Reptile & Amphibian Forums

The post below (on Atrazine) got me to thinking about this. This is a huge problem in todays society.

When society can't take something really bad and replace it with something that is better (but still bad), we are in trouble. Having zero tolerance for something that is bad is wrong when we have in place something that is far worse.

Consider the Bush idea to let corporations trade or sell "levels of polution" they produce. While most experts agree that this would mean cleaner air for all of us, Bush is bashed because he doesn't care about the environment? He simply realizes that small, inexpensive steps will be taken while huge expensive ones will not. Small improvements in air quality are better than none at all. The democrats want such strict rules as to make corporations spend huge amounts of money to make their factories meet new polution standards whenever they make small changes to their plants, thus, they almost never change their plants because it is too expensive- so polution production levels remain unchanged. Does this really make sense to anyone? (Yeah, I know, you can bash Bush with this type of thinking. Who cares about the environment when you can bash Bush instead.)

I've said it before, better is better, period.

Rodney

>>When society can't take something really bad and replace it with something that is better (but still bad), we are in trouble.

lol. You mean that don't you? I'm sorry Bad is Bad!!
For example: We replace the leader of Iraq with another murderous dictator, but he likes America. He’s bad, but not AS bad as the last, then they should just deal with it?

>>Consider the Bush idea to let corporations trade or sell "levels of pollution" they produce. While most experts agree that this would mean cleaner air for all of us, Bush is bashed because he doesn't care about the environment?

What experts? That’s not what I have heard. You mean the experts hired by the companies, who want to boost their levels of emissions? Letting corporations set their own levels is silly. These people run a BUSINESS, the more emissions they are allowed to release, the more MONEY they make. They don’t run it for our health; they run it to get paid! We are very capable of taking LARGE leaps towards toward a cleaner world. These small steps are a joke. Bush and co., Benefit off these companies, who benefit of these ridiculous standards. The LONGER they are allowed to "piss around", the more MONEy they make. GEt it? That’s why Bush gets as you say, bashed..

That’s like saying: Let drug dealers write the drug laws.lol

I’ve said it before, BAd is BAd.. Period!!

So, let me get this straight. You are going to get sick. You must pick one of two diseases. You can either get cancer or a common cold. You would pick cancer because bad is bad? (I don't believe you! Given that choice, I'd much prefer a cold!)

Bad is Bad? That is total nonsense, there are always different levels of good and bad. To keep one thing that is very bad because you don't want to replace it with something less bad is very foolish to say the least.

We know that farmers must use chemicals because their customers (us) demand it. And you don't want to ever replace dangerous chemicals that were developed in the past with newer, less dangerous chemicals? If I was your teacher and you were taking a logic class from me, you would be getting an F- for that type of reasoning!

We know companies won't spend huge amounts of money to improve their pollution output if they don't have too (we both agree on that). Companies don't make more money by making more pollution like you said. True, it may cost them more to reduce what they currently produce because they have to add expensive equipment, but if they produce more pollution right now, their profits don't go up. They aren't going to remove expensive equipment that they already have. Doing that would cost them money also! We also know that by trading these "pollution" credits, it allows some companies to improve total polution output when they wouldn't or couldn't afford to do so otherwise. What's wrong with that? You would prefer no change because it is simply too expensive for companies to do?

Did you ever hear about a study that was done here in California where the state could give every person who drives a "mass" polluting car, a free brand new Cadillac. They could set up smog detectors on the side of the highway that would actually detect how much smog a car puts out while it is driving down the freeway. (this smog detecting technology already exists) It would cost less than 1/10 what is spent today by smog checking every car in the state every 2 years and forcing people to fix those that don't pass? On top of that, it would reduce smog by more than the current system of systematic checking. Consider that I own 2 cars, I have a brother that owns 2, another brother that owns 4, and my parents own 2, and none of us have ever failed a smog check. In fact, my 15 year old Honda's pollution levels are 2% or less in every category that is checked and new cars are better! That means that I have wasted about 1/2 a days work, 7 times, and paid about $35 each time for no change in pollution what so ever! Now multiply that cost to society by all the cars in California! Unbelievable waste!

The pollution trade concept is the same. Spend less for more of an improvment in polution by using polution as a commodity. A large, fairly clean company could buy a small dirty company and shut it down, or fix it up and keep both companies, or at least one, working. Under the current plan, the large company can't change anything because it is large and changing that much equipment is too expensive for it to stay in business. The small dirty company can't afford change either because while that small change isn't all that expensive, it is a small company and it still doesn't have the money. But this way, the air is cleaner for everyone instead of things staying the same.

Probably a better way for you to look at it is: An improvement is an improvement, regardless, period. Keeping things the same is no improvement at all and never will be!

Rodney

Actually Rodney, thats wrong.

Clinton set up this deal where if utilities wanted to do major upgrades they would have to bring in the latest technology - the stuff that would reduce toxins and poisons into the environment. He understood that air pollution costs a lot - but it's costs are not centralized. As air pollution spreads in Phoenix it causes asthma, and in New England it causes acid lakes devoid of life. Over all, it may cause global warming, dangerous to us all.

Bush just cut the utilities a lot of slack. He is allowing the utilities to upgrade with out improving the emissions that can be improved with available technology. Bush thinks that the expense of these clean air technologies is too great and might inhibit economic growth, others feel that regardless, its more important to have healthy air, and to protect aginst the possibilty of global warming.

The question really is: Is the clean air worth the extra cost of industry upgrades? Thats a trade off that requires some discussion and some research to understand the implications. Its not a simple issue.

Great looking Eclectus by the way - beautiful, gorgeous birds. Have you ever worked with Blue-front Pionus?

Joe

Yes, I do keep Blue-headed pionus. I usually get a few babies a year, but my pair is quite old and they aren't the best producers now. They were at least 20 when I bought them, and they are over 40 now. They do OK, but not great. Not a lot of eggs, only one clutch a year and their fertility seems to be slowly going down.

There is something called the law of diminishing returns. While what you said is true (about it being very expensive to cut pollution), by allowing trade in pollution, you can cut far more pollution from the air at the some cost.

You are probably familiar with this, but for those that are not, here is an explanation.

Let's say it costs a company 10 million to cut 20% of their pollution produced. Cutting another 20% will cost maybe 20 million. Cutting another 20% will cost maybe 40 million. Cutting another 10% may cost 50 million. Cutting another 7% may cost 60 million and so on. You will never get to a 0% pollution level, but the closer you get, the more you will have to pay for a decreasing improvement.

Why not let companies, that are already fairly clean, use pollution as a commodity so that they can cut many times more pollution than they could by improving their plants? Instead of a company spending 60 million dollars to reduce their pollution by 7%, they could buy and shut down small dirty companies for, lets say, 50 million and get maybe a 10% improvement instead of a 7%. We all win when that happens. We get less pollution so we are happy, and the company is happy because it saved 10 million. Instead, we have a system where they don't change anything in their plants so they don't have to spend 60 million so there is no improvement at all. Using this method will eliminate the dirtiest forms of pollution first because of the law of diminishing returns. (Remember, the first 20% produced is the cheapest to eliminate and companies will work and look for dirtier companies to shut down or improve first.) Sounds like a much better idea to me than to make it so expensive for companies to make any changes that they don't, and we all lose.--We get higher pollution levels and higher costs of goods because companies have to spend more for less improvment.

Rodney