- This topic has 850 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
fredo4.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 6, 2010 at 10:58 PM #614896October 7, 2010 at 12:06 AM #613865
BigGovernmentIsGood
ParticipantA quarter of nation’s small businesses negatively impacted by Gulf oil spill:
Wow! Let’s keep Big Oil from destroying any more small business than they already have.
October 7, 2010 at 12:06 AM #613951ParticipantA quarter of nation’s small businesses negatively impacted by Gulf oil spill:
Wow! Let’s keep Big Oil from destroying any more small business than they already have.
October 7, 2010 at 12:06 AM #614495ParticipantA quarter of nation’s small businesses negatively impacted by Gulf oil spill:
Wow! Let’s keep Big Oil from destroying any more small business than they already have.
October 7, 2010 at 12:06 AM #614610ParticipantA quarter of nation’s small businesses negatively impacted by Gulf oil spill:
Wow! Let’s keep Big Oil from destroying any more small business than they already have.
October 7, 2010 at 12:06 AM #614916ParticipantA quarter of nation’s small businesses negatively impacted by Gulf oil spill:
Wow! Let’s keep Big Oil from destroying any more small business than they already have.
October 7, 2010 at 12:51 AM #613889CA renter
Participant[quote=UCGal]Semi-hijack.
I’m old enough to remember having frequent “smog alerts” in the late 60’s and early 70’s. It was bad. Your lungs literally hurt from breathing the crappy air. I’m glad they passed the laws that improved the air quality.[/quote]Yep!
Mr. CAR and I both grew up in L.A., and we well remember the days when you couldn’t see the mountains on the other side of the San Fernando Valley (I was 7 years old before noticing that there were mountains on the east side of the Valley!). The air quality is 100% better, and we’ve managed to do it with an even larger population.
IMHO, the smog restrictions on cars are a big part of this. FWIW, I would gladly pay more for energy if we could reduce emissions/live in a cleaner environment. People who don’t want to do that are being short-sighted (like I was when objecting to the smog restrictions on cars because, at the time, I couldn’t afford cars that could pass a smog check).
October 7, 2010 at 12:51 AM #613973Participant[quote=UCGal]Semi-hijack.
I’m old enough to remember having frequent “smog alerts” in the late 60’s and early 70’s. It was bad. Your lungs literally hurt from breathing the crappy air. I’m glad they passed the laws that improved the air quality.[/quote]Yep!
Mr. CAR and I both grew up in L.A., and we well remember the days when you couldn’t see the mountains on the other side of the San Fernando Valley (I was 7 years old before noticing that there were mountains on the east side of the Valley!). The air quality is 100% better, and we’ve managed to do it with an even larger population.
IMHO, the smog restrictions on cars are a big part of this. FWIW, I would gladly pay more for energy if we could reduce emissions/live in a cleaner environment. People who don’t want to do that are being short-sighted (like I was when objecting to the smog restrictions on cars because, at the time, I couldn’t afford cars that could pass a smog check).
October 7, 2010 at 12:51 AM #614517Participant[quote=UCGal]Semi-hijack.
I’m old enough to remember having frequent “smog alerts” in the late 60’s and early 70’s. It was bad. Your lungs literally hurt from breathing the crappy air. I’m glad they passed the laws that improved the air quality.[/quote]Yep!
Mr. CAR and I both grew up in L.A., and we well remember the days when you couldn’t see the mountains on the other side of the San Fernando Valley (I was 7 years old before noticing that there were mountains on the east side of the Valley!). The air quality is 100% better, and we’ve managed to do it with an even larger population.
IMHO, the smog restrictions on cars are a big part of this. FWIW, I would gladly pay more for energy if we could reduce emissions/live in a cleaner environment. People who don’t want to do that are being short-sighted (like I was when objecting to the smog restrictions on cars because, at the time, I couldn’t afford cars that could pass a smog check).
October 7, 2010 at 12:51 AM #614632Participant[quote=UCGal]Semi-hijack.
