Response to Richard's 4 Reasons Recession Is Bad for the Environment

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/4_reasons_recession_bad_environment.php

Richard is not entirely fair when he says that recession is bad for the environment. His first point is that companies will reduce their investments into research and development and green programs. That is not entirely true. Although we are in the midst of a recession, Toyota is developing a more efficient hybrid-an electric/gas plug-in that should receive 125 miles per gallon. Toyota is pursuing this goal because the company realizes that such a product has the possibility of selling well in the marketplace, and there is an opportunity for greater profitability by producing the most innovative vehicles. See [http://www.tytlabs.co.jp/english/tech/ena.html] Furthermore, not all environmental initiatives by companies cut into profits-some actually create profits. Consider this: if the cost of oil rises enough, the cost of producing plastic will be higher. Therefore, it will be more expensive to use plastic packaging than recycled cardboard in packaging at some point in time. If recycled cardboard was cheaper than plastic, it would save companies money on their bottom-line. A company would then be more profitable when pursuing the "right" thing!

Richard's 2nd point is that in the midst of a recession, people will buy less expensive products, which are worse for the environment. This is true in the case of Chinese products which are sold cheaply and hurt the environment greatly but isn't true in the sense that environmentally conscious food, transportation, and clothing can be the MOST inexpensive choices. A pound of tofu is $2 while a pound of beef is $5.75(http://shop.netgrocer.com/shop.aspx?&sid=24028222&sid_guid=17b5ea75-d995-4db5-8bdc-cefba06a5660&strid=2D462&sc=wwwNG_D1A024EE&ns=1) Men's pants from Walmart run $9.86+, which is not produced to socially or environmentally conscious standards:child-labor is involved. I have purchased much more environmentally conscious clothing from other sources for much less than that: from Craigslist, Freecycle, Goodwill, Amvets(American Veterans). I purchased a Burberry blazer in very fine condition for $7 at an Amvets and a gorgeous Harris Tweed jacket for $9 at a Goodwill. Those are 1000% nicer than what you get from a Target or a Walmart and since they are used, I do not feel that I am serving to perpetrate child-labor uses. They are very fine clothing items and they cost me very little money. Furthermore, the fossil-fuels involved in their production have now been distributed among multiple individuals. Also, my bicyle from my father's garage that I use to commute daily cost me $0. An environmentally degrading automobile would cost me much more. True environmentalism is actually the most cost-effective lifestyle!

In addition, the best policy for the environment is to buy less or buy nothing at all. That is why Vegan ice-cream, an expensive "eco-chic" kind of thing, is such an idiotic idea-if you don't want to consume regular ice-cream, why not just skip ice-cream altogether? It uses fossil fuel to produce, and if your a Vegan why do need ice-cream? The environmental movement needs to be about frugality, not hipster "eco-products." If an individual was to live a truly environmentally friendly lifestyle, he could live on $15,000 per year, assuming he lived in a small city, didn't own a car, rode a bike and fixed it himself, lived in an apartment with a room-mate, bought only used clothes, turned down the heat in the winter and wore thick wool sweaters, ate out only once per week for no more than $10(hopefully at an organic food cooperative), and pursued other simple measures.

Richard's 3rd point is that in a sore economy loans are going to be harder to get so "green start-ups are going to be harder to get." Maybe the idea of loans for businesses is foolish. Isn't it possible for entrepreneurs to save wages from their current jobs and invest them into their businesses at a later time, all without reliance on banks or external lenders? It is a fallacy that a business needs a lot of upfront capital. And a lot of times businesses could function with less capital. A local venture in my area sells ice-cream bars with a bicycle with a cooler-attached to it. That's about $100 worth of capital for the bike and cooler, and a couple hundred dollars worth of ice-cream. Each bar is sold for $2 or $3. That venture is extremely green(goods sold on a bike) and profitable. That venture is successful without 1000s of dollars of capital!

His fourth point is that voters want the government to do something about the environmental crisis. Here's an idea. How about we abandon the idea that the government can do anything effectively regarding this movement? Wasn't our country was founded on the principle of personal initiative? We have forgotten that personal initiative is an effective means of solving problems. Too-little recycling occurred in our local-business district. As a counter-measure, local business owners installed recycle boxes in front of their shops and had local artists decorate the exteriors of these recycle boxes. More recycling is taking place in that area than ever before! Furthermore, local business owners have installed bike-racks in front of their shops (we still could use more). Their actions of personal initiative have been extremely effective in encouraging recycling and supporting clean-transport(bikes)! None of these measures required any government intervention, or a large amount of capital. They only required some insight, some brains, a small amount of capital, and a bit of elbow grease.