Proposition 23

[jstoesz]

duplicate deleted

[CricketOnTheHearth]

Several thoughts:

Solar electric is indeed still more expensive than natural gas turbine electric, and pretty resource-intensive to make the panels. Solar hot water heating, however, would save us a bundle of energy and it is cheap, simple technology.

I figured Prop 23 was kind of bogus when I saw their graph of when unemployment was under 5.5% in California. It’s like 10% of the past 10 or 20 years. So what the prop is saying is, “we will cap our emissions… like… never.”

I also appreciate the clean-air standards, especially whenever I am in traffic behind a ’60’s or ’70’s-vintage car and smell its exhaust. That’s a distinctive smell that takes me back to my childhood, and when I imagine an entire LA Basin full of such cars and their resulting stench, I wince and think, “thank goodness for catalytic converters and pollution controls”.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

Several thoughts:

Solar electric is indeed still more expensive than natural gas turbine electric, and pretty resource-intensive to make the panels. Solar hot water heating, however, would save us a bundle of energy and it is cheap, simple technology.

I figured Prop 23 was kind of bogus when I saw their graph of when unemployment was under 5.5% in California. It’s like 10% of the past 10 or 20 years. So what the prop is saying is, “we will cap our emissions… like… never.”

I also appreciate the clean-air standards, especially whenever I am in traffic behind a ’60’s or ’70’s-vintage car and smell its exhaust. That’s a distinctive smell that takes me back to my childhood, and when I imagine an entire LA Basin full of such cars and their resulting stench, I wince and think, “thank goodness for catalytic converters and pollution controls”.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

Several thoughts:

Solar electric is indeed still more expensive than natural gas turbine electric, and pretty resource-intensive to make the panels. Solar hot water heating, however, would save us a bundle of energy and it is cheap, simple technology.

I figured Prop 23 was kind of bogus when I saw their graph of when unemployment was under 5.5% in California. It’s like 10% of the past 10 or 20 years. So what the prop is saying is, “we will cap our emissions… like… never.”

I also appreciate the clean-air standards, especially whenever I am in traffic behind a ’60’s or ’70’s-vintage car and smell its exhaust. That’s a distinctive smell that takes me back to my childhood, and when I imagine an entire LA Basin full of such cars and their resulting stench, I wince and think, “thank goodness for catalytic converters and pollution controls”.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

Several thoughts:

Solar electric is indeed still more expensive than natural gas turbine electric, and pretty resource-intensive to make the panels. Solar hot water heating, however, would save us a bundle of energy and it is cheap, simple technology.

I figured Prop 23 was kind of bogus when I saw their graph of when unemployment was under 5.5% in California. It’s like 10% of the past 10 or 20 years. So what the prop is saying is, “we will cap our emissions… like… never.”

I also appreciate the clean-air standards, especially whenever I am in traffic behind a ’60’s or ’70’s-vintage car and smell its exhaust. That’s a distinctive smell that takes me back to my childhood, and when I imagine an entire LA Basin full of such cars and their resulting stench, I wince and think, “thank goodness for catalytic converters and pollution controls”.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

Several thoughts:

Solar electric is indeed still more expensive than natural gas turbine electric, and pretty resource-intensive to make the panels. Solar hot water heating, however, would save us a bundle of energy and it is cheap, simple technology.

I figured Prop 23 was kind of bogus when I saw their graph of when unemployment was under 5.5% in California. It’s like 10% of the past 10 or 20 years. So what the prop is saying is, “we will cap our emissions… like… never.”

I also appreciate the clean-air standards, especially whenever I am in traffic behind a ’60’s or ’70’s-vintage car and smell its exhaust. That’s a distinctive smell that takes me back to my childhood, and when I imagine an entire LA Basin full of such cars and their resulting stench, I wince and think, “thank goodness for catalytic converters and pollution controls”.

[EconProf]

jstoesz: well put.
You are using science and real data to make your points. But the global alarmists are unconvinced because environmentalism has become a religion.
Every commentator here is against pollution. The question is one of balance: how much should we sacrifice to obtain each increment of reduced pollution. At some point it becomes wasteful of resources that could be better used to some other desirable ends. To extremists and those who do not understand tradeoffs, lessening pollution should be our only goal.

[EconProf]

jstoesz: well put.
You are using science and real data to make your points. But the global alarmists are unconvinced because environmentalism has become a religion.
Every commentator here is against pollution. The question is one of balance: how much should we sacrifice to obtain each increment of reduced pollution. At some point it becomes wasteful of resources that could be better used to some other desirable ends. To extremists and those who do not understand tradeoffs, lessening pollution should be our only goal.

[EconProf]

jstoesz: well put.
You are using science and real data to make your points. But the global alarmists are unconvinced because environmentalism has become a religion.
Every commentator here is against pollution. The question is one of balance: how much should we sacrifice to obtain each increment of reduced pollution. At some point it becomes wasteful of resources that could be better used to some other desirable ends. To extremists and those who do not understand tradeoffs, lessening pollution should be our only goal.

