MikeD74T
Veteran Member
toolaholic said:
Wouldn't it be ironic if the equipment all ended up in CHINA and only the pollution came back !!!!!!
Maybe the California politicians are investing in foreign startup construction companies. MikeD74TOil & Fuel California's Tough new rules for Diesel Engines
- Thread starter ultrarunner
- Start date
- Views: 9791
Wouldn't it be ironic if the equipment all ended up in CHINA and only the pollution came back !!!!!!
Maybe the California politicians are investing in foreign startup construction companies. MikeD74TCap-n-Cray
Silver Member
Yes I agree it would be better if man was not here at all. Only an occasional comet or asteroid or two to change things.
Man is part of the environment. I try my best not to pollute and I recycle. I sure the insect and plant world was devastated by the Passenger Pigeon flocks. All according to your view.
In California there is no chose on what diesel to use. It is all ULSD and all gasoline has MTBE that contaminates the water.
Why not think in terms of the Universe view and save Mars from global warming.
Cary
Man is part of the environment. I try my best not to pollute and I recycle. I sure the insect and plant world was devastated by the Passenger Pigeon flocks. All according to your view.
In California there is no chose on what diesel to use. It is all ULSD and all gasoline has MTBE that contaminates the water.
Why not think in terms of the Universe view and save Mars from global warming.
Cary
MikeD74T
Veteran Member
ultrarunner said:
daTeacha said:
The theory of Adam Smith (capitalism) posits that each of us acting in our own self interest will lead to the greater good of all.
Marxism is just about the opposite of that.
One of the leading presidential candidates is supposed to have said something like, "we need to move away from Adam Smith and move towards Karl Marx."
It is unfortunate, in my opinion, but it looks like that's the direction the country's going, with or without that person in the White House.
FWIW, I would not spend the additional $.25. Nothing I own needs it.
the_sandman_454
Silver Member
I would like to address a couple of points. I apologize for not having read the entire thread, but this is my take on the situation.
Mandatory retrofits. The new regulations should only apply to new equipment. Retrofits are expensive, unfair to owners of products purchased under less restrictive regulations, and can often cause reliability to suffer versus new equipment designed around the new technology.
The Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns (LDMR). This is an economic term used to describe the idea "more is not necessarily better". You can do a quick search to find out more information about it. Essentially we are running up against the LDMR which can be characterized by reduced benefit per unit of cost. As an example, you can apply the recommended amount of seed per acre for grass. Applying twice as much will not get you twice as much grass, but costs you twice as much. This is the situation our environmental regulations have us in currently. When the environmental regulations first came into play, it was pretty inexpensive to significantly clean up emissions, spills, releases, and so forth. As the laws tightened, and the easy fixes were implemented, the cost/benefit ratio began to get unfavorable. In other words spending exponentially more money for less actual benefits.
Laws like this will hurt businesses significantly in that it will be expensive for them to have to retrofit the equipment, or buy brand new equipment. Prices for their services will go up, and probably a lot of smaller businesses will be priced right out of the market by the significant increase in the cost to do business.
This applies to manufacturing, as well as the service industry, or any other industry that falls under these regulations. In terms of manufacturing it can increase the cost of making products, making it more favorable to cash in on the cheap labor and lax environmental and occupational safety regulations in places like China. The economy does not need such an increased burden on it at this time. Thanks to LDMR, the tightening of environmental regulations should temporarily be suspended until such a time as China and other developing nations comply with laws similar to ours.
It is a noble goal to reduce pollution, but from an economic standpoint, it will increase the price of a lot of different products and services, which gets passed on to the consumer. If the consumer can't or won't pay the increased price, businesses close and unemployment will go up as a result. Not a good solution, since we have an economy to worry about.
My argument can be summed up with two bullet points:
*Regulations need to be phased in for new equipment and existing equipment needs to be grandfathered as-is in order to not be too disruptive on the economy.
*LDMR is part of what helps cause manufacturing and other jobs to go elsewhere, because it costs too much to keep up with the strict regulations here versus many other places of the world.
