I doubt that environmental regulations had a lot to do with the declining share of manufacturing in US/UK. I do not doubt that many are not cost effective, but the scale of the change demands something bigger, like fiscal deficits that required the Fed to have higher interest rates that attracted more foreign financial capital that overvalued the dollar and depressed exports.
I doubt that environmental regulations had a lot to do with the declining share of manufacturing in US/UK. I do not doubt that many are not cost effective, but the scale of the change demands something bigger, like fiscal deficits that required the Fed to have higher interest rates that attracted more foreign financial capital that overvalued the dollar and depressed exports.
There are two sides to this, one to your point about not being cost effective goes back to the unions and the thatcher/raegan era. Some industries were indeed not cost effective on their own merit and kept alive by greedy union bosses and corrupt politicians. But todays point is the current closures are being done to 'reduce carbon footprint'. The most recent example is talbot steel, Tata the parent company have closed it due to regulations making it 'too expensive' while politicians dance about reducing our 'carbon footprint'. What they've actually done is relocated the exact same plant to India where there's ,more relaxed regs, cheaper (read slave) wages, and are now shipping the same steel back to Britain. Thats a net increase in carbon output due to shipping but of course thats not the point. NIMBY green in name only idiocy.
Cost effectiveness is not a primary consideration for national security. Especially when it comes to manufacturing food, clothing, military equipment, ammunition and logistcs.
I doubt that environmental regulations had a lot to do with the declining share of manufacturing in US/UK. I do not doubt that many are not cost effective, but the scale of the change demands something bigger, like fiscal deficits that required the Fed to have higher interest rates that attracted more foreign financial capital that overvalued the dollar and depressed exports.
There are two sides to this, one to your point about not being cost effective goes back to the unions and the thatcher/raegan era. Some industries were indeed not cost effective on their own merit and kept alive by greedy union bosses and corrupt politicians. But todays point is the current closures are being done to 'reduce carbon footprint'. The most recent example is talbot steel, Tata the parent company have closed it due to regulations making it 'too expensive' while politicians dance about reducing our 'carbon footprint'. What they've actually done is relocated the exact same plant to India where there's ,more relaxed regs, cheaper (read slave) wages, and are now shipping the same steel back to Britain. Thats a net increase in carbon output due to shipping but of course thats not the point. NIMBY green in name only idiocy.
Cost effectiveness is not a primary consideration for national security. Especially when it comes to manufacturing food, clothing, military equipment, ammunition and logistcs.
100% agree and would only comment to add energy to that list.