[EconProf]

jstoesz: well put.
You are using science and real data to make your points. But the global alarmists are unconvinced because environmentalism has become a religion.
Every commentator here is against pollution. The question is one of balance: how much should we sacrifice to obtain each increment of reduced pollution. At some point it becomes wasteful of resources that could be better used to some other desirable ends. To extremists and those who do not understand tradeoffs, lessening pollution should be our only goal.

[EconProf]

jstoesz: well put.
You are using science and real data to make your points. But the global alarmists are unconvinced because environmentalism has become a religion.
Every commentator here is against pollution. The question is one of balance: how much should we sacrifice to obtain each increment of reduced pollution. At some point it becomes wasteful of resources that could be better used to some other desirable ends. To extremists and those who do not understand tradeoffs, lessening pollution should be our only goal.

[EconProf]

Cricket: You are correct about smog in LA and San Diego in the 1960s and 1970s. Vehicles then were totally uncontrolled and all belched pollution.
The first efforts to clean them up were introduced gradually, with Detroit required to ramp up controls over the years. They squealed, of course–who wants to absorb higher costs and pass them on to the consumer. But they came up with the technology and now over 90% of pollution is eliminated via catalytic converters on new cars, at a cost, I believe, of something like $500 per vehicle. In retrospect, it was worth it.
Now the question is how much do we want to spend to go from 90% to 95%, or 99%. I suggest diminishing returns has set in with a vengence, and we could get much more pollution reduction by, say, confronting the uncontrolled Mexican cars crossing our borders daily, or lawnmowers (seriously–they are big polluters), or some other sources of pollution.
We have pretty clean air in San Diego and L.A. Let’s take some credit for that and go on to the next easiest and cheapest form of pollution reduction. I, and others, suggest AB 32 is a wasteful and uneconomic approach that is not worth the true costs.

[EconProf]

Cricket: You are correct about smog in LA and San Diego in the 1960s and 1970s. Vehicles then were totally uncontrolled and all belched pollution.
The first efforts to clean them up were introduced gradually, with Detroit required to ramp up controls over the years. They squealed, of course–who wants to absorb higher costs and pass them on to the consumer. But they came up with the technology and now over 90% of pollution is eliminated via catalytic converters on new cars, at a cost, I believe, of something like $500 per vehicle. In retrospect, it was worth it.
Now the question is how much do we want to spend to go from 90% to 95%, or 99%. I suggest diminishing returns has set in with a vengence, and we could get much more pollution reduction by, say, confronting the uncontrolled Mexican cars crossing our borders daily, or lawnmowers (seriously–they are big polluters), or some other sources of pollution.
We have pretty clean air in San Diego and L.A. Let’s take some credit for that and go on to the next easiest and cheapest form of pollution reduction. I, and others, suggest AB 32 is a wasteful and uneconomic approach that is not worth the true costs.

[EconProf]

Cricket: You are correct about smog in LA and San Diego in the 1960s and 1970s. Vehicles then were totally uncontrolled and all belched pollution.
The first efforts to clean them up were introduced gradually, with Detroit required to ramp up controls over the years. They squealed, of course–who wants to absorb higher costs and pass them on to the consumer. But they came up with the technology and now over 90% of pollution is eliminated via catalytic converters on new cars, at a cost, I believe, of something like $500 per vehicle. In retrospect, it was worth it.
Now the question is how much do we want to spend to go from 90% to 95%, or 99%. I suggest diminishing returns has set in with a vengence, and we could get much more pollution reduction by, say, confronting the uncontrolled Mexican cars crossing our borders daily, or lawnmowers (seriously–they are big polluters), or some other sources of pollution.
We have pretty clean air in San Diego and L.A. Let’s take some credit for that and go on to the next easiest and cheapest form of pollution reduction. I, and others, suggest AB 32 is a wasteful and uneconomic approach that is not worth the true costs.

[EconProf]

Cricket: You are correct about smog in LA and San Diego in the 1960s and 1970s. Vehicles then were totally uncontrolled and all belched pollution.
The first efforts to clean them up were introduced gradually, with Detroit required to ramp up controls over the years. They squealed, of course–who wants to absorb higher costs and pass them on to the consumer. But they came up with the technology and now over 90% of pollution is eliminated via catalytic converters on new cars, at a cost, I believe, of something like $500 per vehicle. In retrospect, it was worth it.
Now the question is how much do we want to spend to go from 90% to 95%, or 99%. I suggest diminishing returns has set in with a vengence, and we could get much more pollution reduction by, say, confronting the uncontrolled Mexican cars crossing our borders daily, or lawnmowers (seriously–they are big polluters), or some other sources of pollution.
We have pretty clean air in San Diego and L.A. Let’s take some credit for that and go on to the next easiest and cheapest form of pollution reduction. I, and others, suggest AB 32 is a wasteful and uneconomic approach that is not worth the true costs.

[Author]

Posts