Global Warming or a bunch of Chicken Littles?

[Wake up CALL]

Q&A on Global Warming (http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoQuestionsAnswers.html)

[Josh W]

I didn't read the article. I have a tough time taking anything on global warming seriously.

There have been a number of ice ages throughout the history of Earth.

The ice melts. That's how the ice ages end. How does the ice melt? The avg. temp. of Earth goes up.

It's called a cycle.

In October, when the leaves start falling off of trees, I don't panic, thinking that gravity has suddenly increased.

Josh

[Taxman]

I think much more relevant is acid rain, contaminated drinking water and the depleted ozone layer (not to mention a plethora of other things).

[Graham]

Qn: What do you think of the article linked to? What do you think of the objectivity of the authors?

[Graham]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I read something recently that indicated the ozone hole had shrunk

[Taxman]

Well for one thing, it varies with the time of year but also you are right that it is smaller than the past couple years at this time. Nevertheless scientists attribute this to unusual stratospheric weather conditions. Read the article here (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2002/20020926ozonehole.html).

[Cyrus]

Now there's a picture that I will fondly treasure!

Thank you, Wakey.

[Cyrus]

Pucker up time.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[jokerswild]

They will squeeze profits for as long as possible. It's the driving factor behind the war to give Iraq to Halliburton.

[Cyrus]

"What do you think of the article linked to? What do you think of the objectivity of the authors?"

The authors of the Q&A website which Wake Up CALL linked to are lobbyists for "free market solutions to public policy problems", as they proclaim. Their resume (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NCPPRHist.html) is quite interesting.

Can you take a bit of Blackjack talk? Don Schlesinger, Blackjack author, expert and ex-player, introduced a very significant concept in his studies of Risk of Ruin, some years back. The concept was the barrier effect, which brought home the true concept of ruin and caused a revision to the formulas.

Briefly, imagine you are standing at a mountain plateau, with a precipice some distance behind you. The position you are standing on represents your current total Bankroll. When you are winning and your fortunes go up, you take a step forward; when you lose, a step backward. The RoR research at the time did not take into account the fact that when you fall into the precipice, you are dead! The concept practically doubled the necessary distance you had to be from the precipice (=your starting bankroll) in order to safely start moving forwards & backwards (=to start playing). This is an important concept, applicable not only to all forms of gambling but also to every case whereby we wager on probabilities, from the most grand to the most mundane in our lives.

Transfering this important concept to the issue of environmental conservation, we are obliged to acknowledge, friends and foes of the Greens alike, that this problem encompasses the ultimate, the greatest, the ne plus ultra of all Risks ever undertaken by Man in all of History. That's because if we go "bust" (=fall into the precipice), there is simply no way that we can get back up, dust ourselves off, renew our "bankroll" and come back to play tomorrow : The Earth'll be a-goner! This ain't gonna be no Warner Brother cartoon.

Which means that, all ideological and political beliefs aside, this is one issue that must be dealt with the extreme prejudice and caution, to put it mildly. There is simply no room for error or risk! (Did someone say Kelly betting?? You must be out of your mind! We need RoR way beyond the decimal point!)

We must also acknowledge though that the free market economy is built upon the very concept of trial & error. The consumer tries products & services and then rejects what he doesn't like and rewards what he likes. In the free market, failure of businesses, of products, of ideas, of ventures, of investments, is the very dynamic which makes for a stronger and more vigorous economy (I'm completely adopting here the ideas of free market proponents). Without failures in the system, the system is effectively not doing what it is supposed to be doing. There is no progress in a free economy without failures in some areas of that economy.

Put the two concepts together, (1) the free market solutions, with (2) the need to concerve our Bankroll (Earth) at all costs, and you will see that they are, in effect, incompatible. (Which is why the Pentagon planners, who are of course no chicken-littles, as Wake Up CALL insinuated, suggest no "free market solutions" for the United States predicament in case the climate takes a dive.)

--Cyrus

[bigpooch]

But what will Cheney be doing after serving his political
time? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[superleeds]

Do you [censored] in your garden because I'm led to believe there is good scientific data confirming it's good for roses. Don't listen to those health nuts after all they used to throw sewage in the streets only a few hundred years ago and we are still here, right?

[George Rice]

I made a post in another thread basically stating that most of the scientists that claim they don't believe in global warming get their funding from the energy industry. "Wake up" challenged me for proof and I in turn challenged him. Unless I'm mistaken, he has make this post, at least in part, to satisfy my challenge.

From the site of the organization he quotes:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NCPPRHist.html

[ QUOTE ]
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a communications and research foundation supportive of a strong national defense and dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems. We believe that the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility provide the greatest hope for meeting the challenges facing America in the 21st century.

In 1982, we started The National Center to provide the conservative movement with a versatile and energetic organization capable of responding quickly and decisively to fast-breaking issues. Today, we continue to fill this critical niche through a top-flight research and communications operation driven by results and the bottom line. (empasis added)

[/ QUOTE ]

They claim that most of their funding comes from individuals. Which individuals? They don't say, but if you look around their site you can figure that out for yourself (Conservatives. But do they work in the energy industry? Who knows).

Of course, they're intitled to their opinion like anyone else. But don't anyone make the mistake of believing that this Q&A on global warming is not biased. It's actually a conservative slanted argument against Kyoto.

Also, the magazine article the Q&A quotes for it's information on global warming comes from "The Weekly Standard", edited by conservatives William Kristol and Fred Barnes. It's owned by Newscorp, which in turn is owned by Rupert Murdoch. http://www.newscorp.com/management/board.html

I'm unable to check into the sources of the Weekly Standard article because I can't access that information without being a subscriber. That's where the real meat will be found. Maybe Wake up CALL will subscribe and provide us with that info. LOL

I should note that Wake up CALL didn't claim that the article he referrences is unbiased.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't listen to those health nuts after all they used to throw sewage in the streets only a few hundred years ago and we are still here, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But those who died from the various diseases caused by that, aren't.

That quote is so silly I half think it was made as a joke.

[superleeds]

[Graham]

I like the precipice analogy.


The authors of the Q&A website which Wake Up CALL linked to are lobbyists for "free market solutions to public policy problems", as they proclaim. Their resume is quite interesting.


Exactly. I don't get the point of linking to such blatantly corrupt information. For anyone else who's read this far, the article Wake Up Call linked to is ridiculous and not based on what the objective unbiased science will tell you. There aren't many who don't fully believe anthropogenic global warming has indeed occurred.

I love the internet, but misinformation can also be easily spread just as well as the good stuff.

Of course, this is jmho, so take it with it's own grain of salt (...you'll just need a barrel of the stuff for Wake Up Call's link, though).

G

[George Rice]

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
we are obliged to acknowledge, friends and foes of the Greens alike, that this problem encompasses the ultimate, the greatest, the ne plus ultra of all Risks ever undertaken by Man in all of History.

[/ QUOTE ]

One could argue that the manufacture of Nuclear weapons was a greater risk - which we have, so far, survived.

I think your investing in hyperbole with extreme prejudice.

At best the scientific evidence points to an upward trend in global temperature that is probably partially induced by human activities. Prudence would dictate some from of action but I doubt if any consensus could be agreed upon. At best, a voluntary accord may be able to be reach. This may seem like a do nothing stance but it would be important as the basis for a springboard for concrete action when/if more evidence mounts and the consequences become more pronounced. This is probably the most that can be hoped for at the present time. Humanity is also very adaptable, if not we would have ended a long time ago. One must adapt an outlook as to what is practically achievable given the limits of humans to act in any coordinated way on a global scale.

[ QUOTE ]
The Earth'll be a-goner! This ain't gonna be no Warner Brother cartoon.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hyperbole. There are millions of species on the earth –man is just one. If he self-destructs there will be consequences for some species, but the earth will continue spinning in space, the sun will continue with nuclear activities, Zeus will still be on his throne fondling His thunderbolts and stroking His beard, and life on the planet will evolve as ever before – with or without the influence of man. It is, in the end, a natural process and indeed, one could argue, an integral part of evolution itself.

Calm down Cyrus – You are taking the cosmic joke too seriously.

-Zeno

[Taxman]

Discouting the danger of Global warming does nothing because you still are left with a thousand and one other environmental issues that are obvious threats to our health. Even if Global warming is a giant sham, we have plenty of things that need to be dealt with. Pollution of the environment may well be as dangerous as nuclear weapons, just slower and more insidious. In fact the use of nuclear weapons itself constitutes one of the greatest instances of polluting the environment. The destruction from the blast itself is just a drop in the ocean.

[adios]

What do you propose doing about the pollution problem. If I remember correctly you want the Federal government to mandate more fuel effecient automobiles. Assuming I remember your position regarding mandating more fuel effecient autos, what else do you propose?

[George Rice]

It may be a waste of time trying to convince certain people about things like global warming. Even when its effects become obvious, some will attribute it to something else. When it can no longer be denied, those who oppose it today will be long dead and burried, having died content that they were right.

If it turns out they were right but we followed policies to protect against global warming, there might be some additional expense, but no real harm will be done.

