Proposition 23

[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.

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=CA renter][quote=jstoesz]What are the ECONOMIC benefits of AB32?[/quote]

Are economic benefits the only metric we use to determine if something is worthwhile? What about health benefits, or quality of life benefits? Are those worth nothing?[/quote]

CAR: While I think you make an excellent point, I think its also fair to ask what this will really cost.

Being a California kid myself, and growing up during the 1970s in the Bay Area, I too remember how truly crappy the air quality was. While we didn’t it have nearly as bad as Los Angeles or the Valley, I remember those Stage 1 alerts vividly and the dreaded “inversion layer” (we actually had a few days off school due to extremely bad air quality).

So, I would never argue over achieving better air quality, but as EconProf points out, the costs are becoming truly prohibitive. And, in attempting to have a meaningful dialogue, you find yourself being shouted down by the Lunatic Left, which treats every question as religious heresy. As Katie Couric (that journalistic giant) opined: “The science is settled”. Well, no, it isn’t. There’s no such friggin’ thing. We’re still debating issues that date back hundreds of years, as new data, techniques and technologies drive things forward.

I’d like to see real data, real costs and real benefits and then have a discussion based on that.[/quote]

Allan,

Yes, you’re absolutely right about the need to evaluate the true costs and benefits of any environmental regulation/policy. Econ Prof made good points WRT diminishing returns, and I really can’t disagree with anything s/he has said. Still, I just wanted to point out that the “benefits” might not be economic — it still might be worth it (or not).

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=CA renter][quote=jstoesz]What are the ECONOMIC benefits of AB32?[/quote]

Are economic benefits the only metric we use to determine if something is worthwhile? What about health benefits, or quality of life benefits? Are those worth nothing?[/quote]

CAR: While I think you make an excellent point, I think its also fair to ask what this will really cost.

Being a California kid myself, and growing up during the 1970s in the Bay Area, I too remember how truly crappy the air quality was. While we didn’t it have nearly as bad as Los Angeles or the Valley, I remember those Stage 1 alerts vividly and the dreaded “inversion layer” (we actually had a few days off school due to extremely bad air quality).

So, I would never argue over achieving better air quality, but as EconProf points out, the costs are becoming truly prohibitive. And, in attempting to have a meaningful dialogue, you find yourself being shouted down by the Lunatic Left, which treats every question as religious heresy. As Katie Couric (that journalistic giant) opined: “The science is settled”. Well, no, it isn’t. There’s no such friggin’ thing. We’re still debating issues that date back hundreds of years, as new data, techniques and technologies drive things forward.

I’d like to see real data, real costs and real benefits and then have a discussion based on that.[/quote]

Allan,

Yes, you’re absolutely right about the need to evaluate the true costs and benefits of any environmental regulation/policy. Econ Prof made good points WRT diminishing returns, and I really can’t disagree with anything s/he has said. Still, I just wanted to point out that the “benefits” might not be economic — it still might be worth it (or not).

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=CA renter][quote=jstoesz]What are the ECONOMIC benefits of AB32?[/quote]

Are economic benefits the only metric we use to determine if something is worthwhile? What about health benefits, or quality of life benefits? Are those worth nothing?[/quote]

CAR: While I think you make an excellent point, I think its also fair to ask what this will really cost.

Being a California kid myself, and growing up during the 1970s in the Bay Area, I too remember how truly crappy the air quality was. While we didn’t it have nearly as bad as Los Angeles or the Valley, I remember those Stage 1 alerts vividly and the dreaded “inversion layer” (we actually had a few days off school due to extremely bad air quality).

So, I would never argue over achieving better air quality, but as EconProf points out, the costs are becoming truly prohibitive. And, in attempting to have a meaningful dialogue, you find yourself being shouted down by the Lunatic Left, which treats every question as religious heresy. As Katie Couric (that journalistic giant) opined: “The science is settled”. Well, no, it isn’t. There’s no such friggin’ thing. We’re still debating issues that date back hundreds of years, as new data, techniques and technologies drive things forward.