Mandatory retrofits. The new regulations should only apply to new equipment. Retrofits are expensive, unfair to owners of products purchased under less restrictive regulations, and can often cause reliability to suffer versus new equipment designed around the new technology.
The Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns (LDMR). This is an economic term used to describe the idea "more is not necessarily better". You can do a quick search to find out more information about it. Essentially we are running up against the LDMR which can be characterized by reduced benefit per unit of cost. As an example, you can apply the recommended amount of seed per acre for grass. Applying twice as much will not get you twice as much grass, but costs you twice as much. This is the situation our environmental regulations have us in currently. When the environmental regulations first came into play, it was pretty inexpensive to significantly clean up emissions, spills, releases, and so forth. As the laws tightened, and the easy fixes were implemented, the cost/benefit ratio began to get unfavorable. In other words spending exponentially more money for less actual benefits.
Laws like this will hurt businesses significantly in that it will be expensive for them to have to retrofit the equipment, or buy brand new equipment. Prices for their services will go up, and probably a lot of smaller businesses will be priced right out of the market by the significant increase in the cost to do business.
This applies to manufacturing, as well as the service industry, or any other industry that falls under these regulations. In terms of manufacturing it can increase the cost of making products, making it more favorable to cash in on the cheap labor and lax environmental and occupational safety regulations in places like China. The economy does not need such an increased burden on it at this time. Thanks to LDMR, the tightening of environmental regulations should temporarily be suspended until such a time as China and other developing nations comply with laws similar to ours.
It is a noble goal to reduce pollution, but from an economic standpoint, it will increase the price of a lot of different products and services, which gets passed on to the consumer. If the consumer can't or won't pay the increased price, businesses close and unemployment will go up as a result. Not a good solution, since we have an economy to worry about.
My argument can be summed up with two bullet points:
*Regulations need to be phased in for new equipment and existing equipment needs to be grandfathered as-is in order to not be too disruptive on the economy.
*LDMR is part of what helps cause manufacturing and other jobs to go elsewhere, because it costs too much to keep up with the strict regulations here versus many other places of the world.
Tom_H
Veteran Member
We live in the CA Central Valley. Since we came here, all 3 of us have developed asthma. The tree pollens, ag chemicals, industrial and IC engine outputs all mix together and sit in this 400mi x 60mi bowl. In the spring, we get to the point that our lungs ache so badly that they feel as though they are going to explode. South of here, in Bakersfield, over 40% of school children have asthma and have to keep inhalers with themselves at school.
Currently running on this board are threads highly critical of the pollution and lax standards of environmental purity held by the Chinese in regards to the food, pet food, and other items they send our way. In another current thread, numerous land owners in Texas are bitterly complaining about the manner in which others who own the mineral rights, below their surface rights, so blatently and callously pollute and damage the surface.
It often seems that today, individuals care about their own health and well being, but are not willing to make any changes or sacrifices to protect others. I doubt the government is going to come take anyone's old tractor away, but living with new restrictions on new products is something that has to happen if we want to protect the general welfare of the whole citizenry. Without environmental protections, we would be like China: factories polluting rivers and aquifers, smokestacks belching so much smoke that the sky looks brown almost anywhere in the entire country, and food so full of toxins that one never knows whether the meal in front of him will kill him or not. When faced with that kind of alternative, I am happy to choose this country with all the protections we have to keep us from those dangers. There is nothing wrong with looking out for one's own interests, however, when one reaches the point that he cares only about himself, and not at all about the well being of others, he has lost somehting of the cultural and religious heritage upon which our nation was founded.
Currently running on this board are threads highly critical of the pollution and lax standards of environmental purity held by the Chinese in regards to the food, pet food, and other items they send our way. In another current thread, numerous land owners in Texas are bitterly complaining about the manner in which others who own the mineral rights, below their surface rights, so blatently and callously pollute and damage the surface.