It's sort of like religion, if you think about it. Many don't want to take the chance of not believing because of the chance that God, and (plug in your favorite religion), is really the truth. A little loss as compared to catostrophic loss.

[Zeno]

Atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons was banded, I think, in the early 60s because of the fallout. Mainly because of tritium, I believe. Many radionuclides have decayed to levels that are no longer a health threat - the levels were never very high to begin with, it was just prudent to stop before they were.

Man will continue to pollute the earth. There are more than 6 billion humans and pollution is inevitable and there is no practical way to alter this fact, unless wholesale slaughter of say 5.8 billion persons is touted as a solution, which in itself would leave a big mess.

As I posted before, one must keep in mind what is practically achievable. The best that can be done, I submit, is to keep environmental damage to a minimum and allocate what resources we can to clean up given the practical need to also supply people with work, food, clothing, shelter, health care etc. Many people currently do not even have these minimal requirements or have substandard living conditions. Improvements will come, but at a cost to the environment. There are no viable alternatives given the constraints of population, finite resources, and human political, social, and cultural mechanisms.

-Zeno

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
It's sort of like religion, if you think about it. Many don't want to take the chance of not believing because of the chance that God, and (plug in your favorite religion), is really the truth. A little loss as compared to catostrophic loss.

[/ QUOTE ]

For what it is worth I do not believe in a God or any Supreme Deity.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. I don't get the point of linking to such blatantly corrupt information. For anyone else who's read this far, the article Wake Up Call linked to is ridiculous and not based on what the objective unbiased science will tell you. There aren't many who don't fully believe anthropogenic global warming has indeed occurred.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate you disclaimed these quotes stating they were just your opinions. Why should someone believe you rather than a large group of scientists who actually understand the science behind potential global warming?

In other words my link provided scientific facts whether biased or not is up to the readers to determine. Wheras you simply dismiss the answers as corrupt because you choose to believe diferently. Pardon me for saying so but you are not welcome on any debate team upon which I might participate.

Actually there are many millions of educated people who have taken the time to perform research that really do believe anthropogenic Global Warming warnings are a farce.

[Wake up CALL]

For those of you not old enough to remember in the early 1970's the earth's temperature had been declining steadily for nearly 25 years. The same "unbiased" scientists that predicted a new ice age in the next 20 years are now predicting the total destruction of the earth due to global warming in the next 20 years. I suppose it is perhaps possible that one of these days they will guess correctly however it will be many hundreds if not thousands of years after all you here reading my post are long gone.

[Taxman]

You can't just say that people will never stop polluting so we shouldn't try to hard to fix things. I'm sure you are right that some pollution will always be a part of society, but the earth is capable of handling "some" pollution. We are dumping things on an epic scale and that can be addressed though nobody seems to want to do it. Yes, it will initially cost money bu the long term benefits outweigh the short term inconvenience. Currently there is little to nothing aimed at "keeping environmental damage to a minimum." To take a favorite example of mine, we could easily halve our military budget and still be the preeminent military power. The Billions of dollars left over could do a world of good not only for environmental issues, but things like education or scientific research.

It's a fact that factories could lower their emmissions if they chose to. It's a fact that cars could get sonsiderably better gas milage and pollute less if manufacturers made them that way. It's a fact that the use and effieincy of public transportation is far below what it could be. All of these are fixable. The problem is that it would all cost money and nobody is willing to foot even a part of the bill. Arguing that we shouldn't save the envirnoment because it would be bad for the economy is the ultimate expression of capitalist America (not saying that you were expressing this exactly). As long as I get my money, screw everyone else. And to preempt the peanut gallery, I am not a communist, I just think that capitalism does not have to be an every man for himself proposition.

[Taxman]

In other words, lets worry more about the acid rain, resperitory disease and cancer caused by pollution than global warming. Sounds good to me.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, lets worry more about the acid rain, resperitory disease and cancer caused by pollution than global warming. Sounds good to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said Taxman.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a fact that factories could lower their emmissions if they chose to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which factories and how much could they reduce emissions by?

[ QUOTE ]
It's a fact that cars could get sonsiderably better gas milage and pollute less if manufacturers made them that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but consummer demand probably isn't that strong for these vehicles wouldn't you agree?

[ QUOTE ]
It's a fact that the use and effieincy of public transportation is far below what it could be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. I would guess that consummer demand isn't that strong for this either in the aggregate.

[ QUOTE ]
All of these are fixable.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the consummer doesn't want something why does something need to be fixed.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that it would all cost money and nobody is willing to foot even a part of the bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure about emmissions and how bad the problem is. The US answer is to regulate the polluters. As I mentioned in another post the cost of pollution is known as a spillover effect in economics. Society unfairly bares the costs of pollution by the polluter when the polluter should pay the cost. So to have government take action one must actually make a case rather than simply have an opinion to convince government that action is required. I'm sure you can be at least a little more specific about what industries and their emmissions that society unfairly bares the costs of.

As far as automobile emmissions, generally speaking it does run against the grain of the US style of capitalism IMO to plan and control consummer markets. There are vehicles that are available for consummers that are much higher than average in fuel efficiency. I don't believe that they satisfy a large market segment. I don't think it's a simple matter to resolve. My understanding is that Ford and GM make the lion's share of their profits from gas guzzlers. What sort of economic impact will mandating more effecient fuel standards have on them and their employees? I understand where your coming from but I don't think weaning the US from fossil fuel consumption is as easy as you make it appear to be.

More widespread use of public transportation is another thorny issue that doesn't render itself to easy solutions IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
Arguing that we shouldn't save the envirnoment because it would be bad for the economy is the ultimate expression of capitalist America (not saying that you were expressing this exactly).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. For instance what evidence do you have that the US is ruining the environment? For instance how do US standards compare up to other nations? Have socialist and communist nations fared any better on the pollution front? We have politicians running around stating that other countries should adopt our environmental and safety standards so I wonder how bad they can really be compared to the rest of the world.

[ QUOTE ]
As long as I get my money, screw everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the consummers made the markets /images/graemlins/smile.gif. If the price is too high, the consummer doesn't buy.

[ QUOTE ]
And to preempt the peanut gallery, I am not a communist, I just think that capitalism does not have to be an every man for himself proposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't. The US economy is a mixed economy comprised of elements of free markets, government planning and tradition with the heavy emphaisis on free markets. Consummers demand for the most part determines the markets that exist. Jack the price of gas up to $15.00 a gallon and see how many people want more fuel effecient vehicles and see how many consummers become interested in public transportation. Fossil fuel is relatively cheap and until that changes I don't see the feasibility of what you suggest increasing any time soon. I think you're long on good ideas but short on ways to enact them, at least in a somewhat non disruptive manner. Nobody wants a dirty envirnonment that I know. But there is a great deal of debate as to how acute the problems with pollution really are. I've always assumed that pollution, let's say per capita, has improved over the years i.e. on a per capita basis in the US there is less pollution than there was 25 years ago. Could definitely be convinced otherwise.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always assumed that pollution, let's say per capita, has improved over the years i.e. on a per capita basis in the US there is less pollution than there was 25 years ago. Could definitely be convinced otherwise.


[/ QUOTE ]

Reducing pollution per capita doesn't necessarily mean that it's going down if the population is increasing. Also, some pollution doesn't go away, or goes away slowly. If your neighbor took a dumb on your doorstep every day would you be satisfied if he reduced it to every other day?

[ QUOTE ]
If the consummer doesn't want something why does something need to be fixed.


[/ QUOTE ]

If the consumer doesn't want seatbelts in cars, would they stop buying cars? Obviously not. If other things are mandated, the consumer will live with that too. If the only passanger vehicles available were low emmission vehicles, consumers wouldn't stop buying. Maybe at first, but after a while they would accept it and move on.

Capilalism isn't the final word on life. It's just a tool. And like all tools, there are times to use it and times not to. If something needs to be fixed, then it needs to be fixed, whether the consumers agree or not.

[Graham]

Quote:
"Exactly. I don't get the point of linking to such blatantly corrupt information. For anyone else who's read this far, the article Wake Up Call linked to is ridiculous and not based on what the objective unbiased science will tell you. There aren't many who don't fully believe anthropogenic global warming has indeed occurred."


I appreciate you disclaimed these quotes stating they were just your opinions. Why should someone believe you rather than a large group of scientists who actually understand the science behind potential global warming?

In other words my link provided scientific facts whether biased or not is up to the readers to determine. Wheras you simply dismiss the answers as corrupt because you choose to believe diferently. Pardon me for saying so but you are not welcome on any debate team upon which I might participate.

Actually there are many millions of educated people who have taken the time to perform research that really do believe anthropogenic Global Warming warnings are a farce.


I'm upset I didn't make it onto your debating team.

Why should someone believe you rather than a large group of scientists who actually understand the science behind potential global warming?

