In rebuttal - a "Republican living in London"
Okaaaaay... The BBC put a foot massively wrong this morning.
After interviewing Richard Branson on his proposals to change the way airports operate in order to cut back on greenhouse emissions, they offered an opposing viewpoint. Sort of. I had to fire off an email to them...
Why did we listen to Charlie Wolf? "A Republican living in London" has some expertise on greenhouse gasses? All he could do was appeal to the God of the Market - a god notorious for not caring about anything except tomorrow's profit margin. I wouldn't have minded hearing someone's take about Richard Branson's suggestion based on knowledge of airports or some other facet of the problem, but that man offered us nothing worth hearing.In fact, he opened up by telling us that, although he "respected" Branson, the man "isn't so much trying to save the planet as save airplane fuel." "Who wouldn't?" he repeated several times, and didn't seem able to grasp that it might in fact be possible to want to save both. He then said that if he were Branson, working with Schwarzenegger (whom he, of course, "also respect[s]"), he'd have to ask why the governor was trying to drive business out of California.
Business. Bottom line. Profit. That's what Mr Wolf sees no matter where he looks. And they not only see only that, and care about only that, they think everyone either is like them, or should be.
Labels: politics
3 Comments:
-
At 12:21 PM, September 27, 2006
Anonymous had this to say...
-
-
At 3:55 PM, September 27, 2006
The Ridger, FCD had this to say...
-
-
At 4:01 PM, September 27, 2006
The Ridger, FCD had this to say...
-
-
<-- Older Post ^ Home Newer Post -->And let me see, Mr. Branson runs a non for profit company?
If greenhouse gasses, or global warming is a problem, and no there is no consensus on this issue, ultimately it is the market that will solve it.
As Mr. Wolf said, there are no free rides -- every choice has a consequence and a cost.
But Mr Wolf scoffed at the very thought of trying to solve the problem.
Of course there are no free rides, but profit isn't the only thing to consider. Less profit isn't the same as no profit, after all.
Plus - the market often "solves" problems by waiting until there is only one solution, and that solution far from the best. If all I care about is making as much money as I can as fast as I can, then that's all I care about. Putting things off because you want to maximize your profits only shifts the problem to later down the line, when it will be harder to deal with because the options have narrowed and, many times, disappeared. Sneering at people who are content to make less profit than they could if they put nothing back isn't constructive.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]