I’m old enough to remember having frequent “smog alerts” in the late 60’s and early 70’s. It was bad. Your lungs literally hurt from breathing the crappy air. I’m glad they passed the laws that improved the air quality.[/quote]Yep!
Mr. CAR and I both grew up in L.A., and we well remember the days when you couldn’t see the mountains on the other side of the San Fernando Valley (I was 7 years old before noticing that there were mountains on the east side of the Valley!). The air quality is 100% better, and we’ve managed to do it with an even larger population.
IMHO, the smog restrictions on cars are a big part of this. FWIW, I would gladly pay more for energy if we could reduce emissions/live in a cleaner environment. People who don’t want to do that are being short-sighted (like I was when objecting to the smog restrictions on cars because, at the time, I couldn’t afford cars that could pass a smog check).
October 7, 2010 at 12:51 AM #614938Participant[quote=UCGal]Semi-hijack.
I’m old enough to remember having frequent “smog alerts” in the late 60’s and early 70’s. It was bad. Your lungs literally hurt from breathing the crappy air. I’m glad they passed the laws that improved the air quality.[/quote]Yep!
Mr. CAR and I both grew up in L.A., and we well remember the days when you couldn’t see the mountains on the other side of the San Fernando Valley (I was 7 years old before noticing that there were mountains on the east side of the Valley!). The air quality is 100% better, and we’ve managed to do it with an even larger population.
IMHO, the smog restrictions on cars are a big part of this. FWIW, I would gladly pay more for energy if we could reduce emissions/live in a cleaner environment. People who don’t want to do that are being short-sighted (like I was when objecting to the smog restrictions on cars because, at the time, I couldn’t afford cars that could pass a smog check).
October 7, 2010 at 12:54 AM #613893Participant[quote=EconProf]I have seen that study of the damaging economic effects of Prop 32 cited elsewhere and as far as I know it hasn’t been refuted by the anti-23 crowd. Part of it predicts the loss of 1.1 million CA jobs, I believe over 10 years. Even if their conclusions are off by a factor of three, its a disaster to our already high unemployment rate.
Proposition 32 is commiting economic suicide by a single state. The jobs and businesses will flee to neighboring states (and countries), a process that has already begun.
You may remember the Law of Diminishing Returns. It holds that additional efforts (or inputs) yield smaller and smaller benefits. This has relevance to fighting pollution. The cost of cuting in half a gross polluting vehicle (or factory, or coal-fired generating plant) is quite small, compared to the cost of cutting pollution by 75%, or to get really expensive, 90%. Initial measures are cheap and easy, making that plant 99% clean would be exhorbitant and wasteful. This suggests we shouldn’t aim for perfection but have to accept an optimal level of pollution. What the posters on this site disagree about is where that optimum is.
I don’t like pollution, but I think Prop 32 went too far. Since China is building a new coal-fired electric generating plant every week, totally uncontrolled as to emissions, CA’s heroic efforts with Prop 32 are wasteful and insignificant to the world’s pollution. China (and Mexico, etc.) should be persuaded, or paid, to control their pollution first. It would be cheaper for us, since a small dollar cost would result in much more pollution abatement as they are way back oin the diminishing returns curve. More bang for the buck. The tricky thing, of course, is to persuade or bribe them.[/quote]Okay, I agree with this as well.
October 7, 2010 at 12:54 AM #613978Participant[quote=EconProf]I have seen that study of the damaging economic effects of Prop 32 cited elsewhere and as far as I know it hasn’t been refuted by the anti-23 crowd. Part of it predicts the loss of 1.1 million CA jobs, I believe over 10 years. Even if their conclusions are off by a factor of three, its a disaster to our already high unemployment rate.
Proposition 32 is commiting economic suicide by a single state. The jobs and businesses will flee to neighboring states (and countries), a process that has already begun.
You may remember the Law of Diminishing Returns. It holds that additional efforts (or inputs) yield smaller and smaller benefits. This has relevance to fighting pollution. The cost of cuting in half a gross polluting vehicle (or factory, or coal-fired generating plant) is quite small, compared to the cost of cutting pollution by 75%, or to get really expensive, 90%. Initial measures are cheap and easy, making that plant 99% clean would be exhorbitant and wasteful. This suggests we shouldn’t aim for perfection but have to accept an optimal level of pollution. What the posters on this site disagree about is where that optimum is.
