Blogs and Stories
Stop Indulging, America
Getty Images
From quilted toilet paper to big-screen TVs, a raft of new proposed regulations could change life for the greener—and flush away some all-American creature comforts.
Who knew what a power suck a 50-inch television could be? Well, California does, and the state that does everything first could decide on November 4 to to slap one-of-a-kind efficiency standards on these energy hogs.
Since the California Energy Comission began studying the issue several years ago, the electronics industry’s best hope of stopping regulation of big-screen TVs has been an intervention by the most testosteronic of governors, Arnold Schwarzenegger. A sports fanatic by way of Hollywood who popularized the Hummer for casual city driving, Schwarzenegger, they hoped, would recognize the injustice of outlawing TV screens the size of aircraft carriers.
Posting calories on a restaurant menu in New York City helps get you reelected. Doing so in Biloxi, Mississippi, would get you run out of town.
But then the data came in, and the environmentally concious governor saw the light. Getting rid of any TV over 50 inches that doesn’t meet new efficiency standards will save enough energy to power a million homes and reduce emissions by 3.5 million tons. (And there’s no Cash for Clunkers program easing remote controls from the hands of Monday Night Football fans.) But CEC Commissioner Julia Levin promises the pain of the downgrades will be mitigated by the economic benefits—producing replacements for the estimated one-quarter of TVs that won’t meet the new standards, she says, will “help the California economy grow and create new clean, sustainable jobs.”
Reducing the size of TV sets is one thing. Reducing the size of people is a job for the feds. Health experts agree that obesity is killing us, with the medical costs of treating weight-related conditions up 37 percent since 1998, to $147 billion last year. During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama noted that if we could go back to the obesity rates of 1980 we could save Medicare $1 trillion.
In the scrum of proposals to improve health and fund reform, the White House has targeted one of the main culprits in the ballooning of America : sugared drinks. Last month in an interview in Men’s Health magazine, Obama said he is “exploring” a levy of 3 cents on every 12-ounce serving, which would raise $24 billion over the next four years.
This plays to type better than Schwarzenegger’s going after TVs—maybe too much so. At the Iowa State Fair, Obama grimaced at funnel cakes and soft drinks the size of the Grand Canyon. In the Oval Office, he offers visitors an apple instead of a bowl of candy. It’s easy to tag him as just one more skinny elitist trying to kill the buzz of a Big Mac, a milkshake, and a double order of fries.
But calm down, if that’s possible on your corn syrup high—Republicans are determined to keep the arugula-loving president’s hands off your soda. The ranking minority member on the Senate Finance Committee, Charles Grassley, dismissed a soda tax as a “nuisance” that he intends to block. And it helps opponents that such a tax would fall disproportionately on the poor, because it’s so much cheaper to eat badly. A dollar can buy 875 calories of soda, but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170 calories of fresh fruit, according to a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Taking on Teddy's Cause
Margaret Carlson is a columnist for Bloomberg News. She was a columnist and deputy Washington bureau chief for Time magazine.
GOP Plots Ensign's Ouster
Margaret Carlson is a columnist for Bloomberg News. She was a columnist and deputy Washington bureau chief for Time magazine.
How Bad Parenting Became Cool
Margaret Carlson is a columnist for Bloomberg News. She was a columnist and deputy Washington bureau chief for Time magazine.
So, we will have to abide by Sheryl Crow's one square per wipe or get taxed?
Reminds me of years ago down in old Mexico making sure I had my own newspaper to use before going to a toilet with no lid knowing full well there might not be an "unused" one in there. But maybe that's where we're headed anyway.....down "old Mexico way". After all it's only fair. Since Mexico shows no sign of ever improving quality of life, it's our destiny and duty to lower ours so everyone feels fair and happy.
Sure, Mexico is a long way off from the US' Capitalist growth cycle, but the improvements I viewed firsthand down there from '91 - '05 were drastic. Much less poverty, emerging middle class. And well-behaved kids.
What has anything to do with Mexico? you need to improve your country not criticize others. But of course these baby boomers who born with luxury and post WWII stuck up environment wouldn't be able to see so these ads are not for you just wait for your time to collect SS money dudes!!!! Let the younger generations handle this, we born with your debts and that's our job to fix--get out of the way.
