InUrFace

Louis Swingrover, from the Constellation Hypothesis Blog, cited these excellent points in response to my post.

Fallacy #1: Your argument assumes green laws do NOT make life safer. If they did, you say, you would be willing to foot the bill. Instead you call green practices matters of preference.

The fact of the matter is that green laws based on sound science can make life a crucially safer. I am willing to argue for this claim if need be. Let me know.

Fallacy #2: You say “If I am required to install double paned windows what stops lawmakers from slipping a little farther into “Buy one of those Toyota Prius””. Please cf. Slippery Slope. Let me know if you have any questions.

The reason we have to enforce these practices on other people is twofold:

1. We share the environment. If you want to poison your immediate environment in a way that doesn’t violate my right to life, go ahead.

2. Green laws based on sound science may be more than life safening, they may be life-saving. You yourself admit the benefit of enforcing speed limits! Why not pollution limits?

—————————————————————————-

1. No. My argument dismisses that argument all together. For you to prove to me that forcing me to install a more efficient water heater will decrease localized climate change is impossible. As it is for me to do the inverse. So we are only left with the moral dilemma. Is it right to force these decisions? Note that I do not argue that it is or is not a good decision to install a more efficient water heater. 

2. I don’t believe the Prius reference qualifies as a slippery slope fallacy but that might be me just being dense. I will expand on my argument to ask what gives lawmakers the power or authority to force these decisions. Just because we elected them doesn’t mean they get to run crazy. And just because it is an issue that effects all of us it doesn’t mean laws are the answer. I would argue that politicians would be overstepping their authority to make laws that should be based in science but we don’t even have consensus on this issue.

3. No one wants to poison the environment in a way that effects anyone. The crux of the argument comes when you try and prove the “violation to your right to life.” You cannot link a simple consumer choice in water heaters to your quality of life any more then you can your own car.

4. Pollution limits are not based on sound science or logic. Al Gore proposed an abolition of the income tax to be replaced by a pollution tax with the premiss that it would bring in the same amount of money and encourage green economics. Yet the implications into the business world would be disastrous. Companies that employ thousands of people and contribute hugely to our economy would have to downsize due to carbon emissions while companies in different industries such as telecom and SEO would not be impacted at all. In a sense they would be tax free. Then how do you go about accurately calculating the pollution for a large company? You think a 1040 is tough? Imagine a Pollution 3248. The carbon footprint to balance those tax codes and print the books, not to mention the late nights CPAs will spend studying this development, will kill 492 Jumping Monkeys alone!

All a pollution tax would do is rebalance our economy to favor certain industries and drive others into the ground. It would cripple America and jeopardize your daily mocha.

Currently no lives are in danger of pollution and things are only getting better. How would more governmental interference be a good thing?