I don’t like pollution, but I think Prop 32 went too far. Since China is building a new coal-fired electric generating plant every week, totally uncontrolled as to emissions, CA’s heroic efforts with Prop 32 are wasteful and insignificant to the world’s pollution. China (and Mexico, etc.) should be persuaded, or paid, to control their pollution first. It would be cheaper for us, since a small dollar cost would result in much more pollution abatement as they are way back oin the diminishing returns curve. More bang for the buck. The tricky thing, of course, is to persuade or bribe them.[/quote]Okay, I agree with this as well.
October 7, 2010 at 12:54 AM #614522Participant[quote=EconProf]I have seen that study of the damaging economic effects of Prop 32 cited elsewhere and as far as I know it hasn’t been refuted by the anti-23 crowd. Part of it predicts the loss of 1.1 million CA jobs, I believe over 10 years. Even if their conclusions are off by a factor of three, its a disaster to our already high unemployment rate.
Proposition 32 is commiting economic suicide by a single state. The jobs and businesses will flee to neighboring states (and countries), a process that has already begun.
You may remember the Law of Diminishing Returns. It holds that additional efforts (or inputs) yield smaller and smaller benefits. This has relevance to fighting pollution. The cost of cuting in half a gross polluting vehicle (or factory, or coal-fired generating plant) is quite small, compared to the cost of cutting pollution by 75%, or to get really expensive, 90%. Initial measures are cheap and easy, making that plant 99% clean would be exhorbitant and wasteful. This suggests we shouldn’t aim for perfection but have to accept an optimal level of pollution. What the posters on this site disagree about is where that optimum is.
I don’t like pollution, but I think Prop 32 went too far. Since China is building a new coal-fired electric generating plant every week, totally uncontrolled as to emissions, CA’s heroic efforts with Prop 32 are wasteful and insignificant to the world’s pollution. China (and Mexico, etc.) should be persuaded, or paid, to control their pollution first. It would be cheaper for us, since a small dollar cost would result in much more pollution abatement as they are way back oin the diminishing returns curve. More bang for the buck. The tricky thing, of course, is to persuade or bribe them.[/quote]Okay, I agree with this as well.
October 7, 2010 at 12:54 AM #614637Participant[quote=EconProf]I have seen that study of the damaging economic effects of Prop 32 cited elsewhere and as far as I know it hasn’t been refuted by the anti-23 crowd. Part of it predicts the loss of 1.1 million CA jobs, I believe over 10 years. Even if their conclusions are off by a factor of three, its a disaster to our already high unemployment rate.
Proposition 32 is commiting economic suicide by a single state. The jobs and businesses will flee to neighboring states (and countries), a process that has already begun.
You may remember the Law of Diminishing Returns. It holds that additional efforts (or inputs) yield smaller and smaller benefits. This has relevance to fighting pollution. The cost of cuting in half a gross polluting vehicle (or factory, or coal-fired generating plant) is quite small, compared to the cost of cutting pollution by 75%, or to get really expensive, 90%. Initial measures are cheap and easy, making that plant 99% clean would be exhorbitant and wasteful. This suggests we shouldn’t aim for perfection but have to accept an optimal level of pollution. What the posters on this site disagree about is where that optimum is.
I don’t like pollution, but I think Prop 32 went too far. Since China is building a new coal-fired electric generating plant every week, totally uncontrolled as to emissions, CA’s heroic efforts with Prop 32 are wasteful and insignificant to the world’s pollution. China (and Mexico, etc.) should be persuaded, or paid, to control their pollution first. It would be cheaper for us, since a small dollar cost would result in much more pollution abatement as they are way back oin the diminishing returns curve. More bang for the buck. The tricky thing, of course, is to persuade or bribe them.[/quote]Okay, I agree with this as well.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.