Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterTee
I'm fed up with this environmentalism, it affects everything! I went to get a new pen from the stationary cupboard and I was asked if I had used all the ink in my last one so I don't use more pens than I need. 
This country seems to follow the "punish" rather than "reward" scheme of things, i.e. we'll tax and penalise rather than encourage, and if we make some money on the side, even better.
In my opinion, its probably a bit of both sides that are correct, the world IS naturally getting warmer, and what WE do has an effect. I just think the green brigade have better marketing, e.g. when did "global warming" become "climate change"? Did that word exist before some marketing executive invented it?
Rant over, we can all do our bit to save the planet, but would companies stop profiteering over it!!! |
As a research engineer working in part in the automotive industry (albeit not on environmental issues!), can I give you an alternative perspective?
First off, climate change is real, and it's man-made - the scientific evidence points overwhelmingly to this conclusion. The solution to this is going to be largely technological (although behaviour and perception plays a large role too) - engineers have a direct impact on our future society.
Now, I'd argue strongly that commercial incentives play a massive role in shaping future technology. Consider this, where is the incentive for companies to develop future technology if there is no potential for profit? I don't believe that "profiteering" exists, because ultimately there is real competition is most markets (and certainly in the automotive industry) - further education and information kills the potential for unscrupulous firms to take advantage of less-than-truthful marketing. Engineers do a job and they get paid for it. Companies have thus to seek new opportunities and take risks, to make money.
And here's where tax changes have a real place - taxes that target environmental issues are absolutely not punishing!!! Rather they're rewarding those that take advantage of new pressures, they're creating commercial opportunities for technological innovation. This is absolutely essential!!! There's nothing like money to change behaviour
Going back to the point in hand. Yes, I agree the Civic hybrid is not a good solution. But Honda have taken a commercial and technological risk, and it hasn't worked out. We should not criticise them for it, rather it should be applauded and encouraged; they sought an innovative solution to a real problem. Maybe the next one will work, this is how innovation goes, you have to try.
It seems hybrid technology is only really suited to big cars, largely because of the relatively high weight penalty of batteries. Who knows, maybe better battery technology will be developed and then hybrids will work? Again, you've got to take the risk, and risk taking should be rewarded and encouraged. And I mean encouraged in the widest sense, through public support, acknowledgement (yes, this means marketing, this is important because if people by Honda because of perceived green research credentials, even if they don't buy the hybrid, they're supporting the company that decides to spend it's R&D budget on green issues), tax & legistlation (where appropriate, and I'm generally a small government kind of person!). They shouldn't buy the hybrid because they think it's better (because it's not), things have to be allowed to fail commercially too, that's part and parcel of the system.
Sorry, rant over, but this is something close to my heart! Environmentalism and capitalism and technological innovation go absolutely hand-in-hand in my book, and this is something that both the radical green-brigage and the raging anti-environmentalists have got profoundly wrong. And it's the biggest single issue facing our society.
Courant