Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd [quote] The "free" market does not fix urban auto pollution since the "external" costs are not born by the individual auto owners. Just look at Mexico City for a current example. [/quote] On the contrary, the free market does address the externalities of urban pollution. It's called "moving". The more people that move away from overpopulated cities out to underpopulated areas, the more that urban pollution is reduced to the point of tolerance. If people choose to stay in polluted areas, then that is their choice, and by that action the "social cost" of the externality is eliminated. It is only an externality if there is no choice. [/quote] Uh... people keep moving into Mexico City.. and dying of the air polution. Does this imply you think the gov't mandated emissions controls (and I mean going all the way back to EGR valves in the 60's) on cars are wrong? What if 90% of the US disagrees with you? If a majority of the US wanted federally funded airships - even if no one ever used them - we would have them. We live in a representative democracy, remember? And if you don't like where it's headed, you can try to convince others of your point of view....and if you fail, you can always........MOVE![:D] [/quote] You're use of a third world national capital as an example is hilarious. Last time I checked folks from Mexico are still MOVING illegally to the U.S. in droves. If you want a U.S. example of what I'm talking about, just look at the rate of depopulation out of the polluted Northeast to the South and West. The example is clear; given time, folks will move away from areas that are unpleasant and into areas that are suitable for a quality of life. That is the free market in action. The U.S. is unique compared to other nations in that much of its population still resides outside the metropoli, unlike the banana republics. Our forefathers were wise in taking action to encourage settlement of these regions, as it dispersed the population into more managable districts. What you want is to turn the U.S. into a third world wannabe, by mandating the cost of pollution "solutions" onto everyone, for the benefit of a few overpopulated cities. There is a wealth of capacity and available infrastructure out here in "red" America to handle more residents, so there is no need to punish us in order to try and make the metropoli even more bloated. And, no, I have no desire to move. I already live in God's country, SUV's and industrial plants included. [/quote] You are rather fast and loose with your facts. The numbers coming over the border into the US are a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers moving from rural Mexico into Mexico City. The population of the SE and SW is growing faster than that in the NE, but the NE is not depopulating. Even the most crowded state, NJ is growing in population. The only reason the US is still "God's county", as you put it, is due in part to the environmental regulations that have kept the air breathable, the water clean, and the acid rain down to a dull roar. Just don't eat too much fish. You believe in the "Free market" the way kids believe in Santa Claus. [/quote] You have no basis whatsoever to state that environmental regulations have done anything remotely positive for our environment or our quality of life. There is much more evidence that just the opposite has occurred. Clinton's ban on logging only resulted in millions of boardfeet of timber being needlessly scorched by wildfires at a cost of billions, and salmon spawning streams being overrun by ash and erosion in these scorched areas. Elk herds once plentiful in cut over areas are now diminished due to fewer clear cuts. The EPA's recent arsenic standards from 50 ppm to 10 ppm have resulted in burdensome costs on municipalities to meet these new standards, even though there is no evidence the 50 ppm standard ever resulted in increased mortality or disease, and according to the CDC, certain cancer rates are actually lower in those states with naturally occurring arsenic rates above 10 ppm. The global warming scam has resulted in money being wasted on so-called renewables and recession-inducing conservation policies, and now we have the spector of CO2 regulations, even though higher atmospheric CO2 levels have resulted in more verdant plant growth and lower rates of water consumption by plants, something to think about when considering how to feed an ever growing world population. During the 1990's the feds wasted countless taxpayer dollars promoting dam breaching as a cure all for ostensiblly endangered salmon in the PNW, even though researchers showed higher survival rates through the dams and reservoirs then in the free flowing rivers, all the while continuing to allow gill nets to be spread across the lower Columbia River. Then the EPA claimed river tempuratures were higher than "normal" due to dams, even though Idaho officials showed them evidence that river temperatures were also higher in the free flowing rivers coming out of wilderness areas. Environmental regulations have resulted in abnormal costs of oil exploration and value-added production in the U.S., furthering our need for imported oil, and causing high paying manufacturing jobs to head oversees. These regulations have made infrastructure improvement projects obscenely more costly than they should be. Environmental regs have totally emasculated our economy.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag