Environmentalists won't quit until we are walking and have no vehicles

[dodge man]

I went outside yesterday morning, took a deep breath, and said to myself, man this air to just a little to clean!

Like others have said, its all about balance, but I'd rather err on the side of clean air than the other way.

 

[RoyJackson]

My concern is that pollution controls on internal combustion engines since the early 1970's has improved 90% plus. Now we are going after those last few percentage points and for every percentage gain they say they obtain, the costs will go up dramatically.

I believe in clean air and clean water, but implemented in practical, economical ways with no agendas. Al Gore's "Climate Change" push is a perfect example.

I'd add to the OP's title, "and living in mud huts and eating berries..."

(Bolded text) I agree...the great majority of the pollution has been eliminated from vehicles. And many states test and inspect for the anti-pollution equipment annually.
Now, the "Law of Diminishing Returns" is coming into play...for those last few percentage points. And, those are the most costly percentage points.
At this time, I think the EPA is trying to justify it's budget by promulgating unnecessary regulations.
I think (and have told my elected representatives) it's time to put the EPA on "Hold" status for 5-10 years.

Stephen Chu...typical lefty academic with no clue about real life... I wonder if he gave up his limousine?

Added:
Since a couple posts mentioned pollution in China and the Philipines...I also told my elected reps...suggested, actually, the imported goods must meet the same environmental regs (as American manufacturers) to be allowed in the US market.

 

[buickanddeere]

Gee, now people who give a damned about the environment are only in it for the money. Same thing for us morons who used to go down our streets picking up the trash thrown out the car windows. We must have made a lot volunteering to clean things up. This mindset that people do things for one reason, money, is counter productive. Perhaps that is your sole motivation, but I can assure you it is not the only motivating factor out there. Some of us like being able to catch fish, and better yet, eat the fish we catch. Try doing that in the Androscoggin river 20 years ago. But the evil EPA required the mills and people who lived on the river to stop dumpping their crap in the river, which cost everyone involved money. If you ask me it was well spent.

I do not advocate or want to go back to othe stone age were emissions are concerned, that is the all or nothing argument which holds about as much water as a strainer, but I do enjoy cleaner air. I'm only 50 and I can recall easily how nasty things were when we were in Boston when I was a kid, and when I lived in Philly and Houston during the early eighties I couldn't beleive how nasty the air was, especially in Houston.

Do I want to see the cost of cars go up massively to reduce particulate emissions by a small amount? Heck no!!! But we certainly will never reduice emissions if we do not try, and a corporation will never try if it costs money, so they have to be forced to do so. Why would they try, it costs money, and a corporation is designed and built to make money, as it should be. Many of us live in the country because we love clean air, rivers we can fish and land we can hunt on. Most of us would not even consider dumping our garbage in the woods or on the roadside, so I don't understand why there is this aversion to having clean air when it fits in nicely with the lifestyle we love.

Problem is these well paid and powerful social engineers don't want to stop and put themselves out of work and loose thier positions of power. No where did I advocate polluting but we are getting past the point of diminishing returns and into excessive cost. We could also figure the health damage from being kicked by horses, runaways, breathing in dust and mold from hay. Also breathing in dust kicked up by hooves.Odd how people can be all over the map when it comes to safety. Some advocates of even stricter emissions control won't wear seat belts, smoke, drink too much and don't like safety interlocks on lawn tractors.

 

[kootch88]

Problem is these well paid and powerful social engineers don't want to stop and put themselves out of work and loose thier positions of power. No where did I advocate polluting but we are getting past the point of diminishing returns and into excessive cost. We could also figure the health damage from being kicked by horses, runaways, breathing in dust and mold from hay. Also breathing in dust kicked up by hooves.Odd how people can be all over the map when it comes to safety. Some advocates of even stricter emissions control won't wear seat belts, smoke, drink too much and don't like safety interlocks on lawn tractors.

There are idiot tree huggers and idiots who beleive in the "leave me alone I can do what I want" camps, but most of us (I hope) reside somehwere in the more reasonable middle, and throwing in examples of extremes like you did take an issue and push it into an area of discussion that lacks any reason what-so-ever. I think most of us think there is too much governmental intrusion in our lives, especially since the effin Patriot Act was developed. I also think most of us think OSHA has overstepped their bounds and for that matterand I would bet most of us think people on the Sea Shepherd ships are way out of line in their methods of conservation as well.

Those are all examples of extremes, but to use those groups as a basis for an argument is counter productive, just like dust from hooves, which I know was meant to be a sarcastic example.

 

[TMR]

There are idiot tree huggers and idiots who beleive in the "leave me alone I can do what I want" camps, but most of us (I hope) reside somehwere in the more reasonable middle, and throwing in examples of extremes like you did take an issue and push it into an area of discussion that lacks any reason what-so-ever. I think most of us think there is too much governmental intrusion in our lives, especially since the effin Patriot Act was developed. I also think most of us think OSHA has overstepped their bounds and for that matterand I would bet most of us think people on the Sea Shepherd ships are way out of line in their methods of conservation as well.

Those are all examples of extremes, but to use those groups as a basis for an argument is counter productive, just like dust from hooves, which I know was meant to be a sarcastic example.