I choose to believe the other, larger, group of scientists who actually understand the science behind potential global warming. The ones that aren't directly or inderectly funded by various lobbying interests. And my group of scientists is bigger than your group of scientists...nah, nah, ne, nah, nah...(now do I make your debate team..? /images/graemlins/wink.gif


Your link is to the web site of a lobbying body that makes claims about the validity of the notion of anthropogenic global warming being bunk; that's no more valid than my claim that their web site is bunk.


From the site you linked:

"8. Is there scientific consensus that global warming is underway? If so, how was this consensus determined?

Dr. Lindzen has said there were a wide variety of scientific views presented in the NAS report and "that the full report did, [express a wide variety of views] making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them."14 The same is true of the all of the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change's studies on which the notion of global warming is based."

Well, I wasn't about to spend much time on this, so I just skimmed the first few pages of the latest report I could find on the IPCC site.
There's plenty more, but just from the first few pages, here's a couple of direct quotes:

"The Earth's climate system has demonstrably changed on both global and regional scales since the preindustrial era, with some of these changes attributable to human activities."

"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

Doesn't quite square with the claims made by the previous quote from the link, does it. All I'm saying is that that link you posted is way, way, way far from being objective. I'm sure anyone who's interested can dig through the rest of the IPCC itself, or other places, to get a much more objective viewpoint. I had to type instead of cut/pasting, 'cos it's pdf, but you can read the rest yourself.

Anyone who reads the link you posted, should at least go read: IPCC - Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report (http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf). This is the most recent I found in a brief search. If someone has more recent, then please give us a link.


Why should someone believe you rather than a large group of scientists who actually understand the science behind potential global warming?

I say don't believe me. Check out the sources themselves. But, also, why should someone believe a biased article written by those who are more motivated by the economics behind potential global warming mitigation than in objectivity about the science of global warming itself?

I say the link you posted has the views of a biased lobby group who have singled out a very few indicators to support their claims, while totally missing out the plethora of contra-indicators pointing the other way - while also misstating scientific bodies like the IPCC.

G

[Wake up CALL]

I have the same problen with the IPCC which you claim is objective as you have with my link which I acknowledged might be biased.

From the IPCC website:

The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters.

And

The First IPCC Assessment Report was completed in 1990. The Report played an important role in establishing the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a UN Framework Convention on Climate Change by the UN General Assembly.

Although it may not be obvious to you that the UN is biased against the USA it is evident to most. They will use this bias in any way imaginable to either discredit or harm our country.

In addition I never claimed that humans have not effected global warming nor that the earth's climate has never changed. Just that the changes we have caused are irrelevant as it pertains to any permanntly damaging effects to our environment (such as a frigging Ice Age!).

[Taxman]

Don't worry I have a lot to say in response to this, but I don't have time for now, so you'll just have to suffer waiting /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[Graham]

I have the same problen with the IPCC which you claim is objective as you have with my link which I acknowledged might be biased.

From the IPCC website:

The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters.[/i]

Perhaps we agree to differ, but I know which I personally would give the greater weight to. Correct me if I'm wrong but the IPCC does also assess the scientific data that is amassed. So we have two bodies here which have "assessed" the scientific data and given their synopses. Well, call me a lunatic, but, I'd say that between the IPCC and the National Center for Public Policy Research, I can make an educated guess as to which opinion is less coloured by the needs of their funding sources.


Slightly off-tangent, but you wrote:

Although it may not be obvious to you that the UN is biased against the USA it is evident to most. They will use this bias in any way imaginable to either discredit or harm our country.


Yes, the UN does come up with stuff that steps on the toes of the US. But the UN comes up with stuff that steps on everyone else's toes too. It's just the nature of the beast; don't think you're the only one that feels hard done by. And, being the nation with the biggest clout and the biggest demands doesn't exempt the US from others attempting to rein that in. It goes with the territory - and, you could say, is exactly why the world needs a body like the UN. I don't dispute there are segments that will actively oppose US interests - just as others will also promote them for their own collaborative ends.


G

[superleeds]

The ozone hole is in and has always been in a state of flux. It grows and shrinks depending on many factors, a lot of them natural. The problem is that it has never reached the levels - read lowest - it now does. It is hard for any sensible theory to attribute this to totally natural factors, (pollution at the rate it has been produced since the industrial revolution is not a natural factor).

It is interesting to note that the main cause of ozone depletion, CFC's, were curtailed in manufactoring, despite intense lobbying from various industries that they were not a big problem, by the efforts of Margeret Thatcher. She was the most fervant Market Economist Great Britain has had as Prime Minister in the 20th Century.

She was also a Chemist. She understood the facts, she knew what happens when you mix certain chemicals. She knew that ultimatly, if big business were left to their own devices in this respect the world would get f***ed.

I am no fan of hers but even she realised that sometimes the long term consequences outway the short term benefits.

[Taxman]

According to various measurements and predictions, the malefect of CFCs will not go away for some time yet. They take so long to reach the atmosphere (many years) that we didn'v even know about their harmful effects until years after they were introduced. Thus we still have some time to go before they run their course (and it's not like there aren't still some CFC sources out there). Current thoughts on the abnormally small hole is that it is resulting from upper atmospheric weather conditions that are not the norm. Read that article I posted a link to. sS far as the long term consequences outweighing short term benefits goes, I couldn't agree more.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
Which factories and how much could they reduce emissions by?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any factory or refinery that blows smoke into the atmosphere. Or any of the many industries that dump their product legally or not into the surrounding environment. Do you mean to imply that it is impossible to clean up the waste put out by these beasts? I feel there is no need for me to cite a dozen specific examples because it is undeniable that these things do exist. I'm sure you've heard of a few famous cases involving such things. I am not trying to convince the government with this post, I'm trying to make a general point to a wider audience.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, but consummer demand probably isn't that strong for these vehicles wouldn't you agree?


[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't mind getting better gas milage and I don't think anyone else would either, especially with gas prices spiking. I will adress your subsequent comments on this matter below. People don't see low emmission vehicles as giving them any individual benefit, but that is not a good argument as to why there shouldn't be any. There is a concept in political science known as "Free Riding" which refers to people avoiding contributing to a common good but still expecting to reap the benefits. A simple example would be tax evasion, but there are many others. I doubt there is a specific demand for refridgerators that do not use CFCs, but that's all you can find now becasue scientists discovered their harmful effects. I bet that before that happened most people would probably say they were in favor of protecting the ozone layer but still would pay less for a non-regulation unit if they could.

About public transportation you said:
[ QUOTE ]
Ok. I would guess that consummer demand isn't that strong for this either in the aggregate.


[/ QUOTE ]

This statement doesn't hold water either. The demand is actually fairly high, especially in areas with a high level of traffic congestion. We have a "light rail" system in my home town that is extensively used by commuters. In cities like New York, public transportation is one of the most viable ways to get around. I don't know this for a fact, but I would guess the main complaint of those not using busses, trolleys or subways, is that they are too dirty, or don't run regularly enough, or aren't comfortable enough, or don't go to the places they need them to. All of these things can be addressed. This could potentially increase the demand. Besides, not everything needs to follow a supply/demand model. Soemtimes you have to force people to do something for the greater good. It may not be a very Libertarian idea, but even Libertarians don't want their new mercedes' paint job ruined by acid rain.

[ QUOTE ]
If the consummer doesn't want something why does something need to be fixed.


[/ QUOTE ]

The consumer shouldn't rule everything. This is a true capitalist idea and one that ultimately could ruin future generations as they try to deal with the mess that we left them.

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding is that Ford and GM make the lion's share of their profits from gas guzzlers. What sort of economic impact will mandating more effecient fuel standards have on them and their employees? I understand where your coming from but I don't think weaning the US from fossil fuel consumption is as easy as you make it appear to be.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me retell you a story I mentioned in an earlier post. Remember the Geo Metro? Tiny little thing got 50-60 miles/gallon and cost maybe $6000. Relatively popular in its time. What do we have now? Hybrid cars that get 50-60 miles per gallon and cost maybe $20000. Sense a discrepency here? The auto industry is capable of creating non-hybrid cars that get better milage and are still cheaper than the cars offered now bu they choose not to because that would cut too far into their profit margin. I am not so impractical to realize that overhauling the auto industry or any industry would have costly short term economic drawbacks. My argument has always been that mentioning that fact is a bad argument. We might get away with worrying about the short term and maybe our children might as well, but sooner or later someone's going to have to deal with it. People either don't understand just how potentially damaging things can be or else they don't care because it won't majorly affect them and fixing it would adversely affect them.

[ QUOTE ]
Have socialist and communist nations fared any better on the pollution front?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing my point which was referring to the argument that we shouldn't fix the environment because it'll cost too much for the individual. I'm sure the socialist (there are no communist nations) countries of the world probably justify their lack of action by claiming that it will cost the state too much. A true communism would certainly try to fix the problem because doing so would help the community as a whole. I would guess that the US is average more or less among first world nations as far as our environmental standards go, but even if we were first, that isn't very good in this particular group.