I’d like to see real data, real costs and real benefits and then have a discussion based on that.[/quote]

Allan,

Yes, you’re absolutely right about the need to evaluate the true costs and benefits of any environmental regulation/policy. Econ Prof made good points WRT diminishing returns, and I really can’t disagree with anything s/he has said. Still, I just wanted to point out that the “benefits” might not be economic — it still might be worth it (or not).

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=CA renter][quote=jstoesz]What are the ECONOMIC benefits of AB32?[/quote]

Are economic benefits the only metric we use to determine if something is worthwhile? What about health benefits, or quality of life benefits? Are those worth nothing?[/quote]

CAR: While I think you make an excellent point, I think its also fair to ask what this will really cost.

Being a California kid myself, and growing up during the 1970s in the Bay Area, I too remember how truly crappy the air quality was. While we didn’t it have nearly as bad as Los Angeles or the Valley, I remember those Stage 1 alerts vividly and the dreaded “inversion layer” (we actually had a few days off school due to extremely bad air quality).

So, I would never argue over achieving better air quality, but as EconProf points out, the costs are becoming truly prohibitive. And, in attempting to have a meaningful dialogue, you find yourself being shouted down by the Lunatic Left, which treats every question as religious heresy. As Katie Couric (that journalistic giant) opined: “The science is settled”. Well, no, it isn’t. There’s no such friggin’ thing. We’re still debating issues that date back hundreds of years, as new data, techniques and technologies drive things forward.

I’d like to see real data, real costs and real benefits and then have a discussion based on that.[/quote]

Allan,

Yes, you’re absolutely right about the need to evaluate the true costs and benefits of any environmental regulation/policy. Econ Prof made good points WRT diminishing returns, and I really can’t disagree with anything s/he has said. Still, I just wanted to point out that the “benefits” might not be economic — it still might be worth it (or not).

[CA renter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=CA renter][quote=jstoesz]What are the ECONOMIC benefits of AB32?[/quote]

Are economic benefits the only metric we use to determine if something is worthwhile? What about health benefits, or quality of life benefits? Are those worth nothing?[/quote]

CAR: While I think you make an excellent point, I think its also fair to ask what this will really cost.

Being a California kid myself, and growing up during the 1970s in the Bay Area, I too remember how truly crappy the air quality was. While we didn’t it have nearly as bad as Los Angeles or the Valley, I remember those Stage 1 alerts vividly and the dreaded “inversion layer” (we actually had a few days off school due to extremely bad air quality).

So, I would never argue over achieving better air quality, but as EconProf points out, the costs are becoming truly prohibitive. And, in attempting to have a meaningful dialogue, you find yourself being shouted down by the Lunatic Left, which treats every question as religious heresy. As Katie Couric (that journalistic giant) opined: “The science is settled”. Well, no, it isn’t. There’s no such friggin’ thing. We’re still debating issues that date back hundreds of years, as new data, techniques and technologies drive things forward.

I’d like to see real data, real costs and real benefits and then have a discussion based on that.[/quote]

Allan,

Yes, you’re absolutely right about the need to evaluate the true costs and benefits of any environmental regulation/policy. Econ Prof made good points WRT diminishing returns, and I really can’t disagree with anything s/he has said. Still, I just wanted to point out that the “benefits” might not be economic — it still might be worth it (or not).

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

This article does an excellent job exposing the junk science behind the pro-prop-23 crowd:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-hoggan/koch-funded-attacks-on-pr_b_754849.html

VOTE NO ON PROP 23!

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

This article does an excellent job exposing the junk science behind the pro-prop-23 crowd:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-hoggan/koch-funded-attacks-on-pr_b_754849.html

VOTE NO ON PROP 23!

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

This article does an excellent job exposing the junk science behind the pro-prop-23 crowd:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-hoggan/koch-funded-attacks-on-pr_b_754849.html

VOTE NO ON PROP 23!

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

This article does an excellent job exposing the junk science behind the pro-prop-23 crowd:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-hoggan/koch-funded-attacks-on-pr_b_754849.html

VOTE NO ON PROP 23!