Yeah, loloo33, blame evrything on the boomers. They created every mess the world has ever been in and will ever be in forever and ever.Maybe you should start with not critizing others by laying off boomers. So your generation will fix things, right? In electing Obama you have had a terrible beginning in the fixing business as he has messed up everything royally especially health care.
Oops, put this in the wrong place. On my travels to Mexico I notice that people walk more, take public transportation more, and are not as hefty as the folks in the good old U.S.A. Is that a bad thing? Isn't that what we all should be doing?
God forbid the price we pay for consumer goods actually reflect the true cost!
I hear a lot about using market solutions, but nobody seems to like them when it means actually paying full price for our goods.
This is true, but what is more true is that the manufacturers of these obscenely wasteful products should really be paying the true cost of the things they produce and profit from- and the incredibly toxic & wasteful ways in which they produce them.
Agreed, but that is likely not coming exclusively from profits, it's at least in part getting passed onto the consumer. If there are better, cheaper alternatives, then, in theory, those should win out.
In reference to the Mexico comment, not as many fatties down there either.
Finally over indulgence is being regulated and we can start to reduce our waste!
Not so fast. So long as we continue to actually elect those who pass regulations, or at least those that empower agencies to regulate, it is very, very important to not be high and mighty and regulate every aspect of life, lest a backlash occur that gets everything undone.
Frankly, if it is possible to have soft, effective toilet paper and tasty drinks while not making people obese and destroying the environment, then why not? Is the act of not abrading you butt or enjoying the drink bad inherently? Or is it the collateral damage?
What happened to freedom?
Anyone?
Please don't reply how our obese are causing out of control health care costs.
If you can find a way to regulate every aspect of our lives, it's going to be health care and the environment.
Pretty soon we'll be engulfed in tyranny wondering how we got here. Just like Demolition Man.
It's a simple economic concept. The price of those goods should include social cost in terms of environmental and health degradation as well as cost of production. That's why alcohol and tobacco, for instance, are highly taxed. Regulation is how government makes up the failures of the market to price goods correctly, and it's been around for a long time, I don't see why it's suddenly something to cry about.
Exactly. What happened to freedom?
Grassley's opposition has nothing to do with sympathy for soda suckers. It's about the corn farmers cashing their federal welfare checks to make more subsidized corn to be turned into syrup and other food-like products. (Also to feed cattle who cannot digest grain, so have to be loaded up with antibiotics to keep them alive, thus breeding more resistant bacteria so more people can die of staph infections.) Junk food is cheap because your tax dollars are subsidizing crap.
Here, here - the truth is spoken.
Yep.
We've learned to without a lot of luxury items during the recession. Here's a satire clip that takes a humorous look at something that's not a laughing matter:
http://bit.ly/ozqT6
Mrs. Carlson does a great job of illustrating how our national tax policies help foster a society of obesity. If we want to achieve true health reform in this country we must start by first addressing the farm bill. We cannot as a nation force people to eat the worst foods and expect them to be anything but morbidly obese. We subsidize obesity by subsidizing corn farmers, who in turn produce high fructose corn syrup which is put into every unhealthy food product imaginable. We as a nation are eating ourselves into poverty. It is no coincidence that health care costs have been expanding at a rate proportionate to our collective waistlines for years.
We have to address the farm bill so that blueberries are as affordable as burgers. We also need to encourage people to exercise more, as the combination of lethargy and gluttony is certain to ensure the bankruptcy of our nation.
Yeah well, obesity will only get worse as unemployment steadily rises in the struggling economy. Not only will it hurt the unemployed but those working ever more hours trying to survive will also take a toll. On a personal level I see it and am having trouble. Over the past year I have had to increase dramtically the time I spend bidding to pursue the shrinking opportunity in the market place. Employees are counting on me to produce work for them. As a result I am spending several days a week working very long hours just to keep our business going. Those extra hours sitting at a desk are taking a toll. I looked in the mirror the other day and realized a noticable increase in my 50 year old waste line. Ah but alas, what to do? If we all dont pull together and find a way out of this we are all doomed to become the victims of obesity. Directly or indirectly. I think one way to reduce the use of high fructose corn syrup is to continue increasing the use of corn for bio deisel and ethanol. This will drive up the price of corn and increase the cost of junk food, there by discouraging consumption. People might even start cooking again instead of munching, slurping and microwaving their way to an early grave with HFCS.
