Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Ah... ok. Well, actually the argument holds no matter what the product is.
In fact, solar panels for electricity generation here in Calif. have big tax
credits. Even with those credits, they cost between $25k and $50k depending
on how many watts you require. You can count on paying $200/month to
finance solar panels over 20 years. Then they need major service after 20
years. Humph. The people who buy them do it more for energy independence
than they do for environmentalism or cost.

If these systems were more on the order of $5k to $10k or even $10, to $20k
you might see a significant increase in demand. But you're right about
mandates not working. It never works as planned and just because something
is mandated doesn't make it so.

 

That would work!

 

Well, since we agree that people screw it up by making mistakes and
errors of judgement in the design or operation, I'll certainly listen
if you can come up with a way to have nuclear power implemented by
somebody other than people. However, I should warn you that training
chimps to run the plants will not be acceptable either. I was thinking
more of Vorlons or maybe Vulcans.[/QUOTE]

I would trust the Vulcans over the Vorlons. They aren't as advanced, but
they are more trustworthy. ;-)

 

You're right in that these arguments turn into contests where the issue gets
lost and everyone is talking past each other. The fact is that, usually,
both sides have a legitimate argument. Abortion is a good example of right
to life and right to privacy. Both are legitimate rights! For me, I'd be
happy if both sides recognized both rights and then worked to find common
ground by working together instead of against each other.

That approach applies to environmentalism too. Corporations sometimes seem
happy to repeal all regulation all together, but then environmentalists take
the extreme view from the other side by working to stop development in it's
tracks. I have a relative who works as an environmental consultant for a
company that developers hire to guide them through the environmental
regulations on local/state/federal levels. She told me that EVERY SINGLE
development that a developer engages in anywhere in the state (CA) is
challenged and fought every step of the way by environmental groups.

I suppose this is good in one sense; checks and balances prevent extremist
outcomes. I think the end result has been reasonable enough. The US has
strict anti-pollution laws and still has strong a economy. Unfortunately,
the acrimony forces expensive legal fights and onerous and expensive
regulatory processes. The irony for the anti-corporate environmentalists is
that it is only the large corporations that can afford to fight these
battles. The little ones go bankrupt or never get started.

Extreme environmentalism has no more claim to science than Jim Jones or
David Koresh did to God's priesthood.. It sees things from a narrow point
of view. So narrow as to be, itself, the source of it's own demise if left
unchecked.

 

Come on, everyone knows that Vulcans are not real.

 

Approximately 11/25/03 18:46, Joe uttered for posterity:

May you neither live long nor prosper.

 

Peace. Livelong, and Prosper.

 

Yeah?
Then how did we learn to vulcanize rubber?

 

No, that doctrinaire, paranoid, leftover from the Cold War
circle-the-wagons blindly partisan shortsightedness, inflated by large
infusions of well engineered propaganda bankrolled by big money-making
machines pretending to be underdogs persecuted by some shadowy
all-powerful environmentalist cartel with evil intentions, will
unfortunately usually overrule questions of pure research and best
estimates of most-likely scenarios.

 

You put down alot of words but say nothing. Why is CO2 released in
China less harmful than CO2 released in the USA?

 

There's the pot calling the kettle black! Don't tell me extremist
environmentalists don't view corporations with the same suspicion; with evil
intent, overflowing with greed; doing their best to stomp on the little
people and squeeze every last cent out of their pocket. Mr. Potter vs.
George; Scrooge vs. Tiny Tim; ...........Capt. Picard (we just want peace
and to just get along) vs. The Borg (monolithic all consuming entity)

This environmentalist:scientist vs. capitalist:greedmonger comparison is
fantasy and wishful thinking.

 

Well, what have corporations done to dispell that view? They get
environmental laws repealed, they get exempted from environmental regulations,
they don't mind clear-cutting forests (even if they're endangered species
there) because it's less costly for them, they want to dump mining waste in
rivers, they kick at snowmobile restrictions in Yellowstone, etc. They send
jobs overseas and lay off workers while paying their execs millions and
dodging US taxes.

If more were like DuPont -- which had bought thousands of acres near the
Okeefenokee swamp for mining, but after environmental protests donated the
land instead for a nature preserve -- perhaps people would have a better view
of corporations.

 

No, I used an analogy, and as usual, the Taliban here didn't understand it.

 

OK, forget manufacturing for a moment and concentrate on consumer use of
energy and production of CO2. We're very wasteful in this country, by
comparison with any other country.

 

As usual, Lloyd, you changed the subject.

 

Cause there's less of it?
It's like the guy with the huge boombox on wheels car stereo
complaining it's unfair he has to keep it down when his neighbor
doesn't have to muffle his 2 inch wind chimes. After all, it's all
noise.