tito

Steering away from global warming for a second, let's hypothesise over the outcome of environmentalism during the industrial revolution.

The London smog, should it have been cleaned up by decree and legislation?

__________________
For life, Liberty and Prosperity
http://lpuk.org/

Besoeker

It largely was, wasn't it?
The Clean Air Acts of 1956 and 1968?

mkpdavies

I know there is an argument that this was going to sort itself out anyway, but the fact smog was demonstrably down to pollution (real pollution, not made up pollution like co2), means I think government (backed by the will of the people) were justified in legislating.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

AlanA

I rather liked those 'pea soupers'. It was all we had to eat up north !

tito

Long after.

But what if action was taken quickly?

MKPD, I used to be inclined to believe you. But consider it is the same smog that is the product of the industrial revolution that has raised life expectancy from 30 years in the agrarian culture to todays incredible ages.

Nobody has the right to live in a perfect city.

__________________
For life, Liberty and Prosperity
http://lpuk.org/

Smidgey

Indeed. People often see the industrial revolution as the perfect example against rampant capitalism. I see it as one of the greatest periods of growth and advancement in human civilisation. Sure, there was smog and there were work houses (although they were a government creation), but compared to what went before, unless you were a rich person, it would have been a huge step up.

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel

Westcountryman

But people have the right to expose others to harmful chemicals, smog etc? Don't think so.

__________________
Porthemmet Beach

Smidgey

I think it really comes down to a property issue. You are free to work in a factory that exposes you to, for example, asbestos. The factory, however, is not allow to spray asbestos fibres all over your property (unless of course, for some rediculous reason, you want it to).

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel

Besoeker

Maybe not as long after some of the really bad stuff..........

mkpdavies

That's a bit of a Robin Hood argument though. You could argue that robbing some rich fat ******* and giving his money to 30 families has a net benefit. It is still morally wrong though and will lead us all to hell. What is perfect anyway? I don't expect perfection, but I do expect the right to breath without choking. Actual, proveable physical harm has to be dealt with by the rule of law.

If you can prove something has a bad effect on other people, then I think it is right that you try and prevent that bad effect. I don't think the industrial revolution was that badly disrupted, as the measures were not overly extreme.

Not like what envirofascists are trying to force through today, off of the back of something that isn't even pollution anyway. I have said from the beginning though. If it is proven that

a) Man is changing the climate.
b) It is co2 that is doing it.
c) This change is bad rather than good or even
d) It is net negative and
e) We really can do something about it.

Then I would support suggested measures. My beef is than NONE of those issues have been proven. Indeed, there is utter ********, assumption and dismisal of debate which means it is more likely to be fascists trying to get their own way, rather than any real concern for the environment.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems