Web Letters: Guns Beat Green: The Market Has Spoken

Naomi Klein argues that the free market cannot solve the global warming problem because market incentives lead people to invest in development of security from the consequences of global warming rather than development of methods to solve global warming. I wonder if it's truly that simple. She does mention that the Homeland sector wants to invest in security rather than invest in solving the problem. This makes me wonder if at least a part of the reason that more investment is in security may be because Bush has made it clear that he would be more willing to buy security solutions rather than fixing solutions. Maybe if we had a President that is more interested in fixing the global warming problem, companies would respond by investing money in solutions for global warming.

Scott Kaplan

Franklin Lakes, NJ

I haven't believed for a minute that "the market" will in the end do the necessary thing in creating a greener environment, and thereby begin to turn the tide in saving our climate. After all, the corporate world is in it for the money--and one doesn't make money when having to adjust practices to protect the climate as those changes will cost money long before saving it.

I don't think people understand the concern about private security firms. Recall seeing the houses burning in California? One news story showed one house being doused with special fire retardant, while its neighbors continued to burn. No surprise, but the stuff was being applied by someone from a private security firm. OK, sure, people are spending their own money for such protection. My perception is that the US has, since the Reagan years, become a country where people are increasingly concerned with their own well-being over and above that of concerns for what used to be known as "the common good." (Remember that slogan: "Are you better off today than you were yesterday?" Talk about self-serving...)

Another topic of interest--and possibly connected--are all the people who don't want to pay taxes, yet want the benefit of all the public services funded by this. Again, this to the benefit of "the common good," but since that is no longer a primary national concern, we are turning into a very miserly, constricted populace.

Common life together costs money. Common life together requires respect and a concern for one another. I think one of the real breakdowns in American society today is found in this lack of interest in the common good. The evidence of this is found in our public and private policies and actions.

Kimberly Jones

Petoskey, MI

Regarding your statement, and in fact the thesis of your argument: Bush wants to leave our climate crisis to the ingenuity of the market. Well, the market has spoken: it will not take us off this disastrous course.

That very well might be what he wants and what he professes, but it's surely not what he's doing. Leaving the climate crisis to the market would mean stopping the subsidization of the American automobile/road ecosystem (bailouts for American car companies, tax breaks for oil refineries, limits on the construction of nuclear power plants, eminent domain, police deputized as traffic monitors, the incessant building and maintenance of millions of miles of roads and bridges). This would quickly undo decades of suburban sprawl and low-density development, as roads and gasoline quickly became far too expensive for consumers to buy, and they would be forced to move out of the manifestly unsustainable suburbs and into cities, which are by all measures far more environmentally friendly (not to mention economically efficient). Mass transit technologies would become economically viable in light of skyrocketing energy prices, as would renewable energy. Investment in renewable energies would obviate the need for destructive mining and drilling operations. Agribusiness would begin to fail (as it would be too expensive to ship those foods across the country), as would food chains whose business models rely on a hub-and-smoke model of food delivery. Local agriculture would flourish, especially with falling land prices as land becomes less and less useful to suburban housing developers. The poor would be freed from their obligation to buy an automobile in order to maintain a decent standard of living. The obesity epidemic among America's poor would be alleviated as people started eating more locally-grown, organic, non-processed food, and healthcare costs would subsequently drop as people started walking more rather than driving everywhere. Energy would cost what it actually costs, unsubsidized by the government, and we'd start using it more efficiently, even in the absence of government regulations. But none of this is what Bush is proposing, and it's disingenuous to call any of Bush's climate change proposals market-based solutions.

As for "Guns Beat Greens: The Market Has Spoken"--this is a highly misleading title. Who, exactly, is buying these guns and high-tech weaponry? Not the market--but governments around the world.

Stephen Smith

Bryn Mawr, PA

An insightful, penetrating and very thoughtful article with a chilling prophecy. I was only not so long ago saying similar things to others, and I hadn't read such things or been privy to such talk. It was reassuring to read her views that coincided with my own personal take. Thanks to Naomi. I will be buying her book tomorrow.

Lee Hossain

Lonndon, UK