Trust in the free market? It may not be good for your health

A look at the development of CFCs and Leaded Gas

Published on September 26, 2003 By Calor In Politics

Thanks to some bad luck and the free market, we nearly destroyed our planet in the 20th century. No, I'm not talking about atomic bombs, I"m talking about how we seriously nearly died. Hardly anyone knows about it because it's not "sexy" news.
One man named Mr. Thomas Midgley invented two things in his illustriious (disastrous) career: 1) Chlorofluorocarbons and 2) Leaded Gasoline

Today, we enjoy his two inventions on a daily basis. There is roughly 700 times more lead in our atmosphere today than there was a century ago. Lead, in case you were asleep in high school, is a deadly poison to humans. It causes brain damage in incredibly small dosages. That would explain a lot of things...

CFCs, on the other hand, were even worse. The ozone hole we enjoy today can be thanked for the use of CFCs in refrigeration. It only takes a little bit of CFC to destroy a lot of ozone in the upper atmosphere and it takes hundreds of years for even a small amount of upper atmosphere ozone to get in place. Without the ozone layer we have the unfortunate tendency to die. Sure we banned CFCs in the United States recently. But it's still in use in third world countries.

What does this have to do with the "free market"? Because it was the much disdained "big government" that saved our planet from extinction. It wasn't big business. It cure wasn't the media since how many people outside scientific circles are even aware of how close we came to wiping ourselves out? Another 50 years of CFCs and human life on this planet would have been doomed. I'm not kidding or exaggerating. Yet few people know about this because it's not that exciting. There is no follow up story. We banned CFCs. By we I mean the governments of the world. If the "free market" had had its way, we'd be looking forward to the twilight of human existence on this world.

You see, the corporate interests not only resisted the move to stop putting lead into gasoline as well as putting a stop to CFCs, it actively worked to try to discount the danger with bogus health studies, cover-ups, and black balling of scientists who tried to warn the public. This case isn't the exception to the rule. It is a rather typical, if frightening, example of how the "market regulates" itself. Market forces only concern themselves with profit. They do not concern themselves with the public interest unless not doing so affects profits. Non-governmental opposition forces are often not organized enough or funded well enough to counter vested interests.

So next time you see some Republican chime out that we should let the market regulate itself, just remember, if we had taken the right's advice on that as a general rule, we'd be living on a dying world.

Comments

Alex T6903

on Sep 26, 2003

I don’t understand why people continue to bash the free market. Do you realize who the free market is? It’s YOU; it’s your neighbor, and it’s your family. CFC’s weren’t banned because some government environmental swat team thought our lives were in danger, no, it was because of political pressure brought on by the free market. There were demonstrations and boycotts, phone calls to congressmen; all these things are free market mechanisms. The government is no more altruistic then the average corporation, after all it’s the same people who run them, American citizens.

Calor

on Sep 26, 2003

CFCs were banned by the government in response to the outcries of a tiny minority of citizens who were aware of what was happening.

They weren't banned due to "market forces". People didn't stop purchasing products with CFCs. People didn't refuse to purchase cars that used leaded gas.

No, people turned to their government to put a stop to leaded gas and CFCs. If we had "let the market decide" we'd be doomed now. It wasn't consumer purchasing choices that led to the banning, it was government intervention.

kryo

on Sep 26, 2003

"Another 50 years of CFCs and human life on this planet would have been doomed. I'm not kidding or exaggerating"

Sadly, you are. The problem with environmentalists whining about the ozone hole is that it was never a detriment to humans. Quite the contrary in fact. The reason for this is that while the antarctic region saw a thinning of the ozone layer, it was simultaneously thickening over populated areas *where the CFCs were actually being produced*. The "science" explaining the process of CFCs destroying ozone molecules and preventing the formation of new ones was roundabout and dubious at best--it was merely a way for enviros to get their way in banning CFCs.

Even now, the ozone layer is returning to a more even distribution, with the stronger points over populated areas thinning and the antarctic zone thickening. Of course, environmentalists will rush to say this is all thanks to their efforts, but there is in reality no scientific evidence to prove that this is any more than a natural process (just like global warming and cooling).

Alex T6903

on Sep 26, 2003

People did stop buying products made with CFC's, most notable was the nationwide boycott on McDonalds for the use of Styrofoam containers. Eventually this resulted in them being replaced by the current paper products with a cardboard ring around the sandwich, which was later removed, also due to environmental pressure.

russellmz

on Sep 26, 2003

the free market is great for dividing up resources/products, setting prices, making sure companies try their best, and making a pile of cash.

it is not so great with things that people basically don't own, like the environment ("the tragedy of the commons"). no one owns the oceans, but if a company dumps pollution that kills fish in the ocean, fisherman would be screwed. how to solve this?

it also isn't that great for fixing the "freeloader" problem: example, no one shipping company in old times could afford to create a lighthouse. if they did they would have to pay for it AND other companies would not but still benefit from the lighthouse paid for by someone else. a group of companies would not be able to do it for long otherwise a new company would arise and it would benefit without paying.

to sum up: with government and free markets, extremes suck, combination good.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!