Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
EconProf
Participantjstoesz: 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.Participantjstoesz: 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.Participantjstoesz: 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.ParticipantI 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.ParticipantI 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.ParticipantI 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.ParticipantI 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.ParticipantI 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.ParticipantProp 23 clearly seeks to limit the damage done by Proposition 32, which drastically raises the % of power we get from uneconomic, expensive renewable sources. Proposition 32 is a job killer. It is the best way to destroy California short of bombing it. All energy costs would skyrocket, electricity rates will especially bump up, one estimate puts gasoline prices over $9 per gallon.
Proposition 23 would hold off Prop32 until the state’s unemployment rate fell under 5 1/2%.
If you think our current 12% plus unemployment rate is not high enough, vote against Prop. 23.ParticipantProp 23 clearly seeks to limit the damage done by Proposition 32, which drastically raises the % of power we get from uneconomic, expensive renewable sources. Proposition 32 is a job killer. It is the best way to destroy California short of bombing it. All energy costs would skyrocket, electricity rates will especially bump up, one estimate puts gasoline prices over $9 per gallon.
Proposition 23 would hold off Prop32 until the state’s unemployment rate fell under 5 1/2%.
If you think our current 12% plus unemployment rate is not high enough, vote against Prop. 23.ParticipantProp 23 clearly seeks to limit the damage done by Proposition 32, which drastically raises the % of power we get from uneconomic, expensive renewable sources. Proposition 32 is a job killer. It is the best way to destroy California short of bombing it. All energy costs would skyrocket, electricity rates will especially bump up, one estimate puts gasoline prices over $9 per gallon.
Proposition 23 would hold off Prop32 until the state’s unemployment rate fell under 5 1/2%.
If you think our current 12% plus unemployment rate is not high enough, vote against Prop. 23.ParticipantProp 23 clearly seeks to limit the damage done by Proposition 32, which drastically raises the % of power we get from uneconomic, expensive renewable sources. Proposition 32 is a job killer. It is the best way to destroy California short of bombing it. All energy costs would skyrocket, electricity rates will especially bump up, one estimate puts gasoline prices over $9 per gallon.
Proposition 23 would hold off Prop32 until the state’s unemployment rate fell under 5 1/2%.
If you think our current 12% plus unemployment rate is not high enough, vote against Prop. 23.ParticipantProp 23 clearly seeks to limit the damage done by Proposition 32, which drastically raises the % of power we get from uneconomic, expensive renewable sources. Proposition 32 is a job killer. It is the best way to destroy California short of bombing it. All energy costs would skyrocket, electricity rates will especially bump up, one estimate puts gasoline prices over $9 per gallon.
Proposition 23 would hold off Prop32 until the state’s unemployment rate fell under 5 1/2%.
If you think our current 12% plus unemployment rate is not high enough, vote against Prop. 23.ParticipantFolks, we gotta stop relying on special interest propaganda for our voting decisions and political stands. Because we see a newspaper photo of a fire or police person doing something heroic does not mean they automatically have a dangerous profession and should be paid oodles of money and retire at age 55 at 90% of last paycheck.
To see who is in far more dangerous occupations, and is NOT paid accordingly, google Most Dangerous Occupations. There you’ll see the real heroes: fishermen, tree trimers, taxi drivers, ironworkers, roofers. Their pay is not comensurate, and their bodies are used up and more deserving of a pension at 55, unlike the relatively sedentary police and fire personnel.
Piggs are supposed to be a skeptical bunch that digs for data. C’mon, we can do better! -
AuthorPosts
