less poor people nowadays. I don't know about you, but I consider that a good thing. Different backgrounds obviously play into this, but that's why we're talking about average life expectancy.

Are you sure the problem was the lack of standards and not the rampant corruption?
Do you believe that the improvements in "The Big Bad Companies* only come by way of government regulations? Obviously that's the politically-correct point of view, but the next time you buy bottled water instead of drinking tap water, think about the effects the regulations had on your water supply.

Does it ever occur to you thats it's better for the consumers to follow that approach? The consumers prioritize their spending based on their needs. Having any kind of food on the table might be much more important for the consumers than not buying stuff with pesticides in it. Why? Because while pesticides might reduce your lifespan by a year, a varied diet might increase it by 10 years. Obviosuly, this is just a hypothetical example, but my point is this: just because something is environmentally-friendly, does not mean that it's good for the people. After all, if we take it to extreme, we might ban all production and go back to the prehistoric days, but obviously that would not be a good idea. Still, I'd trust the consumer over government to know what's good for him any day of the week.

If our grandfathers banned "harmful" production (and I'm sure there was plenty of that BS going on during Roosevelt's days) we'd wind up something like Mexico right now.