Agree...primary problem we face in our country is the extremes on BOTH the Left and the Right. Common sense resides somewhere between the extremes but those who hold extreme positions all believe their opinions are the ONLY solution...while the best solution used to be found by genuine debate between the extremes...with those in the middle drafting solutions incorporating the positive portions of the arguments from each extreme. Now both Right and Left assume the other side has nothing to add to the debate. The words "compromise", "moderate" and "centrist" have become four letter words and created a government that is not able to have constructive debate and actually make progress on our very serious national problems. TMR

 

[Ken]

Retired from a power company that had new coal fired plants. all the needed scrubbers to keep the small unhealthy little itty bitty dust pieces and any thing else out of the stack and into the air.
The new rules being put in place are going to cost more that building a new plant. so the company is considering to just shut down the plants. And where is the new power going to be produced.
Forget the nuclear power takes 30 years of paying off the politicians to get permit to build then all the protest groups while being built. What company can look down the road for 50 years as to where they will be still in business due to the Gov. regulations at the whim of a president.
Forget the coal fired plants it smells so has to kill all the birds fish and animals in the country.
Forget the oil fired plants. same reason as coal.
There is a group that wants the dams removed so fish can swim freely up the rivers. So hydro power is out.

Just how many sections of land is required would it take to replace a 2000 megawatt power plant with Solar cells.

I have become to think all protesters have one consideration . Nothing in my back
yard and give every thing they think would make there life easier. So must be Moochers.

Lets go back to horses with large polutation bags attached to there behind. when filled send to Wash D.C. Groups.
The bags not the horses.
ken

 

[RoyJackson]

Can't have solar cells either; manufacturing plants and chemicals. :thumbdown: No, no, bad!

I don't have a quote or link to the article, but I read (CNN, probably) California is requiring new home construction to be "solar power ready"...even if the home owner has no intention of using solar power to augment his energy requirements.
I'm not sure if, in this case, it's the fruitcakes in the California legislature...or the solar industry trying to legislate in a market. Either way, it's pretty stupid and I hope this wackiness stays in California!

 

[schoolsout]

Gee, now people who give a damned about the environment are only in it for the money. Same thing for us morons who used to go down our streets picking up the trash thrown out the car windows. We must have made a lot volunteering to clean things up. This mindset that people do things for one reason, money, is counter productive. Perhaps that is your sole motivation, but I can assure you it is not the only motivating factor out there. Some of us like being able to catch fish, and better yet, eat the fish we catch. Try doing that in the Androscoggin river 20 years ago. But the evil EPA required the mills and people who lived on the river to stop dumpping their crap in the river, which cost everyone involved money. If you ask me it was well spent.

I do not advocate or want to go back to othe stone age were emissions are concerned, that is the all or nothing argument which holds about as much water as a strainer, but I do enjoy cleaner air. I'm only 50 and I can recall easily how nasty things were when we were in Boston when I was a kid, and when I lived in Philly and Houston during the early eighties I couldn't beleive how nasty the air was, especially in Houston.

Do I want to see the cost of cars go up massively to reduce particulate emissions by a small amount? Heck no!!! But we certainly will never reduice emissions if we do not try, and a corporation will never try if it costs money, so they have to be forced to do so. Why would they try, it costs money, and a corporation is designed and built to make money, as it should be. Many of us live in the country because we love clean air, rivers we can fish and land we can hunt on. Most of us would not even consider dumping our garbage in the woods or on the roadside, so I don't understand why there is this aversion to having clean air when it fits in nicely with the lifestyle we love.

Agreed....the "all or nothing" mentality you speak of is way too prevalent. Sure, there are some only in it for the money, but there are many that aren't.

Those blanket statements by some here keep proving to me that several have turned off their brains.

 

[Johnp33]

As someone that drives a diesel truck and has diesel equipment, I have no problem with setting regulations to cut down on particulate pollution.
BUT to make a new regulation when they do not enforce to old ones is the height of ignorance.
As was stated when the pollution laws started the pollution in most every city in North America was a brown dome visible when traveling especially in the calm evening light.
This must be the rant of the day, you all have a good day.

 

[lilranch2001]

Gee, now people who give a damned about the environment are only in it for the money. Same thing for us morons who used to go down our streets picking up the trash thrown out the car windows. We must have made a lot volunteering to clean things up. This mindset that people do things for one reason, money, is counter productive. Perhaps that is your sole motivation, but I can assure you it is not the only motivating factor out there. Some of us like being able to catch fish, and better yet, eat the fish we catch. Try doing that in the Androscoggin river 20 years ago. But the evil EPA required the mills and people who lived on the river to stop dumpping their crap in the river, which cost everyone involved money. If you ask me it was well spent.

I do not advocate or want to go back to othe stone age were emissions are concerned, that is the all or nothing argument which holds about as much water as a strainer, but I do enjoy cleaner air. I'm only 50 and I can recall easily how nasty things were when we were in Boston when I was a kid, and when I lived in Philly and Houston during the early eighties I couldn't beleive how nasty the air was, especially in Houston.

Do I want to see the cost of cars go up massively to reduce particulate emissions by a small amount? Heck no!!! But we certainly will never reduice emissions if we do not try, and a corporation will never try if it costs money, so they have to be forced to do so. Why would they try, it costs money, and a corporation is designed and built to make money, as it should be. Many of us live in the country because we love clean air, rivers we can fish and land we can hunt on. Most of us would not even consider dumping our garbage in the woods or on the roadside, so I don't understand why there is this aversion to having clean air when it fits in nicely with the lifestyle we love.

I am somewhat offended by this statement, the company I work for, and quite a few other companies I am familiar with are very cognizant of the environment.
I feel this is an arrogant and close minded statement, in my humble opinion