Not just affordable, but available. Even if people were willing to pay a premium, we just don't grow enough of the right foods so that everybody can eat a healthy diet.
Does anyone else see a problem with this? I know most of you DB regulars are somewhat progressive, environmentally conscious ...let the government decide what you should do types, but this is ridiculous.Whatever happened to the concept of liberty and keeping the government out of our lives?
Hmmmmm, let's see. The government wants to insert itself more into how we lead the minutae of our lives. What the hell business do they have telling me what type of television I should have in my house? Yes, I know you'll say that "no one is telling them they can't have it, they just have to pay a higher tax on it." Well, it's basically the same thing. If there is a higher tax then people will not buy it as a result, social control.
If people want to eat at McDonalds...let them stop with this crap about the calories and how dangerous it could be...people know it, they don't care. Please stop trying to regulate all aspects of my life, what I should eat, what appliances I should buy. Yes I know it is just merely a tax, but as John Marshall said , "the power to tax means the power to destroy." Let people live their lives and conduct commerce as they would like with as little interference or complication as possible. Put the information out there, but beyond that, stop the regulation and the taxation. Next you'll be telling me how I should raise my kids....wait you're already trying that.
How about this, when the politicians and "experts" get their own personal lives in order and obtain a higher level of competence in their own lives, maybe then they can foist that crap on us. Until such time shut the hell up and keep your opinions and lifestyles to yourselves. I mean that from both ends the left and the right... hypocrisy knows no political affiliation.
People shouldn't be able to eat at McDonald's without paying more for it because their poor decisions are costing all of us money. When you eat yourself into obesity we're all paying for it in the form of higher insurance premiums because insurance companies have to spread out the cost to treat the diabetes, hypertension, high blood pressure, cancer, etc., that results from those poor decisions. You quoted Marshall: "the power to tax means the power to destroy"...if this means that by taxing crap food more it will destroy your ability to consume 1500 calories at lunch everyday then tax away!
Since you don't see a role for government in the regulation of food, please explain for us your feelings on drugs. Should the government be involved in regulating whether Americans can shoot heroin into their veins or smoke crack or crystal meth? There is really only one major difference to me between a morbidly obese person who consumes 5000 calories a day and a heroin junkie...at least the junkie will be dead soon, whereas the fat ass is going to be a drain on society for years while we subsidize his bad habits.
Here's one difference genius: Ever hear of someone overdosing on a Big Mac's. Here's another: In all my life, I've never heard of a single violent act associated with a Wendy's triple cheeseburger. Perhaps you have.
Now I certainly agree that eating junk food is bad for one's health and such habits bring about all sorts of medical problems. But at what point does government stop invading our private lives. Take an inventory of your own life and ask yourself how many things you do that could be considered dangerous, thus placing you at risk for medical problems that could lead you to be a drain on society. For example, are you athletic? If you are, you could suffer a chronic injury resulting in ongoing medical treatments for many years. Should we tax or outlaw that particular activity that caused the problem.
That's really the issue. At what point does government become too controlling? I say it already has. However, if you persist in your belief that obese people will be a drain on society through high medical costs, take comfort in the knowledge that they will probably die at an earlier age, thus relieving you from contributing to their future social security and medicare benefits. Hope that helps you sleep a bit better.
There's a major difference between the junky and the morbidly obese. Food is necessary for life. You can't go cold turkey from food.
Your take is a tad absurd. It is not the responsibility or the duty of the federal government to judge the morality in healthy and unhealthy people. Though some people need exercise and should learn how to eat a salad, it is ridiculous to think people should be taxed for eating at McDonald's. Most things are appropriate in moderation. Every once in a while it is okay to a eat a friggin burger. Every once in a while its good to a eat a salad. I hope this isn't shooting over your head.