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

This article does an excellent job exposing the junk science behind the pro-prop-23 crowd:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-hoggan/koch-funded-attacks-on-pr_b_754849.html

VOTE NO ON PROP 23!

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=CA renter]

Allan,

Yes, you’re absolutely right about the need to evaluate the true costs and benefits of any environmental regulation/policy. Econ Prof made good points WRT diminishing returns, and I really can’t disagree with anything s/he has said. Still, I just wanted to point out that the “benefits” might not be economic — it still might be worth it (or not).[/quote]

Don’t fall for the same ‘sky will fall’ BS that big business has been using forever. Here’s what GM had to say in the 1970’s regarding catalytic converters:

However, the Auto Alliance’s protest seems very familiar. Back in the 1970s, GM warned the EPA, “[I]f GM is forced to introduce catalytic converter systems across-the board on 1975 models, the prospect of an unreasonable risk of business catastrophe and massive difficulties with these vehicles in the hands of the public must be faced.” Catalytic converters were shortly after introduced and found to work fine, and customers continued to consume Detroit’s cars.

http://www.stopgreenwash.org/autos

SBSDD (Same BS Different Decade)

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=CA renter]

Allan,

Yes, you’re absolutely right about the need to evaluate the true costs and benefits of any environmental regulation/policy. Econ Prof made good points WRT diminishing returns, and I really can’t disagree with anything s/he has said. Still, I just wanted to point out that the “benefits” might not be economic — it still might be worth it (or not).[/quote]

Don’t fall for the same ‘sky will fall’ BS that big business has been using forever. Here’s what GM had to say in the 1970’s regarding catalytic converters:

However, the Auto Alliance’s protest seems very familiar. Back in the 1970s, GM warned the EPA, “[I]f GM is forced to introduce catalytic converter systems across-the board on 1975 models, the prospect of an unreasonable risk of business catastrophe and massive difficulties with these vehicles in the hands of the public must be faced.” Catalytic converters were shortly after introduced and found to work fine, and customers continued to consume Detroit’s cars.

http://www.stopgreenwash.org/autos

SBSDD (Same BS Different Decade)

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=CA renter]

Allan,

Yes, you’re absolutely right about the need to evaluate the true costs and benefits of any environmental regulation/policy. Econ Prof made good points WRT diminishing returns, and I really can’t disagree with anything s/he has said. Still, I just wanted to point out that the “benefits” might not be economic — it still might be worth it (or not).[/quote]

Don’t fall for the same ‘sky will fall’ BS that big business has been using forever. Here’s what GM had to say in the 1970’s regarding catalytic converters:

However, the Auto Alliance’s protest seems very familiar. Back in the 1970s, GM warned the EPA, “[I]f GM is forced to introduce catalytic converter systems across-the board on 1975 models, the prospect of an unreasonable risk of business catastrophe and massive difficulties with these vehicles in the hands of the public must be faced.” Catalytic converters were shortly after introduced and found to work fine, and customers continued to consume Detroit’s cars.

http://www.stopgreenwash.org/autos

SBSDD (Same BS Different Decade)

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=CA renter]

Allan,

Yes, you’re absolutely right about the need to evaluate the true costs and benefits of any environmental regulation/policy. Econ Prof made good points WRT diminishing returns, and I really can’t disagree with anything s/he has said. Still, I just wanted to point out that the “benefits” might not be economic — it still might be worth it (or not).[/quote]

Don’t fall for the same ‘sky will fall’ BS that big business has been using forever. Here’s what GM had to say in the 1970’s regarding catalytic converters:

However, the Auto Alliance’s protest seems very familiar. Back in the 1970s, GM warned the EPA, “[I]f GM is forced to introduce catalytic converter systems across-the board on 1975 models, the prospect of an unreasonable risk of business catastrophe and massive difficulties with these vehicles in the hands of the public must be faced.” Catalytic converters were shortly after introduced and found to work fine, and customers continued to consume Detroit’s cars.

http://www.stopgreenwash.org/autos

SBSDD (Same BS Different Decade)

[Author]

Posts