At 12:43 PM 7/18/01 +0200 Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM wrote:
>> >That's not the aim of the campaigns and the Eco-tax. The purpose of
>> >the entire exercise is not to tell people they must compensate for the
>> >damage they do, the purpose is to get people to use less energy
>> >because it's better for the environment.
>>
>> That's silly.....
>
>Using less energy means less pollution. What is silly about getting people
>to cut back on their energy consumption to reduce pollution?
Because its not associated with a cost-benefit analysis. We can lower
pollution by cutting power to hospitals too.
But I think that even you and Kat wouldn't support that.
In this case, the PR campaign by the Dutch government has a certain cost
(C), part of which is a certain amount of pollution (P). Unless the
campaign decreases Dutch pollution by an amount equal or greater to P, and
generates total benefit equal or greater to C, then the campaign was not
only a failure - but counter-productive. This is the reason why the Dutch
government doesn't spend $1bil on the PR campaign.
Unless the Dutch government has some sort of knowledge of the comparitive
cost of forgoing energy consumption vs. correcting damage to the
environment for energy consumption, then they are just spending money
without much of a point.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
We are products of the same history, reaching from Jerusalem and
Athens to Warsaw and Washington. We share more than an alliance.
We share a civilization. - George W. Bush, Warsaw, 06/15/01