This article starts out by saying that California is the state that does things "first". Yeah, like go out of business first. California has never met a tax increase it didn't like. This is why big businesses and high earning people are starting to switch their place of domicile to other states...to avoid the high tax penalty. California should learn some moderation in their own right.
You need to rejigger your mega-screen into a time machine and go back to 1970. You want Gov't out of our lives? Then STOP SUBSIDIZING THE CORN AGRIBUSINESS, which makes junk food so cheap. Ever buy chips or soda in Europe? Not that cheap, and the people ain't that fat. There is almost NO nutritional value to the 'food' that the American urban poor are subsisting off of, and it's killing us with high-blood pressure and obesity, never mind their ability to concentrate and learn while in school.
You want Gov't out of our lives? Let's get rid of seatbelt and child seat laws. Let's allow smoking on planes and in offices again. Let's let companies have monopolies. Let's let them dump toxic runoff wherever they want. Let's deregulate asbestos. Let's let PCB's and fluorocarbons poison our rivers again - 'I want the government out of my hairspray, out of my weedkiller!'
The US has to STOP acting like a spoiled global glutton, and it starts with legislation for sane products and a healthy public. If your behavior is costing others money, maybe a little prevention is in order, yes? A penny saved is a penny earned. Don't like it? Keep working on that time machine, you jerk.
Telling people what they can or cannot do is still going to be odious. I think that in the absence of a dictatorship, over-regulation will lead, ultimately to a voting into power very regressive regimes. I want the hairspray and pesticides regulated, along with lots of environmental and financial stuff. If I take away the fat guy's burger, he may well work to vote away all the other good stuff. Somewhere a balance between freedom and regulation has to exist, or we will end up with none of either.
This user is no longer registered.
Rich dudes buy huge tv's because they can grumpy. If you want to regulate, then it should be regulated at the manufacturing end to avoid the temptation. If the government says there can only be 42" televisions and lower, then the rich guy will buy the 42" and go on his way.
No matter how much tax is put on these products, the Government STILL cannot tell you what to eat or not to eat. You get it? Charging an extra 10 cents is NOT telling someone they can't eat this, it's saying "if you are going to eat it, pay for it."
People, Kings, magnates and dictators with total unregulated freedom to do what they want have also been proven destroyers, polluters and much worse. Why shouldnt we learn from the past mistakes and act with responsible preventative legislation that benefits our free society into the future. I think its a selfish group that is always clamoring for total unregulated freedom from Govt regulation. Regulations are what maintains us on the path to advancement. The great religious books of the world are forms of regulation, instructing how man should live a happy healthy life. Man needs regulation, without it he is lost.
And to hell with the environment. I've got news for you, if the Earth goes down we all go down with her. Or at least our children and grandchildren do. Or don't you care about that?
The best and the brightest are NOT in government. Hence government regulation and policy is crafted by mediocre minds who are often beholden to special interests and lobbyists. We need far fewer regulations and policy from government. Hold people accountable for making poor lifestyle decisions by having them pay the increased heath care costs for a Burger King diet.
This user is no longer registered.
I agree bcaldwell.... liberals in the 60's would have howled at this intrusion of government into lifestyle. People with tvs that use more electricity pay a premium in electric bills for having them... people who don't exercise, are overweight, smoke and/or have high blood pressure already pay higher premiums for their health care, etc. Taxing specific behaviors? The founding fathers would lead a revolt! Margaret and friends feel so much better about themselves using single-ply toilet paper and eating carrots - perhaps it assuages the guilt for the 20 room houses they heat and air condition, the fuel-burning flights they take to make speeches and public appearances, the designer clothes assembled in foreign sweatshops. The hypocrisy is unbelievable and where this regulation potentially could stop and start treads on very dangerous and unconstitutional ground.
Do you feel better when your Government subsidizes corn syrup, taxes sugar, burns natural gas so that it can make corn into ethanol as a gas additive, gives huge welfare payments to factory farms? Is that what the Founding Fathers were about?
People who pay more for the electricity waste an unnecessary amount that could be used elsewhere. Thus, 10 units is used by one person instead of five. The community as a whole uses more electricity and pays more for it. Instead of spending more on education/military/etc. a larger portion is being spent on energy costs.
