Your One Stop Resource For All The California Recall News! 
Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin
Posted on 09/23/2003 1:59:55 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
But when will the press/media ever even acknowledge that? I'll tell you when... when Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton agree and publically state that America has been forgiven for it's racism due to slavery in the past!!!
The next step is parts per trillion, then per quadrillion, or maybe never, right? The self-perpetuating self-annointed messiahs of civil rights and the environment are one and the same. That's why we're now headed for "Environmental Justice" so that "Earth Justice" lawyers for the Sierra Flub can increase in wealth and power over our lives!!!
The "level playing field" idea isn't. It doesn't account for climatic distinctions between sites or the relative risks to surrounding populations. It is however advantageous to larger concerns simply because of economies of scale in the cost of compliance.
Another crooked scam is playing games with the attainment specs to give an advantage to a single player. An example is when Carol Browner set the particulate reduction specs for new diesel at 94% when the industry stated that it could only comply with 90%. You can bet that someone had a proprietary process that met the marginally higher number and made a killing on the resulting shortages of diesel and perhaps royalties on the process.
A flexible system is actually more just and motivates more consideration of individual plant location attributes. That's where pricing emissions has big advantages in flexibility.
The problem with that idea is that it's effectively a tax scam run by the big guys who can buy more influence with the administration. My system works in the opposite fashion, paying those landowners who develop proven processes to adsorb, dilute, or control downstream emissions. It's a long way off but in principle more accurately maps onto the way nature actually mitigates industrial activity.
A lot has changed since then. We have actually crossed the point of diminishing returns and gone negative with the environmental impact of regulatory government on a scale the boggles the mind when you learn about it. The problem is that no one talks about those problems as having been caused by government.
I'll be putting out a short article series soon on conservative principles applied to swing constituency issues, the environment among them. In it I'll have examples of what I mean. Until then, isn't 27 million acres infested with starthistle an environmental problem caused by government? Isn't seven million acres a year combusted in catastrophic fire an environmental problem caused by government? Isn't the fact that an imported pathogen, phytophthora ramorum, threatens to kill seventy percent of all hardwood forests in the West an environmental problem caused by government failure to run its border inspection systems properly?
Nobody talks about those.
Have we put scrubbers on fast-food restraunt vents, or have we outlawed backyard barbeques yet? Years ago, the idea of reducing an emission by a part-per-billion was unheard of. Today, technology allows it. But at what cost? That's the eternal question. However, I have to admit that I consider myself an environmentalist...I don't think I'm a "wacko" however.
Well I used to be where you are, until I learned a great deal more about how the system works. The book explains a lot about that.
All in all, your analysis is sound. And I daresay, your knowledge of the issues outstrips my own. Arnold's platform on the environment is pretty mainstream -- neither that revolutionary, nor questioning of questionable existing policies. Let's face it -- it was probably written by a former Wilson official at CalEPA.
Actually, it's not mainstream except among regulators. If the public understood where this stuff goes or the environmental consequences of the policy, they would be up in arms.
I know you didn't address that to me, but IMO he does pretty good at simply taking a HUGE and far reaching "plan" by an uncandid candidate and answering each phrase and line or concept with precise and accurate refutation that is actually understandable to most people. There... I need an editor as that sentence was WAY too long!!!
You're right. I'd forgotten about that. Like I said, it's been a few years.
The "level playing field" idea isn't.
You're right, but I'm referring to stationary source controls enacted by the individual air districts. Clearly, what's required for a stationary source in LA isn't going to be the same (necessarily) in Contra Costa County, or Bakersfield. I meant that the rules adopted for a region (the BAAQMD, for example) should be applied equally and fairly to similar sources permitted within the district.
A flexible system is actually more just and motivates more consideration of individual plant location attributes. That's where pricing emissions has big advantages in flexibility.
Emission credits is actually a great "market solution" to difficult air quality standards. I think they were originated in the South Coast District. Again, conservatives pooh-pooh emission credits (e.g., I hear Melanie Morgan on KSFO ranking in her ignorance on emissions credits, and I want to ring her neck) but it really gives a break to those businesses which simply can't reach their permitted levels, and is an economic advantage to those who do better than their permitted allowance. (Although I see your point about potential abuse in favoring the entity that can afford aggressive controls, and can then recoup much of their expenditure from the little guy who can't; but the concept is still a good one, IMO.)
The problem with that idea is that it's effectively a tax scam run by the big guys who can buy more influence with the administration. My system works in the opposite fashion, paying those landowners who develop proven processes to adsorb, dilute, or control downstream emissions.
Worth considering. Is this applicable to sources of air emissions?
Yes, but it's down the road a good ways. Even better, it leads to patenting land management processes as property in a manner similar to a mining claim.
For me, that would be akin to a "hunger strike!" Mrs. Wasp says I need to go on a hunger strike or pretty soon I'ma gonna be too fat to fly!!!
She keeps tellin me that FReepin promotes too many fatasses, but who listens?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.