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't. The US economy is a mixed economy comprised of elements of free markets, government planning and tradition with the heavy emphaisis on free markets. Consummers demand for the most part determines the markets that exist. Jack the price of gas up to $15.00 a gallon and see how many people want more fuel effecient vehicles and see how many consummers become interested in public transportation. Fossil fuel is relatively cheap and until that changes I don't see the feasibility of what you suggest increasing any time soon. I think you're long on good ideas but short on ways to enact them, at least in a somewhat non disruptive manner. Nobody wants a dirty envirnonment that I know. But there is a great deal of debate as to how acute the problems with pollution really are. I've always assumed that pollution, let's say per capita, has improved over the years i.e. on a per capita basis in the US there is less pollution than there was 25 years ago. Could definitely be convinced otherwise.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that Capitalism is an every man for himself proposition, but I do believe that many people see it that way to a certain extent. It's all abou tmaximizing my assets. The consumer not wanting to pay too much is the same as the manufacturer wanting to make more money. After all bets not lost is the same as bets won. There is no debate that poisoning ground water is bad or that acid rain is bad or that breathing in industrial waste is bad so I'm not really sure what "debate" you're referring to. Given enough time any and all of these things can and will wipe out humanity. I suppose there could be an argument about how much time is "enough time," but personally I don't think that is particularly relevant unless the answer is never and even then there are things to consider. The human race might not be wiped out for 1000 years at our currenmt rate of pollution, but lifespans would still be shortened and things like cancer could become even more common at younger ages. Various species also might well start dying off well before we do and it's hard to predict what impact that could have on the environment. This is all doomsday stuff to be sure, but it's not like it's an impossability.

As far as reduced levels of pollution are concerned it goes without saying that municiple waste has never stopped increasing. After a larger population = more waste. Recycling programs are inadequate. Air emmissions I am not as sure about, though I would not be suprised if you were wrong. Early industrial processes were much worse polluters of course but they were also on a much smaller scale. I've poked around the EPA website a little and I'm sure some more prodding would provide a lot of information in this area. I'll have to leave that for another time though as my fingers are getting tired.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Any factory or refinery that blows smoke into the atmosphere. Or any of the many industries that dump their product legally or not into the surrounding environment. Do you mean to imply that it is impossible to clean up the waste put out by these beasts?

[/ QUOTE ]

No I'm asking you to quantify your arguement which apparently you can't do.

[ QUOTE ]
I feel there is no need for me to cite a dozen specific examples because it is undeniable that these things do exist. I'm sure you've heard of a few famous cases involving such things. I am not trying to convince the government with this post, I'm trying to make a general point to a wider audience.

[/ QUOTE ]

You made claims about factories lowering their emissions and I'll point out that there are environmental standards imposed by the US government. Are they not stringent enoubh? If you really have some knowledge to pass along it actually would be appreciated. Apparently this you don't and it's more or less an uninformed opinion on your part. Your implication is that US government environmental standards are lax. Well how so? I think it's a fair question.

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't mind getting better gas milage and I don't think anyone else would either, especially with gas prices spiking.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's weak /images/graemlins/smile.gif and is more or less an admission that consummer demand isn't that strong for more effecient vehicles. That's ok though.

[ QUOTE ]
I will adress your subsequent comments on this matter below. People don't see low emmission vehicles as giving them any individual benefit, but that is not a good argument as to why there shouldn't be any. There is a concept in political science known as "Free Riding" which refers to people avoiding contributing to a common good but still expecting to reap the benefits. A simple example would be tax evasion, but there are many others. I doubt there is a specific demand for refridgerators that do not use CFCs, but that's all you can find now becasue scientists discovered their harmful effects. I bet that before that happened most people would probably say they were in favor of protecting the ozone layer but still would pay less for a non-regulation unit if they could.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok your point is that the government needs to regulate due to the "free ride" their being given. I think that's a legitimate arguement. One worth considering and debating but I think you make a reasonable point here. Not saying I agree (not saying I disagree either, just not sure) with the need but I understand your reasoning.

[ QUOTE ]
This statement doesn't hold water either. The demand is actually fairly high, especially in areas with a high level of traffic congestion.

[/ QUOTE ]

How's it doing in LA or Seattle for instance.

[ QUOTE ]
We have a "light rail" system in my home town that is extensively used by commuters.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you stated you're from San Diego and I'm familiar with the San Diego system.

[ QUOTE ]
In cities like New York, public transportation is one of the most viable ways to get around.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I stated in the aggregrate. New York seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know this for a fact, but I would guess the main complaint of those not using busses, trolleys or subways, is that they are too dirty, or don't run regularly enough, or aren't comfortable enough, or don't go to the places they need them to. All of these things can be addressed. This could potentially increase the demand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the biggest problem in doing this is the cost of doing so.

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, not everything needs to follow a supply/demand model. Soemtimes you have to force people to do something for the greater good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because of the "free rider" problem. I think the trend has been towards deregulation and what you're advocating is more regulation. Not necessarily a bad thing but I think we need to tread very carefully there.

[ QUOTE ]
It may not be a very Libertarian idea, but even Libertarians don't want their new mercedes' paint job ruined by acid rain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok.

[ QUOTE ]
The consumer shouldn't rule everything. This is a true capitalist idea and one that ultimately could ruin future generations as they try to deal with the mess that we left them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's fair to say that the degree of freedom that exists in US markets has served us well up to this point. Again I'll reiterate, I believe that the government should tread very carefully when imposing regulations. You make a statement about ruing future generations. You may be right but I think you have to make a much stronger case than you have to convince people to see your point of view.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me retell you a story I mentioned in an earlier post. Remember the Geo Metro? Tiny little thing got 50-60 miles/gallon and cost maybe $6000. Relatively popular in its time. What do we have now? Hybrid cars that get 50-60 miles per gallon and cost maybe $20000. Sense a discrepency here? The auto industry is capable of creating non-hybrid cars that get better milage and are still cheaper than the cars offered now bu they choose not to because that would cut too far into their profit margin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah but consummers who are free to choose are making different choices.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not so impractical to realize that overhauling the auto industry or any industry would have costly short term economic drawbacks. My argument has always been that mentioning that fact is a bad argument. We might get away with worrying about the short term and maybe our children might as well, but sooner or later someone's going to have to deal with it. People either don't understand just how potentially damaging things can be or else they don't care because it won't majorly affect them and fixing it would adversely affect them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think over regulation of the US auto industry would just about sound it's death knell. You imply that GM and Ford have infinite profitibility but that's hardly the case. Retooling their factories would be enormously expensive to them for instance. Before you go off and state that I'm just championing the US automakers cause I'm certainly not doing that. I'm just trying to point out that this is a thorny, complex problem that is complicated by the fact that fossil fuel is relatively cheap. Effecting the car industry in a negative manner would have a ripple effect to many other industries in the US as well. Again by stating how damaging something is doesn't prove anything and you won't convince anyone that what your stating is true without sound arguements based on objective data.

[ QUOTE ]
You are missing my point which was referring to the argument that we shouldn't fix the environment because it'll cost too much for the individual. I'm sure the socialist (there are no communist nations) countries of the world probably justify their lack of action by claiming that it will cost the state too much. A true communism would certainly try to fix the problem because doing so would help the community as a whole. I would guess that the US is average more or less among first world nations as far as our environmental standards go, but even if we were first, that isn't very good in this particular group.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're just guessing about the US and you really don't know. You have Edwards and Kerry both saying that the US has bad trade agreements and a big part of that unfairness is that our trading partners don't have to adhere to the environmental safety and pollution standards that the US has to adhere to. Again you haven't made the case that the US is performing poorly in polluting the environment. Communist nations do have a track record on environmental pollution and Safety. If Chernobyl is any indiciation it appears to be awfully bad. I'm trying to point out to you that highly regulated industry isn't a panacea for success in this area.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that Capitalism is an every man for himself proposition, but I do believe that many people see it that way to a certain extent. It's all abou tmaximizing my assets. The consumer not wanting to pay too much is the same as the manufacturer wanting to make more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats why competition among manufacturers is generally encouraged. It tends to provide consummers with lower prices will limiting the economic profit of each producer in a particular market.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no debate that poisoning ground water is bad or that acid rain is bad or that breathing in industrial waste is bad so I'm not really sure what "debate" you're referring to. Given enough time any and all of these things can and will wipe out humanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

When will this happen at our current rate of consumption and pollution?

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose there could be an argument about how much time is "enough time," but personally I don't think that is particularly relevant unless the answer is never and even then there are things to consider. The human race might not be wiped out for 1000 years at our currenmt rate of pollution, but lifespans would still be shortened and things like cancer could become even more common at younger ages. Various species also might well start dying off well before we do and it's hard to predict what impact that could have on the environment. This is all doomsday stuff to be sure, but it's not like it's an impossability.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe what a pessimist you are!!!!!!! The automobile isn't much older than 100 years for crying out loud. Jet planes have only been around for 50 years or so. What about biotechnology? If you look at the pace of technological innovation over the past 100 years it is truly astounding. Is it reasonable to assume that it won't take 1000 years to alleviate these problems?