The person who is overweight, smokes, and doesn't exercise will have considerably more health problems than those who don't. The health problems become an unnecessary drain on the health care system adding to the exorbitant cost. Furthermore, while they are 'laid up' they cannot work and cannot contribute to society. Its doubly detrimental.
Individual freedoms are of the utmost importance in our governmental system, but even they have limits in a nation with 365 million people. I think the discord here is understanding that while we are a nation of individuals, we are a communal society. The collective effects of all these individuals can surely be regulated by the government, for that is exactly what the constitution was meant to do.
You make some interesting points, but the is an ideological difference with people. Where is the line drawn between individual freedoms and responsible government intervention? It is troubling to have this many obese people in our country and we should do more to prevent it. However, taxing fast food restaurants is getting close to that "line". It goes beyond the food we eat, it is also the lifestyles we choose. If we choose to sit on the couch all afternoon eating ice cream and potato chips, are we going to have a government bureaucrat come in our house and fine us? Are we going to start outlawing video games all together because we have some fools in this country that play the things ALL day and not get any exercise? Wouldn't that be sad for the responsible people who handle things responsibly?
You're correct in asserting that individual freedoms are paramount. But the conclusion you draw lacks basic reason. Freedom means being able to do what you want without the intrusion of others. Any actions you wish to take that have no impact on me or others should be yours alone. But that "freedom" ends as soon as it starts to impact MY freedom. I should also have the freedom to live my life with as little impact from you as possible. So when I pay my healthcare bills or electricity bills, or when I breathe in our air and swim in our waters, I shouldn't feel the consequences of your actions. And I wouldn't expect that you would want to feel the consequences of mine.
The appropriate role for the government of a nation this big is to mitigate the damage that we each do to each other's lives. If you want to be morbidly obese, sucking up resources and raising costs for everyone, you should have to pay more to cover those costs. I shouldn't have to pay for that. If you want a tv that eats away disproportionately at our energy reserves, you should have to cover more of the increased energy costs. This system allows you to make the choice - it doesn't outlaw obesity or big tvs, but it does require you to make a value judgment.
This is the main problem with the conservative view. The conservative movement has confused individual freedom with the ability to just do "whatever-you-damn-well-please," regardless of the impact of those actions on others. Taxing those things that we KNOW hurt our society (the Super Big Gulp?!) not only discourages the behavior without making it illegal but it also allows society to recoup some of the costs it will have to pay out to deal with the consequences of people's actions.
One last point. When you make a claim like "treads on very dangerous and unconstitutional ground," please back this up with some citation to exactly what provision of the US Constitution, as amended, is in danger of violation. Conservatives throw around this "unconstitutional" language every time you don't like something the government does. Where, pray tell, does it say anything about limiting the power of an elected body of representatives to impose a tax on soft drinks and energy-suckers? It doesn't. Unless you've got some really clever interpretation of the interstate commerce clause or the bill of rights, you're just throwing that kind of language around as hyperbole.
you just explained free market principals which would be a conservative viewpoint. I am a conservative and agree with everything you just stated for the most part. Conservatives don't want "do whatever you damn well please". Regulation is necessary when done responsibly, however sometimes it can go to far. If your big television set sucks up more energy, then usually the energy bill will be more and, thus, you will have to pay for it. If you are overweight, then your insurance premiums will be more to off set that. You idea that taxing "the super big gulp" doesn't ring true because people who ARE NOT obese will have to pay that tax as well and that is unfair to them. I know you, as a liberal, agree with the word "unfair" right?
Clearthinker - Your response is the perfect example of how the conservative/Republican construct does not recognize reality. Liberals (at least the vast, vast majority of them - and the ones who are now in power) are proponents of the free market. The President has consistently highlighted that protection of the free market (sometimes at the expense of monopolies) is fundamental to our economic recovery. But, when he outlines the steps needed for that protection, the Republicans come out swinging. The initiatives that he has been undertaking (clean energy, health care reform, financial reform, etc.) have all been aimed at creating a system in which the free market will be able to flourish without the devastating effects of market bubbles, rising costs, etc.
