|
|
| What is your stance on Environmental Issues? |
There are two ways to address the impact our way of life is having on our environment. First, we can collectively give our money to the Government and hold it responsible to providing a solution. The second is to allow the private sector to create a solution that consumers will fund based on demand. There two approached cannot be executed simultaneously, because they will interfere with each other’s end result. The tax payer funded Government approach would have an unfair advantage over the private sector, because the Government doesn’t have a budget to meet or a payroll to make. The Private Sector trumps our Government in both innovation and product quality. This would result in lack of public demand for the Government solution.
By allowing the Private Sector to create environmentally conscious solutions, results will be produced in less time, cost less and provide superior answers. The Private Sector has to answer to consumers at the end of the day. Their very existence relies on making solutions that are high quality, inexpensive and yield actual results. If they fail to meet these expectations, the doors to their business will close. The Government solution has unlimited funding, the ability to force the public to use their solution, the ability to write the rules based on their solution and nothing but time on their side.
I am also a supporter of voluntary individual efforts to improve our environment. If solutions are created that actually produce results without compromising personal comfort or sharply raising cost, consumers would have no problem choosing a more environmentally responsible lifestyle.
An example of a poorly researched and failed solution is Ethanol. Ethanol research was heavily funded by our tax dollars. Then, tax payer funded farm subsidies were issued to entice farmers to grow enough corn needed to create the ethanol. Tax payer subsidized refineries were built to produce the corn into useable fuel. All of this money was spent without question and what did we get? We have a fuel that consumes more energy to produce than it delivers, costs more to produce, is 25-50% less efficient and burns dirtier than petroleum. Even if we switched completely over to Ethanol, American Farms are incapable of producing enough corn to come close to meeting our demand. The push for Ethanol and excessive corm production has also negatively impacted our natural animal migration patterns. This project is shortsighted and has failed miserably. Yet, our Government continues to heavily fund, regulate in favor of and legislatively support the effort.
Return to Issues Page >> | |
|
|
|
|
|
Environment