[ QUOTE ]
As far as reduced levels of pollution are concerned it goes without saying that municiple waste has never stopped increasing. After a larger population = more waste. Recycling programs are inadequate. Air emmissions I am not as sure about, though I would not be suprised if you were wrong. Early industrial processes were much worse polluters of course but they were also on a much smaller scale. I've poked around the EPA website a little and I'm sure some more prodding would provide a lot of information in this area. I'll have to leave that for another time though as my fingers are getting tired.

[/ QUOTE ]

Learning more about the EPA and pollution problems that exist is probably something we all need to do.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently this you don't and it's more or less an uninformed opinion on your part. Your implication is that US government environmental standards are lax. Well how so? I think it's a fair question.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't feel like another long repsonse so for now I'll just respond to this. You are again missing my point. I am making a broad argument and avoiding getting too specific considering how long the general arguments took. I can quantify and I may at a later time, but it is not worth it for now. Saying that government regulations are too lax is an opinion no matter what evidence I throw at you because different people have different ideas of what's sufficient. Personally I think poisoning the environment is a bad thing. As a matter of fact, this is a subject I am pretty well informed on. Maybe in a while when I have an hour I'll pull up a few dozen sources for you, but attacking me for not being specific when I stated that I was trying to be general and ideological is pointless.

Edit: Ok upon reading the rest of your post I see there are a few things I should clarify and a few things you don't agree with for legitimate reasons. I will try to post a more complete response a little later so feel free not to respond to this one for the time being.

[MMMMMM]

"et me retell you a story I mentioned in an earlier post. Remember the Geo Metro? Tiny little thing got 50-60 miles/gallon and cost maybe $6000. Relatively popular in its time."

That thing was a death-trap, as are all small cars.

"A true communism would certainly try to fix the problem because doing so would help the community as a whole."

The USSR and China have abysmal environmental track records.

"As far as reduced levels of pollution are concerned it goes without saying that municiple waste has never stopped increasing. After a larger population = more waste."

There you have nailed it, IMO. The primary reason we have a pollution problem is because we have too damn many people. Even the oceans are being fished out, and the oxygen content of air has declined significantly over the last 200 years.

Solve the overpopulation problem and IMO the pollution problem will be 80% solved.

[superleeds]

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
That thing was a death-trap, as are all small cars

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you humor me, what size does a car need to be so you can feel safe.

[ QUOTE ]
The USSR and China have abysmal environmental track records.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you should look into the facts here, you might be surprised how the good ol US of A fares, along with many of it's 'western allies' in this league

[ QUOTE ]
There you have nailed it, IMO. The primary reason we have a pollution problem is because we have too damn many people. Even the oceans are being fished out, and the oxygen content of air has declined significantly over the last 200 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, why don't you check out some facts. The worst polluting countries are NOT the most heavily populated.

[ QUOTE ]
Solve the overpopulation problem and IMO the pollution problem will be 80% solved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your mad /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Read that article I posted a link to

[/ QUOTE ]

I did on the train home, very interesting.

[ QUOTE ]
S far as the long term consequences outweighing short term benefits goes, I couldn't agree more

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you find it ironic that here on a poker site, a game where the percieved wisdom is that the the long term is King, we have apologists for the environment mess arguing along the lines that 25 -50 years is in the long run.

I guess they have no kids yet.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, why don't you check out some facts. The worst polluting countries are NOT the most heavily populated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a source for this? I would like to check it out myself. I could go do my own digging but if someone has already done the investigation I would appreciate it if they would share the sources of their data.

[superleeds]

web page (http://www.wri.org/sdis/)

[adios]

Thanks. Most of the links so far have problems apparantly as I'm getting page not displayed messages because the DNS could not find the name. Perhaps a technical problem on my end but doesn't appear to be that way. Looks like a problem with the site to me. I'll try it later as the links to the interesting material aren't working now. I see that at least some of the PDF links are working. Thanks again though.

[Taxman]

A fascinating subject and something worth further discussion I think, but for now we have too many hot topics /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Taxman]

Ok now I'll respond in full (at least as much as I can in the 30 minutes I have before work). First to rehash my last post:

You are again missing my point. I am making a broad argument and avoiding getting too specific considering how long the general arguments took. I can quantify and I may at a later time, but it is not worth it for now. Saying that government regulations are too lax is an opinion no matter what evidence I throw at you because different people have different ideas of what's sufficient. Personally I think poisoning the environment is a bad thing. As a matter of fact, this is a subject I am pretty well informed on. Maybe in a while when I have an hour I'll pull up a few sources for you, but attacking me for not being specific when I stated that I was trying to be general and ideological is pointless.
On public transportation:

[ QUOTE ]
How's it doing in LA or Seattle for instance.


[/ QUOTE ]

A more important question is how good are the systems in LA or Seattle. In my experience good public transportation systems are utilized quite frequently.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you stated you're from San Diego and I'm familiar with the San Diego system.


[/ QUOTE ]

I do live in San Diego, but my home town is actually San Jose, CA and that is to what I was referring. To be honest, don't really know just how popular the San diego system is, but I do know that it is not especially good, though they are currently expanding it.

[ QUOTE ]
That's why I stated in the aggregrate. New York seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe in the U.S., but generally speaking we don't have very many good public transit options. In my travels in Europe, subways and trollys seemed more the rule than the exception.

On improving public transit:

[ QUOTE ]
I think the biggest problem in doing this is the cost of doing so.


[/ QUOTE ]

Granted, but like I said, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. There's no need for a one time massive overhaul. Besides, such projects would create jobs.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's fair to say that the degree of freedom that exists in US markets has served us well up to this point. Again I'll reiterate, I believe that the government should tread very carefully when imposing regulations. You make a statement about ruing future generations. You may be right but I think you have to make a much stronger case than you have to convince people to see your point of view.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's fair to say that the degree of freedom in US markets has helped us become an economic superpower, but that doesn;t mean that we haven't payed a price for that privlage or that we can't still be successful with some greater level of regulation in place. As I said before, it's impossible to make too strong of a case because nobody can predict the exact trend that environmental damage will follow. I could give you some chemical equations explaining the destructive properties of various chemicals and I could give you graphs showing the increased level of those chemicals in the environment, but ultimately nobody knows for sure how much the earth can actually take. We do know with a greater degree of accuracy how much the human body can take and it is a documented fact that breathing too much air pollution is hazardous as is drinking water with even small levels of industrail waste in them. These are of course two of many examples. Some people might consider such risks acceptable but I do not and I'm not so sure anything I have to say would really convince said people otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but consummers who are free to choose are making different choices.


[/ QUOTE ]

What differnt choices? I would guess that if a relatively cheap car came out (maybe a bit larger than the metro) with great gas milage and decent looks, it would be very popular. I do not believe this is impossible for the auto industry to accomplish. You seem to be implying that we are opperating at our peak technological capacity and I see no reason to belive that is true. Demand for certain products is important, but your comments suggest that manufacturers have no control over their prices. There have been many instances of tacit agreements within an industry to keep prices at certain levels for the good of evryone in that business. If one company started making cheap, safe, sporty, fuel-efficient cars, they might sell more at first, but when every other company is subsequently forced to follow suit, the net result would be that all of them are making less money than they had been. Why is it that as a California resident I pay considerably more for gas than every other part of the country? There are some practical reasons to be sure, but I do not doubt that oil companies make more money off of me than my compatriot in South Dakota. The demand for gas here is high enough that we will pay more for it.

[ QUOTE ]
I think over regulation of the US auto industry would just about sound it's death knell. You imply that GM and Ford have infinite profitibility but that's hardly the case. Retooling their factories would be enormously expensive to them for instance. Before you go off and state that I'm just championing the US automakers cause I'm certainly not doing that. I'm just trying to point out that this is a thorny, complex problem that is complicated by the fact that fossil fuel is relatively cheap. Effecting the car industry in a negative manner would have a ripple effect to many other industries in the US as well. Again by stating how damaging something is doesn't prove anything and you won't convince anyone that what your stating is true without sound arguements based on objective data.


[/ QUOTE ]

To repeat myself yet again, I realize the potential costs involved and I do not think that massive regulations should suddenly be put into effect. I think the government could certainly help bear some of the cost as well. I'd much rather the deficit rise for that reason than because we are buying a few thousand more cruise missiles that we don't need.

[ QUOTE ]
You're just guessing about the US and you really don't know. You have Edwards and Kerry both saying that the US has bad trade agreements and a big part of that unfairness is that our trading partners don't have to adhere to the environmental safety and pollution standards that the US has to adhere to. Again you haven't made the case that the US is performing poorly in polluting the environment. Communist nations do have a track record on environmental pollution and Safety. If Chernobyl is any indiciation it appears to be awfully bad. I'm trying to point out to you that highly regulated industry isn't a panacea for success in this area.