Speaking to the specific points you make in your rebuttal, you're missing the point. The "super big gulp" (to keep that example going) is bad for EVERYONE. 800 calories of sugar in one drink is unhealthy - plain and simple. If you want to drink it, you should have to cover the eventual costs to society that you're going to be imposing. This, no matter whether you're skinny or fat when you walk up to that counter to order it. THAT is fairness. The point is to encourage behavior NOW that will help us avoid the costs in the future.
With regard to the health premiums, the problem with your analysis is two-fold. First, most people are inherently better at accepting long-term risk than short-term costs. So when you tell a person, "Hey, you might want to cut back on that calorie intake because, in 15 years, you might have to pay more in health premiums," it doesn't change the behavior in time to avoid the problem. Second, a large percentage of the people who are morbidly obese cannot afford an increase in health insurance premiums to cover the increase costs to the system (look at the median incomes in the states with the highest obesity rates - TN, MS, LA). Expecting them to cover the increase costs later is completely unrealistic. What we want to do is try to make it so that the costs don't have to be covered at all!
The point is this. If we do things NOW to encourage behavior that will reduce the impact of our own individual behavior on others, it's a hell of a lot better (and cheaper) than having to try to set things right once they're already in bad shape. The obesity epidemic is just starting to rev up. The energy crisis hasn't even begun to show its teeth. Companies', whose actions are controlled 100% by their bottom line (as it should be), cannot be charged with helping to figure out how to encourage behavior that benefits (or protects) society in the long run. That's what we have an elected government for.
Stop thinking about your economic principles in terms of which side of the aisle they fall on. We ALL want a free market. We ALL want to have the ability to live our lives free of oppression and the will of others. Achieving that, however, requires a concerted effort to set up neutral policies that look to the long term.
For many years, California has taxed fruit juice blends that contain less than 70% fruit juice, which includes many, many products ranging like Hawaiian Punch & Capri Sun. This hasn't yet succeeded in causing Californians to acquire that allegedly desirable whippet-like thinness, or to solve the state's budget problems. Such things never work that way. Take our lottery system, proceeds of which were supposed to greatly aid our school system, until those funds were diverted to some other government-approved cause.
How can local measures compete with Welfare Queens like ConAgra and Archer Daniels Midland sucking at the Federal Teat?
What a misleading comment by Carlson. Name me one company which cuts old growth trees so we can get soft TP. Just an idiotic comment. If all that tree was going to be used to make TP, TP will cost over $10 per roll. Then Obama will take over TP industry with ration on how much TP will be allowed per family for 4.
This is obsurd by so many levels, what's about people with so many kids do they care about any energy efficiency policy at all? The world is over poppulated and that's the cause of all these global issue not the size of t.v. nor car.
Nobody wants to talk about the real problem, even if everybody on earth driving hybride car, eat less consume less resources we are still far behind the cure of the global warming issue, stop having 100 kids people!!!!!!!--
Oddly enough, It kind of reminds me of the movie Demolition Man coming to fruition.
Who would have thought?
When will it stop? These libs want CONTROL of everything. If you do not like 50 inch TV's or sodas then don't buy them. What others do with their lives is not for Government to decide, as long as it isn't hurting you personally.
Dear Dances with Trees,
If we insist on wiping our butts with TP made from old growth timber, then there won't be any trees left and you will have to change your tagline. Or do you care? I get the impression that a lot of people just care about themselves and to heck with everyone and everything else.
For -dscarpelli
Words right out of my mouth. Thank you.
if big screen tv's take up so much juice then fine have these companies reduce the amount of energy they use to power them. as for a fat tax on certain drinks is a bit much. they tried that garbage here in ny but most citizens were against it so the idea faded away for the time being. as for the fluffy tp i must say that do perfer it. who wants to wipe with sand paper because that's what the other stuff feels like. and finally i'm sick and tired of our own countrymen complaining how we as a country should be ashamed. ashamed that we like to have a higher standard of living. ashamed that we like to drive everywhere. ashamed that we enjoy a good meal from our favorite restaurant. i agree with some of the comments about why doe we have to lower our standards! it seems that other countries either don't want to raise their own standard because they like to keep their people down so that it is easier to control them or their government is raking in the money and not improving the live of their people for their own personal gain (those who run the gov). countries like china, mexico and the asia want us to lower our standards so they can look better for their people. STOP TELLING US WE ARE WRONG FOR WANTING THE BEST OF THINGS. STOP TELLING US WE SHOULD BE ASHAMED! I AM PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN I JUST WISH PEOPLE LIKE YOU WOULD JUST REALIZE THAT BEING THE BEST DOESN'T MEAN YOU ARE WRONG IT JUST MEANS OTHERS HAVE TO WORK HARDER TO CATCH UP!