It often seems that today, individuals care about their own health and well being, but are not willing to make any changes or sacrifices to protect others. I doubt the government is going to come take anyone's old tractor away, but living with new restrictions on new products is something that has to happen if we want to protect the general welfare of the whole citizenry. Without environmental protections, we would be like China: factories polluting rivers and aquifers, smokestacks belching so much smoke that the sky looks brown almost anywhere in the entire country, and food so full of toxins that one never knows whether the meal in front of him will kill him or not. When faced with that kind of alternative, I am happy to choose this country with all the protections we have to keep us from those dangers. There is nothing wrong with looking out for one's own interests, however, when one reaches the point that he cares only about himself, and not at all about the well being of others, he has lost somehting of the cultural and religious heritage upon which our nation was founded.
California
Super Star Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Messages
- 14,984
- Location
- An hour north of San Francisco
- Tractor
- Yanmar YM240 Yanmar YM186D
Tom (and everybody)
I think what those in other parts of the US don't see is that the huge population increase here has led to California encountering problems long before they impact other parts of the US. And the citizens here expect government to *Do Something* before pollution literally kills us.
I was looking for some background information on pollution and saw that the first recognized bad-air day in Los Angeles occurred clear back in 1943. Air quality then was so bad it made people puke when they went outdoors. How many other states have experienced this?
And 25 million more people have arrived here since that first bad air day. Source:
Clean Air Primer
I think we would have progressed to even poorer air like China today, if government hadn't gotten out front to write pollution control rules. We need the controls due to our circumstances. Others may choose to implement similar controls elsewhere, or not, depending on their own needs. But it's pointless to criticize what we do here. In my opinion, its needed.
I think what those in other parts of the US don't see is that the huge population increase here has led to California encountering problems long before they impact other parts of the US. And the citizens here expect government to *Do Something* before pollution literally kills us.
I was looking for some background information on pollution and saw that the first recognized bad-air day in Los Angeles occurred clear back in 1943. Air quality then was so bad it made people puke when they went outdoors. How many other states have experienced this?
And 25 million more people have arrived here since that first bad air day. Source:
Clean Air Primer
I think we would have progressed to even poorer air like China today, if government hadn't gotten out front to write pollution control rules. We need the controls due to our circumstances. Others may choose to implement similar controls elsewhere, or not, depending on their own needs. But it's pointless to criticize what we do here. In my opinion, its needed.
Is not part of the problem the fact that too many people settled in an area that suffers from temperature inversions far more often than other places? And at what point would people make a free choice to not move into an area like that? If I had trouble breathing that air, I would either move out or not move there in the first place.
Believe it or not, the "market", for lack of a better word, will regulate that sort of thing. It may be that the only people who would choose to live there are the ones with cast-iron lungs live there, but what is so dreadfully wrong with that if they do so voluntarily? Do we really have to make the air above every square inch of every state as clean as if no industry whatsoever exists, just in case a person with bad lungs might want to live there? By cleaning up the mess, did not more people move to the area, bringing with them their pollution, than would have otherwise?
My opinion is that we have passed the point of diminishing returns a long time ago. Now, there are too many people with vested interests in having 'bad' air (or any other environmental aspect) still exist. Jobs (EPA), grants (universities), enforcement ( fine $ going to government) and politics rely far too heavily on the existence of bad air for any of these people to ever say, "There. The air is clean enough now." Kind of like the DEA would be SOL if they eradicate drugs.
It will go on and on until it bankrupts us to 'pick fly ___ (rhymes with 'snit') out of the pepper.'
SFish
Silver Member
Hill, I live in the Anderson Valley, Mendocino Co., just outside of Boonville. The State of Northern CA!
Rich (da Teacha). I agree. I live off the grid.
Steve
Rich (da Teacha). I agree. I live off the grid.
Steve
With the Chinese population over 1 billion and rising, they must not be getting killed off too often by their food. Or their air. Or water.Tom_H said:
While I am not advocating deliberate pollution, there has to be a happy medium somewhere.
Although I have not been there to verify first-hand, the environment in China is said to be, well, less than pristine. Maybe it's 1900 Pittsburgh good. The point is, the conditions there are many times worse than here and there aren't massive die-offs, or if there are, I haven't heard about them, and China is happily soldiering onward, burying American industry with cheap goods. All we can say is, the good that we didn't produce didn't harm the environment. It may have harmed a lot of folks wallets, but that seems irrelevant to the Green Forces.