[/ QUOTE ]

Prove to me that industry in "communist" countries (again there is no such thing) is highly regulated as far as environmental issueas are concerned. I doubt you can. It doesn't matter if I was guessing about the US, because the world wide standards on the environment remain low whether we are first in the pack or not. Kerry and Edwards may be right. Does it suprise you that I agree with that? Even if they are right, that doesn't mean we should lower our environmental standards to compete. There is more to life than making money, like not dying of respiratory disease at the age of 40 or not dying from drinking poisoned groundwater at the age of 5. Here is one very minor list of rankings, I will search for more later when I have time:

Countries with the Highest Carbon Dioxide Emissions (the numbers are the tons of carbon per person). Don't see a ton of communist countries up there.

1 Qatar 20.05
2 United Arab Emirates 10.36
3 Kuwait 8.69
4 Guam 7.76
5 Bahrain 7.66
6 Singapore 7.04
7 United States 6.04
8 Luxembourg 5.69
9 Brunei 5.28
10 Australia 5.19


Then I said: There is no debate that poisoning ground water is bad or that acid rain is bad or that breathing in industrial waste is bad so I'm not really sure what "debate" you're referring to. Given enough time any and all of these things can and will wipe out humanity.

And you responded:
[ QUOTE ]
When will this happen at our current rate of consumption and pollution?


[/ QUOTE ]

Suggesting that you didn't read the rest of that paragraph closely enough or consider my wider ideological points.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe what a pessimist you are!!!!!!! The automobile isn't much older than 100 years for crying out loud. Jet planes have only been around for 50 years or so. What about biotechnology? If you look at the pace of technological innovation over the past 100 years it is truly astounding. Is it reasonable to assume that it won't take 1000 years to alleviate these problems?


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe what an optimist you are. Are you saying that we can safely ignore the environmetal issues until the 11th hour because it should be easy for us to come up with good solutions? I hope you're never in a position to actually make that kind of decision. Even if you're right, the state of the environment right NOW and that threat that it poses to my health is much worse than it was 100 years ago.

[ QUOTE ]
Learning more about the EPA and pollution problems that exist is probably something we all need to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more. After a little more exploration I have confirmed that air quality has risen in teh U.S. over time and I am aware that long term goals about such things are always present. That still does not mean that the process can't or shouldn't be expediated.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
You are again missing my point. I am making a broad argument and avoiding getting too specific considering how long the general arguments took. I can quantify and I may at a later time, but it is not worth it for now. Saying that government regulations are too lax is an opinion no matter what evidence I throw at you because different people have different ideas of what's sufficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what they say about opinions. You're missing my point. I'm honestly looking for you to provide some information since you apparently believe you're opinion isn't an informed one. How did you arrive at your opinions.

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I think poisoning the environment is a bad thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

So do I.

[ QUOTE ]
As a matter of fact, this is a subject I am pretty well informed on. Maybe in a while when I have an hour I'll pull up a few sources for you, but attacking me for not being specific when I stated that I was trying to be general and ideological is pointless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not attacking you that's bullshit. I'm trying to understand how you've reached your conclusions. You're parnoid methinks.

[ QUOTE ]
A more important question is how good are the systems in LA or Seattle. In my experience good public transportation systems are utilized quite frequently.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok why aren't they good?

[ QUOTE ]
I do live in San Diego, but my home town is actually San Jose, CA and that is to what I was referring. To be honest, don't really know just how popular the San diego system is, but I do know that it is not especially good, though they are currently expanding it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I wasn't criticizing the San Diego system.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe in the U.S., but generally speaking we don't have very many good public transit options. In my travels in Europe, subways and trollys seemed more the rule than the exception.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok fair enough. Guess what? European countries run big deficits too.

[ QUOTE ]
Granted, but like I said, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. There's no need for a one time massive overhaul. Besides, such projects would create jobs.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but I think knowing the cost beforehand is fair. Given statements by the likes of Greenspan and others this week it's clear that a massive public works program would have to be evaluated as to it's cost and what other government expenditures would have to be eliminated.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's fair to say that the degree of freedom in US markets has helped us become an economic superpower, but that doesn;t mean that we haven't payed a price for that privlage or that we can't still be successful with some greater level of regulation in place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say othewise? I stated that imposing regulations should be done carefully with a lot of thought and study put into it.

[ QUOTE ]
As I said before, it's impossible to make too strong of a case because nobody can predict the exact trend that environmental damage will follow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is reason enough to tread carefully. The damage may not be as severe as you imply it is either.


[ QUOTE ]
I could give you some chemical equations explaining the destructive properties of various chemicals and I could give you graphs showing the increased level of those chemicals in the environment, but ultimately nobody knows for sure how much the earth can actually take.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right so why should people believe you instead of someone else who has the opposite view?

[ QUOTE ]
We do know with a greater degree of accuracy how much the human body can take and it is a documented fact that breathing too much air pollution is hazardous as is drinking water with even small levels of industrail waste in them. These are of course two of many examples. Some people might consider such risks acceptable but I do not and I'm not so sure anything I have to say would really convince said people otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Again you don't but why is your viewpoint more worthwhile than someone who disagrees with you?

[ QUOTE ]
What differnt choices?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hybrids. The fact that there aren't that many choices among much more highly fuel effecient vehicles is an indicator that people don't want them. If they wanted them manufacturers would be producing them.


[ QUOTE ]
I would guess that if a relatively cheap car came out (maybe a bit larger than the metro) with great gas milage and decent looks, it would be very popular.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't Honda have a hybrid that is relatively cheap for instance? Again the fact that car manufactures don't make them shows that people don't want them. The reason being that fossil fuel is relatively cheap. You don't seem to want to acknowledge this reality i.e. that fossil fuel is cheap and operating less fuel effecient vehicles outweighs the extra cost of the fuel to run them with. Your alternative seems to be screw what the consummer wants let's make them operate more fuel effecient vehicles. That's ok but I suggest that the ramifications of such heavy handed regulations be studied and thought through before enacting them because imposing such regulations will have a cost. Pardon me but I think your ideas are very impractical. You seem to be saying just build great public transportation systems and have manufactures make more highly effecient cars and people will use them. I submit that people prefer driving their gas guzzling, pollution emitting vehicles to public transportation and fuel effecient vehicles. That is because fossil fuel is relatively cheap.


[ QUOTE ]
Demand for certain products is important, but your comments suggest that manufacturers have no control over their prices.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't! At least not that much. That's what competition is about.

[ QUOTE ]
There have been many instances of tacit agreements within an industry to keep prices at certain levels for the good of evryone in that business.

[/ QUOTE ]

So? Is that what you're stating about the auto industry given all of the various car manufactures that produce autos throughout the world?

[ QUOTE ]
If one company started making cheap, safe, sporty, fuel-efficient cars, they might sell more at first, but when every other company is subsequently forced to follow suit, the net result would be that all of them are making less money than they had been.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good for the consummer.

[ QUOTE ]
I do not believe this is impossible for the auto industry

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not. People don't want them at least at current prices.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it that as a California resident I pay considerably more for gas than every other part of the country?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. How much are we talking about i.e. what do you consider considerable?

[ QUOTE ]
There are some practical reasons to be sure, but I do not doubt that oil companies make more money off of me than my compatriot in South Dakota.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's plenty of doubt in my mind that that's true but what does this have to do with anything we're discussing?

[ QUOTE ]
To repeat myself yet again, I realize the potential costs involved and I do not think that massive regulations should suddenly be put into effect. I think the government could certainly help bear some of the cost as well. I'd much rather the deficit rise for that reason than because we are buying a few thousand more cruise missiles that we don't need.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again see comments about treading carefully.

[ QUOTE ]
Prove to me that industry in "communist" countries (again there is no such thing) is highly regulated as far as environmental issueas are concerned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you being purposely obtuse here? The ultimate regulators of an economy IMO is a Soviet style system. I'm not saying the Soviet exists today. I'm saying that a Soviet system provides lessons learned.

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt you can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chernobyl.

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter if I was guessing about the US, because the world wide standards on the environment remain low whether we are first in the pack or not. Kerry and Edwards may be right. Does it suprise you that I agree with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

See my discussions with nicky_g in another thread. Him and I are about as far apart on political thinking as any two menbers on this forum. We discussed this issue today and I think it's fair to say that we were basically in agreement. The issue is in developing countries what are appropriate standards. Certainly many people believe appropriate standards are lower than US standards at least in developing countries.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if they are right, that doesn't mean we should lower our environmental standards to compete.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree so the alternative is protectionism if you don't except lower standards in developing countries because they can't comply at this time.

[ QUOTE ]
There is more to life than making money, like not dying of respiratory disease at the age of 40 or not dying from drinking poisoned groundwater at the age of 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree when will this happen in the USA?

[ QUOTE ]
Countries with the Highest Carbon Dioxide Emissions (the numbers are the tons of carbon per person). Don't see a ton of communist countries up there.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've already addressed what I meant. The point should be made though that the communist system provided such poor economic growth that people couldn't afford automobiles. I'm starting to think you are being purposely obtuse.

