You know, the part that bugs me is that virtually no one seems to be able to divorce opposition to
government doing something from the thing itself. I oppose pollution
and I oppose the gov't regulations preventing pollution. They don't work, can't work, other than in a very limited sense, and lead to an increase in mercantilism and consequent oligopoly.
The proof is in the pudding -- companies would not spend a single dime on lobbying unless they expected to get whatever rules are promulgated written in their favor. The simple fact that money continues to flows that way is a pretty strong indication that it works.
Quote:
|
You are missing the obvious. By "routing maintenance" Bush is (among other things) attacking the pollution control devices. Rather than buying updated baghouses and scrubbers when the old ones wear out, he's advocating letting the plants buy circa 1960-70 pollution control devices. That's just stupid.
|
No, you are missing the obvious. Rather than buying
any baghouses or scrubbers, companies have a perverse incentive to do nothing, not even tweak the burners, lest they be forced to upgrade. In one of my contracts once I proposed putting a series of sensors in the stack to give some feedback about what adjustments needed to be made to operations to run more efficiently. I was told in no uncertain terms that if I so little as added a single sensor, they would have to rip the whole thing down. They were better off running by gosh and by golly, regardless of how inefficiently it was running, than take a chance at having to install equipment they could not afford. The net result is that you end up with companies retaining increasingly inefficient outdated equipment, rather than even being able to improve to make less pollution.
I thought you were opposed to pollution.
Now perhaps you could tell me why you think a consumer buying a computer is different than a company buying new capital equipment, rather than just dismissing it as irrelevant.
And while I am indeed safer in my new Suburban, I do feel sorry for any people who can't afford better because of the gov't created increases in automobile prices. These duct tape and bondo deathtraps have virtually no chance of protecting their occupants if they do smash into me, or a bridge abutment, maybe even a paper bag. And as I drive down the freeway and see tailpipes dragging on the ground, and cars in desperate need of shocks bouncing next to me, damn right these poorly maintained vehicles present more of a threat to me than the newer vehicle in the other lane. Since you live in Chicago, no doubt you have seen more than your fair share of car parts littering the medians. I know I have. Are you contending that cars that drop mufflers at 65 mph are somehow safer to the drivers behind them than those that do not?
As for ABA bias, it seems to me that you are for government regulations on the environment. Anyone with that mindset will not see bias in a body which favors those regulations. They are indeed biased, but just biased in a different way, one more in line with your point of view.
[ 04-22-2003, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]