🚀 go-pugleaf

In ca.environment rherrick@us.oracle.com (Rick Herrick) said: 
 
 
 
>... 
>So is requiring a timber company to restore forestlands fair?  Nope, I
suppose  
>that should be picked up by the taxpayers, since that's a cost to
business.   
>And remember the business of America is business.  Or making Western
ranchers  
>pay market value for grazing land?  Just transferring the cost onto long  
>suffering ranchers, right? 
> 
>Rick 
> 
 
 
This is an example of what the real problem is. Costs to the environment
are often externalized. The timber companies and grazing companies tend to
be subsidized by the taxpayer and the costs of destroying the environment
are not calculated in the cost of their  products. They are double dipping.
All of these costs should be paid for by the companies and passed on to the
consumer. This will of course raise the price of paper and cattle. This
will be not only fair but beneficial to the environment. Once we add the
cost of destroying the environment into the calculations and eliminate
government subsidies to industry we will no longer need for all
environmental efforts to be simply regulations. The free market and the
environmental movement will become one.