[ QUOTE ]
Suggesting that you didn't read the rest of that paragraph closely enough or consider my wider ideological points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stating the obvious about ground water pollution and such doesn't further the debate. Showing the acuteness of the problem does IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe what an optimist you are. Are you saying that we can safely ignore the environmetal issues until the 11th hour because it should be easy for us to come up with good solutions?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I doubt we're at the eleventh hour. You mentioned a millenium of fossil fuel pollution if memory serves and I think that problem will be solved long before that. I would guess in the next 20 years or so.

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you're never in a position to actually make that kind of decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

The feeling is mutual.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you're right, the state of the environment right NOW and that threat that it poses to my health is much worse than it was 100 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

So would you like to return to the horse and buggy? And I'm not so sure that's true in all areas either.

[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't agree more. After a little more exploration I have confirmed that air quality has risen in teh U.S. over time and I am aware that long term goals about such things are always present. That still does not mean that the process can't or shouldn't be expediated.

[/ QUOTE ]

An acknowledgement that progress is being made.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Prove to me that industry in "communist" countries (again there is no such thing) is highly regulated as far as environmental issueas are concerned. I doubt you can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pollution in the Former Soviet Union (http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/3260/pfsu.html)

It's not the only source either which include books. Check it out for yourself. I've come to the same conclusions that Wake Up Call came to about you. Out.

[Taxman]

I was not trying to be "obtuse" though you seem inclined to respond in kind.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not attacking you that's bullshit. I'm trying to understand how you've reached your conclusions. You're parnoid methinks.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, "attack" was a strong word for me to use, but you were directly confronting me over something that I purposefully stated as a non-issue.

On the transit systems in LA and Seattle:
[ QUOTE ]
Ok why aren't they good?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because the consumer doesn't want them to be? Is that your point? If so, that's not a logical argument. Traffic in LA is horrendous. I know that I ,and anyone I know would be happy to make use of public transit if it were any good (and if I spent a lot of time in LA, which I don't). That obviously doesn't constitute a scientific investigation, but I feel that my claim here is more feasible.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok I wasn't criticizing the San Diego system.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said you were, I was just clarifying what I meant by "home town."

[ QUOTE ]
Ok fair enough. Guess what? European countries run big deficits too.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've already stated that this is a price I'm willing to pay. This is obviously just a fundamental point of ideological difference between us. Of course, I also feel that we could cut spending in many other places to allow for more money to be spent on environmental issues.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, but I think knowing the cost beforehand is fair. Given statements by the likes of Greenspan and others this week it's clear that a massive public works program would have to be evaluated as to it's cost and what other government expenditures would have to be eliminated.


[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds reasonable. I was just trying to point out a possible economic benefit of such actions.

[ QUOTE ]
Did I say othewise? I stated that imposing regulations should be done carefully with a lot of thought and study put into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I agree with you here.

[ QUOTE ]
Which is reason enough to tread carefully. The damage may not be as severe as you imply it is either.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify, I am not trying to imply that the end of the world is near and we're all going to die from the horrible damage we've inflicted. I misspoke if anything I said was along those lines. The earth is quite resiliant. I just feel that many people are quite flippant about the environment, when it's something that should be taken seriously.

[ QUOTE ]
Right so why should people believe you instead of someone else who has the opposite view?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why shouldn't they? (ok, that was flippant). The problem is that at this point in time, the environment is a topic similar to taxes. There is plenty of good information on both sides and you can't deffinitively say one way is the best way (in this case at least, you can deffinitively say that dumping unlimited amounts of pollutants into teh environment is not an option). Perhaps my views are more because I am a "better safe than sorry" type of person. One fact that will remain consistently true is that pollution is bad for your health. Period. It's also bad for the health of the other plants and animals that we share this earth with. That is potentially more serious because it can disrupt the natural life cycles, causing imbalances that can have a direct impact on our way of life.

[ QUOTE ]
Hybrids. The fact that there aren't that many choices among much more highly fuel effecient vehicles is an indicator that people don't want them. If they wanted them manufacturers would be producing them.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hybrids are expensive for their size and people are always skeptical of newer things. There also are no hybrids among the larger cars that many people prefer. All things being equal of course people would take a more fuel-efficient car over a gas guzzler, but the more fuel efficient cars out there are either crappy little ones, or too expensive compared to their fellows.

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't Honda have a hybrid that is relatively cheap for instance? Again the fact that car manufactures don't make them shows that people don't want them. The reason being that fossil fuel is relatively cheap. You don't seem to want to acknowledge this reality i.e. that fossil fuel is cheap and operating less fuel effecient vehicles outweighs the extra cost of the fuel to run them with. Your alternative seems to be screw what the consummer wants let's make them operate more fuel effecient vehicles. That's ok but I suggest that the ramifications of such heavy handed regulations be studied and thought through before enacting them because imposing such regulations will have a cost. Pardon me but I think your ideas are very impractical. You seem to be saying just build great public transportation systems and have manufactures make more highly effecient cars and people will use them. I submit that people prefer driving their gas guzzling, pollution emitting vehicles to public transportation and fuel effecient vehicles. That is because fossil fuel is relatively cheap.


[/ QUOTE ]

Honda has a civic hybrid that starts at over 19,000, which doesn't sound very cheap to me for such a small car. More fuel efficient vehicles = less gas (ie fossil fules) needed = even less money spent on operating the car. Why would it cost more money to own a more fuel efficient car? That makes no sense. Hybrids still use gasoline, they just use less of it. You also missed my earlier point about the Geo Metro. That was a car running on a standard gasoline engine that got fantastic gas milage meaning people had to spend less on gas when they owned one. I submit that it's poor sales were mostly because of the fact that it was a crappy little tin can and not because it got good gas milage (which was not merely due to its small size). Are you telling me that if you could buy two cars identical in every way for the same price, except one got better gas milage, you would choose the gas guzzler? I never said we should impose huge restrictions immediately or force people to use public transportation. I see absolutely no reason to believe that much better public transportation systems wouldn't get more use and that more fuel efficient, but otherwise identical cars wouldn't be preferred.

[ QUOTE ]
They don't! At least not that much. That's what competition is about.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So? Is that what you're stating about the auto industry given all of the various car manufactures that produce autos throughout the world?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I'm not trying to be a conspiracy theorist here and I'm sure there are no spoken agreements about these sort of things. They all just know what's in their collective best economic interest.

When I said: If one company started making cheap, safe, sporty, fuel-efficient cars, they might sell more at first, but when every other company is subsequently forced to follow suit, the net result would be that all of them are making less money than they had been. You responded:

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds good for the consummer.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which of course, it would be. And when I said: I do not believe this is impossible for the auto industry , you replied:

[ QUOTE ]
It's not. People don't want them at least at current prices.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly my point. Your comment that ignores what I just said previously, as one of the features of my hypothetical car was a low price.

On gas prices:
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know. How much are we talking about i.e. what do you consider considerable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, check this page (http://198.6.95.31/sbsavg.asp) out. Californians pay about $2.13 a gallon as of today, compared to a national average of $1.68. I would say over $0.40 per gallon differnce is considerable.

about my gas buddy in South Dakota:
[ QUOTE ]
There's plenty of doubt in my mind that that's true but what does this have to do with anything we're discussing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well in South Dakota, the price is $1.66 per gallon. There is considerable doubt in my mind that it costs the oil industry enough extra to sell gas in California, that they need to charge Californians $0.47 more per gallon to compensate. In Oklahoma the average gas cost is $1.53. Is it really so cheap to sell gas there that reducing the price by $0.60 cents a gallon nets the same profit? I think not. The point is that according to your model about supply, demand and the intersts of the consumer, there should not be a $0.60 difference between the highest and lowest gas prices in the U.S. I'm sure there is a much greater demand for gas here in CA than in Oklahoma, and that is likely why oil companies can get away with jacking up the prices.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you being purposely obtuse here? The ultimate regulators of an economy IMO is a Soviet style system. I'm not saying the Soviet exists today. I'm saying that a Soviet system provides lessons learned.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you purposely ignoring my question here? You are correct that the soviets probably were the ultimate economic regulators, but that is completely differnt from environmental regulators. I would love to see some evidence that the soviets had the strictest envirnomental standards. Also, I think that unless you mean to imply that I'm exhibiting a lack of intelligence, your use of the word obtuse is misguided, since I was not being blunt or insensitive. Perhaps you meant obstinate? I was asking a direct question to demonstrate that you were ignoring the pertinant issue. I don't mean to be an ass, I just prefer to be correctly insulted (seriously, no hard feelings /images/graemlins/smile.gif). Your reference to Chernobyl is puzzling since that supports my case, namely that it obviously was not regulated well enough if such a disaster was allowed to happen. When I said "I doubt you can," I meant that I doubt you can prove that the "communist" states of the world have the strictest environmental restrictions. Did you really think I was so misinformed as to think that a socialist system did not heavily regulate it's economy?

Since you have repeatedly pestered me for sources, here is another one to the world economic forum, which compiled a list of countries and their relative rankings for "environmental sustainability" which combines information on a lot of environmental issues:

About the list (http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Finland+Ranks+Highest+in+Environmental+Index,+US+L ags)

The list (http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/ESI/rank.html)

Careful perusal will reveal that not only is the U.S. merely 45th on that list, but the list is topped by a number of scandinavian countries (which are socialist states of course) and Canada.

