Back to climate change

What I favour is making companies absorb and price in ALL the costs of their activities. Those simply passed on to society without any regard to impact include pollution, plastics in the Pacific, and all the factors that affect the environment and our climate.

Right now companies cannot pollute willy nilly, though if news reports are true, stuff often gets messed up in the chase for profits. In Canada three waste disposal companies had a shipment of plastics tracked. Only one did as they promised...bring it in for recycling....one burned it in what they claimed was a "clean" incinirator, and one simply dumped it in a landfill. News investigators also found that although fast food places may allow customers to segregate their waste, in the end it is all set out as garbage at the curbs. Challenged by this, one such shining example of citizenship said they allowed customers to "recycle" because it made them feel good about buying from them, but that actual recycling was "too costly".

Not far away from me Nestle's owns artesian wells from which it pumps water....very cheaply I might add (bad government...bad government...) ...and sells it in plastic bottles...after which it cares not a wit.

I expect we can find lots of examples where companies pass on their costs to society.

To me this is really where Eddie's argument....why fight good policies that attempt to clean things up, even if you do not believe in climate change?....resonates with me.

Maybe mankind's affect on the climate is not real...or limited...or not as bad as argued. What is real is tainted water, loss of water (hello Southern USA), polluted lands and waters, a huge mess of plastic in the Pacific...again, let your own research find what IS real





If writing ever becomes work I think I'm going to have to stop