I often visit factories in China and I take the opportunity to ask the operatives if they know what they are making - often for export to the U.S.A.
When they are told what some products are used for, they laugh and suggest that people are crazy to want such products.
This highlights the differing lifestyles: one the essentials and the other needing to buy 'things' irrespective of their utility.
Recycling levels are extremely high in China, India and VietNam. Discard a newspaper and within minutes it is gone, taken for recycling. Likewise with any recyclables: plastics, metal, wood, even drywall scraps.
A very telling scene is watching car-carrier ships, having disgorged their loads of cars, are then loaded with used cardboard which is taken back to Japan for recycling. Why? Can't North America recycle this material and save some trees?
Here, I live in VietNam, high-efficiency fluorescent lights are standard and the newer LED lights are increasingly popular, water is not wasted and in heavy traffic jams people frequently turn their motorcycle engines off - not only to save fuel but also to cut pollution. Elsewhere engines are run to drive the car air-conditioning.
Air-conditioning units are extremely high efficiency, as are washing machines and refrigerators in the Far East.
Elsewhere in the world efficiency levels are lower because the cost of electricity, even though of equal cost to that of S.E. Asia, the proportional cost in relation to income is much less.
Essentially, peoples attitudes are radically different which has to be achieved in North America.
The question is how to change this. I personally think that efficiency will sell, but not until there is a visible benefit to it. It's the same like car safety. It was a well known "truism" in the 1970s that car safety would not sell. That had totally changed by the 1980s.
I'm going to have to agree with isanti. Americans want things and Americans provide things that make life better than most nations. This isn't thumbing our nose at other nations, it is just part of the American way of life.
DakLak, we aren't comparing apples to apples with America and the far east. Two vastly different cultures. I reject the notion that America should adapt their culture to meet someone else's. This is nonsense. It seems to be the "in thing" to discount American values. Though we should do what we can to recycle and take care of the planet, it doens't mean we should have our government intervening in our basic implementations of life. This is what seperates America from other countries.
If all of us were required to recycle all that can be recycled we would benefit significantly. Items such as: all plastic, metal, paper, styrofoam. It takes about 1000 years for one plastic bag to break down in a landfill. Not only would we have less going to the landfills but a large industry would be born out of recycling. When we started to recycle everything possible, the amount of trash put out on the curb went from four bags per week to less than one. Yes, it takes a little work, but there is significant value to the process.
Yes,
Once it is fiscally worthwhile to recycle. IMHO, we should stop focusing on the recycle part of the equation. Recycling will happen when the price for recyclables is high enough. We need to focus on the use of recycled products.
Also, I predict in the near future we will be "mining" landfills for useful products.
I love my 60 inch Pioneer 1080 Plasma TV and Charmin. I earned the money, I pay the bills.
But this whole concept of "cost to society" offends me.
we as americans make up five percent of the population, but use 25 percent of the world's energy resources.
if everyone lived the way we did, the earth would be a huge barren garbage dump with no resources left for anyone.
as AMERICANS WE SHOULD BE ASHAMED. because we live on the backs of the poor. we take their oil, their trees, and their cheap labor so we can drive bigger cars, watch big screen tv's, buy more garbage at wal-mart, get big fat asses, kill ourselves with government subsidized sugar and sedentary lifestyles. we may have more crap now then ever, but we are not happier as people. what does that say?
besides, our higher standard of living comes at the cost of lowering someone else's. someone has to work for nothing to make your cheap goods, we certainly wouldn't do it here.
The american way? what a joke. if you could follow logic and weren't a sociopath, you would be ashamed.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.