[ QUOTE ]
See my discussions with nicky_g in another thread. Him and I are about as far apart on political thinking as any two menbers on this forum. We discussed this issue today and I think it's fair to say that we were basically in agreement. The issue is in developing countries what are appropriate standards. Certainly many people believe appropriate standards are lower than US standards at least in developing countries.


[/ QUOTE ]

This was partially adressed in my links above, but you're right that developing countries are the ones that need the most work, mainly large, industrialized developing countries. That doesn't mean that we don't need work also however since we obviously believe that our standards (that are in fact lower than many other countries) are sufficient.

On dying 5 year olds:
[ QUOTE ]
I agree when will this happen in the USA?

[/ QUOTE ]

It has. There are a number of famous cases regarding this. Of course, it is illegal, but it shoul dbe nearly impossible for it to happen in the first place. I will admit that we are of course much less troubled by such things than less developed countries, but again there's always room for improvement.

[ QUOTE ]
I've already addressed what I meant. The point should be made though that the communist system provided such poor economic growth that people couldn't afford automobiles. I'm starting to think you are being purposely obtuse.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think we're not understanding eachother correctly. I never made any economic arguments concerning communism. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to have made the logical leap to believing that I'm advocating a socialist state. This is most certainly not ture. The communist system was no good for sure. Of course it wasn't really a communism either. Explain to me why you think I'm being "obtuse?"

[ QUOTE ]
No. I doubt we're at the eleventh hour. You mentioned a millenium of fossil fuel pollution if memory serves and I think that problem will be solved long before that. I would guess in the next 20 years or so.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are many other kinds of pollution besides fossil fuel emmisions. My comments on cars and the auto industry were but one example of many sources of pollution. 20 years sounds optimistic to me, though we will eventually be forced to find other solutions than fossil fuels for our energy needs. I'm not sure we have a millenium's worth of fossil fuels left to burn.

[ QUOTE ]
So would you like to return to the horse and buggy? And I'm not so sure that's true in all areas either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now who's being "obtuse?" Technological progress is a good thing and is perfectly capable of continuing while environmental threats are also dealt with. I misspoke slightly with that comment. Given the nonexistant regulations of the past, there likely was a greater every day threat from the environment, though from a numbers perspective I don't think the US was capable of producing nearly the volume of pollutants we do now. Air quality would probably be the main thing that is worse right now day in and day out.

[ QUOTE ]
An acknowledgement that progress is being made.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that it wasn't. I just said that more progress needs to be made and at a quicker rate. Just my opinion, as always /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

Taxman

[Taxman]

I did exactly the opposite of supporting the soviet environmental record. Reread the two sentences:

"Prove to me that industry in "communist" countries (again there is no such thing) is highly regulated as far as environmental issueas are concerned. I doubt you can."

I said prove that it is regulated, not that it is not regulated. Given everything I have said so far, how could you have interpreted it any other way?

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
The USSR and China have abysmal environmental track records.


[/ QUOTE ]

The USSR and China are not true communist countries.

[MMMMMM]

Communism by its nature centralizes much control, and that centralized power has always ended up being greatly abused. Think about it: there is no way for communism to be implemented unless the state forces the details of matter, and that means the state gets control over all finances and means of production which in effect gives the state full control over the citizens. Power leads to abuses of power. So while the USSR and China may not be "pure" communist countries, there is probably no such animal possible. The only way communism could truly work is if everyone on the face of the earth somehow miraculously became entirely unselfish, which won't hapen. And even if it did happen, communism still wouldn't work because people would always view their own needs as more pressing even if they weren't being excessively selfish.

It's a nitwitted and impractical system, and the experiments with Communism cost a "mere" 80-100 million lives in the 20th century. Since Communism has a long record of economic failure, it should be fair to say that the damn ideology simply doesn't work. And since every Communist country that ever existed has brutally oppressed its own citizens, it isn't too much to suppose that there is something inherent about Communism which leads to such abuses. That something, as mentioned above, is the fact that communism can't even be implemented wthout the state being given nearly unlimited powers. In short it is the most evil system of economics and governance ever devised, because it fooled enough people to wreak more genuine evil than did even worse systems which were more obviously bad and so were more quickly shunned or resisted. Even so there are yet fools today who think Communism should be given another chance despite it's failed, and bloodiest, history the world has ever seen.

[Taxman]

But don't you see, all of these bloodthirsty "communists" were not communists. I don't dispute that there has never been a working communist system or that those that have been atempted failed in horrific fashion. That's exactly my point. I'm saying that in the impossible case of an actual communist country, there would always be a concern for the general good that would outweight individual ambitions. This will never happen of course, but there will never be a true communist nation. All of the communist countries throughout history have really been closer to fascism than anything else. My point is that there was no reason for you to mention the poor environmental records of China and the USSR, since they were outside the scope of my original comment.

[ QUOTE ]
In short it is the most evil system of economics and governance ever devised, because it fooled enough people to wreak more genuine evil than did even worse systems which were more obviously bad and so were more quickly shunned or resisted. Even so there are yet fools today who think Communism should be given another chance despite it's failed, and bloodiest, history the world has ever seen.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing wrong with communism, it's human nature that is the problem. In an ideal world, communism would be the ideal government. To put it in poker terms, you are being too results oriented.

[MMMMMM]

"There is nothing wrong with communism, it's human nature that is the problem. In an ideal world, communism would be the ideal government. To put it in poker terms, you are being too results oriented."

You are partially falling into the ideological trap, but you are too wise to fall into it fully.

It is not only human nature that prevents communism from being realized successfully. Even if human nature were different and unselfish, communism still wouldn't work well. Why? Because it is a grossly inefficient system, requiring immense bureaucracy, immense overhead, immense management.

Naturally delegating the management of the means of production to countless smaller parts, as does capitalism, is vastly more efficient: because therein you have well-working smaller parts, paying themselves by virtue of being efficient, all managing things for profit--w hich means nearly as efficiently as possible.

Taxman, as you get older you will realize that the more layers of bureaucracy and the more managers a system has, the more ponderous or inefficient it necessarily becomes. There is no way for communism to be implemented even amongst willing participants without incredible time and money expended upon management which under capitalism would not the case to nearly the same extent. In other words communism is inherently so top-heavy and bloated that it cannot function truly efficiently. Even China has found out that they do better the more the replace communist econonomics with free enterprise. In summation, there are really two insurmountable stuimbling blocks to communism: human nature, and communism's inherent inefficiency.

Now, on a VERY much smaller scale, such as family, or a small commune or kibbutz, communism may indeed work OK. But that is only because the scale is so tiny. Once you expand the size of the group significantly, the problems of management, the greater and greater need for bureaucracy, and the individuals' personal needs, all become insurmountable stumbling blocks.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
"There is nothing wrong with communism, it's human nature that is the problem. In an ideal world, communism would be the ideal government. To put it in poker terms, you are being too results oriented."

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me make an additional comment to this bit of Taxman nonsense. The problem with Soviet style communism is that primarily planned,managed economies don't satisfy consummer demand sufficiently or effeciently which in turn is a prescription for economic stagnation at best. It's been proven over and over throughout history.

[Taxman]

You guys seem to think I'm some sort of idealogue. I harbor no illusions about communism. Adios has been trying to teach me a lesson it seems, but he's missing things entirely. All I am saying in very plain english is that if all people were perfect people who were perfectly efficient and perfectly willing to work only for the communal good, it would be a great system (on a small scale, of course you are right MMMMMM). Obviously that will never happen. Obviously even if people were morally perfect, it couldn't work on too large of a scale because it would be impossible to make decisions. I love how you guys always reference my lack of age, assuming that I don't get it, but this isn't even that complicated a subject we're addressing here. You don't need life experience to understand that an onerously complicated beuraucracy makes it difficult for a government to opperate with any level of efficiency. Adios, I am not advocating some communist revolution or saying that any part of the soviet system was superior to ours. If you got that impression, please tell me where so I can clarify it. You've managed to transform an environmental discussion into some ridiculous comment on soviet Russia that doesn't apply to anything else in this thread. I'm not trying to get obstreperous here, I just want to set the record straight.

[MMMMMM]

We took a tangent because of this your statement, Taxman:

"There is nothing wrong with communism, it's human nature that is the problem. In an ideal world, communism would be the ideal government. To put it in poker terms, you are being too results oriented."

Since now however you agree that even in an ideal world with ideal human beings, communism couldn't work well on a large scale, maybe the tangent had some merit.

A friend of mine perhaps said it best: "Communism works great if you're an ant."

[Taxman]

Nice quote. My post was aimed a little more at adios who I think has been misinterpreting me in this thread. I deffinately see why you made your comments since I was not clear about that matter. My original point simply that you can't judge the concept of communism based on the poor implimitation of it by China or Soviet Russia. It was mostly me nitpicking and I didn't intend it to become a central point of argument.