Today I heard an interview with a woman attending an event where the Democrat presidential candidates had just spoken. She said she liked John Kerry because, among other things, he can "take it to the president on the environment." Huh? Is there some environmental catastrophe playing itself out somewhere that the president is ignoring? Only in the mind of this woman and others like her. Oh, and by the way, she didn't even seem to know that Senator Kerry served in Vietnam.

I think that the Dems have been successful (and disingenuous) in grasping the mantle of saviors of the environment. This is one of the few issues that they are effective on. I know lots of 20-somethings who pulled the lever for Al Gore because of "The Environment."

The free market voice vs. regulation has got to be heard.

Just thought I would weigh in and let you know that not all of us left of center folks disagree with you on the environment. It is of course precisely environmental regulations that got us to where we are today, better than we were 25 years ago. As a child growing up in Los Angeles I can attest first hand to the fact that the air is now cleaner than it was in the 1970's. But, as JK suggests, it was prosperity that allowed us to make environmental regulations. China is just us 50 years ago.

Now, the lefty in me will have to remind you that Detriot automakers claimed that the pollution standards proposed in the 1970's would ruin them, and yet here we are 30 years later with cars 100-400 times cleaner. In some cases the free market needs a good push in the right direction, even if it is from government regulations, because in this case as is the case for many environmental issues there is no free market force that will accomplish what some of our environmental regulations have.

Without regulation, Detroit cars would be substantially dirtier? I really don't believe that. I've no empirical proof of course, but my anecdotal comment is that the Feds fought to force air bags. When the market demanded passenger air bags, all cars installed them, now side bags, &c. I think that the market would have done as well or better.

My favorite example is the mileage standards that created the dreaded and evil SUV. Without CAFE, I think Detroit would make more Subaru Outback style vehicles, but the government makes 'em make trucks.

I think what we have here is a case of specific outcomes. It is true that modern cars emit less hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen than they did in the sixties. And it is not immediately obvious that consumers would demand cars with lower emissions, in the way they demanded cars with airbags. But if cars didn't pollute less, and densely populated cities continued to grow as they did, then it is clear that the resultant higher pollution density would have motivated many more consumers to leave the big cities for suburbs, or the country, or even brand new small towns that they'd spawn in the middle of nowhere. What positive societal effects has this LACK of metropolis-exodus denied the good citizens of America? One of these, at least, would have been an increase in the number of voters in red counties at the expense of the blue ones.

True on both counts, hard to say what would have happened, or if the market would have soon demanded cleaner cars. I do believe that the market has many balancing effets, just that in the case of some environmental factors the balancing effect (mass sickness?) that demands the market change can be a long time in coming, and that in some of these cases, like the Clean Air Act, that providing a more immediate check on the free market system is beneficial to society. The market can also provide balances to governmental regulations as well as evidenced by the recent change in California law regarding zero emmisons vehicles. The inability of the market to meet those demands coupled with their ability to provide options that come very close has led the California legistlature to change the law more in favor of ULEV's. This should pave the way for more and better hybrids and fuel cell vehicles.

The auto industrie's response to the Clean Air Act of the '70s and to some of the current and proposed regulations shows the power and innovation potential of the free market. Despite dire warnings, they were able to adapt and continue producing vehicles and making a profit. Something to keep in mind the next time you hear how X regulation will ruin an industry. There will always be resistance to change especially from those comfortably profitable with the current system, (The man with 4 aces never asks for a new deal) but that does not make change bad or ruinous to the free market.

I think the main ideas I am arguing against here are the notions that "change" is in any way dependent upon governmental action, or that in the absence of government oversight the results of market forces will be undesirable. Most of the resistance to change or incentives to act in undesirable ways are a reaction to previous governmental actions and regulations. Now the government looks like the good guy when it "creates" incentives for change by awarding temporary tax credits. Everyone who defends the honor and good intentions of America's meddling bureaucracy ignores the harm it has already done to the healthy functioning of a market economy.