[BigGovernmentIsGood]

And here’s what Big Pollution had to say about the Clean Air Act of 1970:

Similarly, the Auto Alliance’s spiritual predecessor, the Automobile Manufacturer’s Association, discussed the proposed Clean Air Act in 1970, a government effort to regulate national pollution standards, with a certain degree of panic or deception. They claimed: “It presently appears that it will simply not be possible for vehicle manufacturers to achieve the control levels specified in the bill with any fossil fuel-burning engine-including steam, gas turbines, etc., as well as internal combustion engines.” The Clean Air Act, of course, passed and has been amended several times since then—it began the gradual improvement of America’s air quality.

http://www.stopgreenwash.org/autos

The pro-prop-23 crowd used up all their credibility in the 1970’s (assuming they ever had any in the first place).

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

And here’s what Big Pollution had to say about the Clean Air Act of 1970:

Similarly, the Auto Alliance’s spiritual predecessor, the Automobile Manufacturer’s Association, discussed the proposed Clean Air Act in 1970, a government effort to regulate national pollution standards, with a certain degree of panic or deception. They claimed: “It presently appears that it will simply not be possible for vehicle manufacturers to achieve the control levels specified in the bill with any fossil fuel-burning engine-including steam, gas turbines, etc., as well as internal combustion engines.” The Clean Air Act, of course, passed and has been amended several times since then—it began the gradual improvement of America’s air quality.

http://www.stopgreenwash.org/autos

The pro-prop-23 crowd used up all their credibility in the 1970’s (assuming they ever had any in the first place).

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

And here’s what Big Pollution had to say about the Clean Air Act of 1970:

Similarly, the Auto Alliance’s spiritual predecessor, the Automobile Manufacturer’s Association, discussed the proposed Clean Air Act in 1970, a government effort to regulate national pollution standards, with a certain degree of panic or deception. They claimed: “It presently appears that it will simply not be possible for vehicle manufacturers to achieve the control levels specified in the bill with any fossil fuel-burning engine-including steam, gas turbines, etc., as well as internal combustion engines.” The Clean Air Act, of course, passed and has been amended several times since then—it began the gradual improvement of America’s air quality.

http://www.stopgreenwash.org/autos

The pro-prop-23 crowd used up all their credibility in the 1970’s (assuming they ever had any in the first place).

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

And here’s what Big Pollution had to say about the Clean Air Act of 1970:

Similarly, the Auto Alliance’s spiritual predecessor, the Automobile Manufacturer’s Association, discussed the proposed Clean Air Act in 1970, a government effort to regulate national pollution standards, with a certain degree of panic or deception. They claimed: “It presently appears that it will simply not be possible for vehicle manufacturers to achieve the control levels specified in the bill with any fossil fuel-burning engine-including steam, gas turbines, etc., as well as internal combustion engines.” The Clean Air Act, of course, passed and has been amended several times since then—it began the gradual improvement of America’s air quality.

http://www.stopgreenwash.org/autos

The pro-prop-23 crowd used up all their credibility in the 1970’s (assuming they ever had any in the first place).

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

And here’s what Big Pollution had to say about the Clean Air Act of 1970:

Similarly, the Auto Alliance’s spiritual predecessor, the Automobile Manufacturer’s Association, discussed the proposed Clean Air Act in 1970, a government effort to regulate national pollution standards, with a certain degree of panic or deception. They claimed: “It presently appears that it will simply not be possible for vehicle manufacturers to achieve the control levels specified in the bill with any fossil fuel-burning engine-including steam, gas turbines, etc., as well as internal combustion engines.” The Clean Air Act, of course, passed and has been amended several times since then—it began the gradual improvement of America’s air quality.

http://www.stopgreenwash.org/autos

The pro-prop-23 crowd used up all their credibility in the 1970’s (assuming they ever had any in the first place).

[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)

[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]

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!

[Author]

Posts