Originally posted by 7thsfsniper
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Obama Losing Canada's Oil to China
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by bonehead; 12 Jul 11,, 04:27.Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.
-
Originally posted by Doktor View PostWouldn't it be cheaper to pay for a campaign to educate the people they should use more environmental friendly products and impose eco-tax on those that don't comply, rather then to feed EPA?
Everything has a cost. What we humans do is to minimize that cost.
There is a campaign to teach people to conserve fuel. A lot of people buy hybrid cars. Some buy smaller cars. The problem with hybrid cars is the capitcal cost. There is a price premium of several thousand dollars on hybrids because of new and complex technology compared to gas engine alone. Some who can afford to pay this price and view this extra cost as "good" compared to using more gasoline will buy cars like this. Not all of us can afford that. Some can't afford the extra money and some need bigger cars for the same cost. We need that choice provided by the market.
A tax or fine on people who don't buy into the eco-friendly crap punishes shifts capital from production into non-production. We get less overall utility out of the same amount of work. The added benefit of "saving the planet" is dubious at best."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
The Canadian oil in question is unconventional and low quality both facts which need to be factored into this debate.
The oil sands project and the pipeline proposal in question would make much more economic and environmental sense if there was a nuclear power plant at one end or both ends.
WilliamPharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?
Comment
-
Doktor,
Much of the unconventional petroleum business in the U.S. is extremely water intensive some new, large finds like the Eagle Ford are going to have to overcome water supply issues if they are to be exploited.
Regards,
WilliamPharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?
Comment
-
Originally posted by gunnut View PostSure, but who levies, collects, and administers these programs?
Everything has a cost. What we humans do is to minimize that cost.
There is a campaign to teach people to conserve fuel. A lot of people buy hybrid cars. Some buy smaller cars. The problem with hybrid cars is the capitcal cost. There is a price premium of several thousand dollars on hybrids because of new and complex technology compared to gas engine alone. Some who can afford to pay this price and view this extra cost as "good" compared to using more gasoline will buy cars like this. Not all of us can afford that. Some can't afford the extra money and some need bigger cars for the same cost. We need that choice provided by the market.
A tax or fine on people who don't buy into the eco-friendly crap punishes shifts capital from production into non-production. We get less overall utility out of the same amount of work. The added benefit of "saving the planet" is dubious at best.
In the last 15 years USAID here funded such projects... and closed like 1/2 of them.
My point was you don't really need such a massive administration. What's the budget of EPA? Are you sure the cost of running it is justified?No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doktor View Postgunnut you are masters of creating NGOs for a purpose.
In the last 15 years USAID here funded such projects... and closed like 1/2 of them.
My point was you don't really need such a massive administration. What's the budget of EPA? Are you sure the cost of running it is justified?Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.
Comment
-
I am mixed on the effectiveness of the EPA on a cost/benefit ratio. Somewhat like OSHA.
For non-U.S. folk, OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) is an arm of the government that oversees labor safety and health issues.
Fundamentally, OSHA in some form is needed. Workers should be protected from issues like Black Lung to Asbestos. But over the years it has turned into a gigantic, bloated entity that drives manufacturers insane and raises costs for everybody.
In the same way, without the EPA, the Great Lakes would probably still be dead, the Ohio River would still catch on fire occasionally, and the quality of life would decrease for citizens. Somewhere between NO EPA and what we have today - say, 35% - would be appropriate. There is absolutely room for trimming and increases in efficiency.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doktor View Postgunnut you are masters of creating NGOs for a purpose.
In the last 15 years USAID here funded such projects... and closed like 1/2 of them.
My point was you don't really need such a massive administration. What's the budget of EPA? Are you sure the cost of running it is justified?"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
gunnut,
then who should act as a public goods regulator? free market theory dictates that private entities do a remarkably poor job at protection of the commons.There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
Originally posted by Julie View PostNot only is the hand of the US invisible, it is non-existent, which is why Canada is looking to China as a new customer.
To put it more simply, I think that US needs to bring down the scale of human living to a level which will be sustainable and in a way where living in such habitats will be pleasurable and rewarding.
Comment
Comment