Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    ... they merely exported it, along with the industries and jobs which formerly produced pollution in the USA. So instead of still having US jobs and US industries emitting 'small' amounts of pollution with reasonable and practical environmental regulations in place (versus the EPA mandated 'minute' amounts of pollution - super low emission levels requiring prohibitively expensive equipment to comply), those industries relocated to China. However, without even basic pollution controls enforcement, Chinese industries are now belching out huge amounts of pollution which will eventually blow or float its way back to the US anyhow.



    (snip)

    (picture) Smoke belches from a chimney in heavy fog on December 14, 2004 in Beijing, China.
    (caption) 60% of Chinese cities have serious air pollution problems

    "The report said China's massive appetite for goods ranging from grain to platinum had placed it "at the centre of the world raw materials economy".

    One of these raw materials is wood - and the illegal trade in stolen timber is stripping Asia of its last substantial forests, according to a report by the US and UK-based Environmental Investigations Agency and Indonesian campaigning group Telapak.

    Indonesia is now suffering the fastest rate of deforestation in the world, losing a wooded area the size of Switzerland every year.

    According to investigators, Chinese factories process one stolen Indonesian log every minute of every working day.

    Deforestation is not the only unwanted consequence of China's huge consumption of natural materials, says the BBC's Louisa Lim in Beijing.

    Coal-fired power plants supply much of the country's energy and according to government estimates, 60% of Chinese cities have serious air pollution problems, she says.

    The Kyoto Protocol considers China a developing nation, and it is currently exempt from cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

    Experts also say that more than three-quarters of the water flowing through China's cities is unsuitable for drinking because of pollution from industrial waste, according to our correspondent.

    Scores of rivers have dried up and water tables are getting ever lower.

    An official from the Chinese environmental watchdog, Panyue, said the nation's resources and its environment had already reached the limits of their capacity to cope.

    Initial moves are now being taken to enforce environmental laws, but moves in this direction could ignite new tensions between government agencies and big business."
    Last edited by Melonie; 02-17-2005 at 04:26 PM.

  2. #2
    God/dess Silverback's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    On board the Kobayashi Maru
    Posts
    2,387
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    Yes, it's sad we didn't keep those things here.
    "He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!"

  3. #3
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    I would have gladly kept 1% of the current pollution levels being generated in China as a reasonable compromise in order to retain the industries and the jobs. But with EPA regulations setting a maximum of say 0.01% of the current pollution levels being generated in China, we effectively drove out the industries, lost the jobs, and still get 10 times as much global pollution generated which eventually blows or floats back here anyhow (and which we now have absolutely no means to prevent).

  4. #4
    Featured Member GnBeret's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    796
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    I would have gladly kept 1% of the current pollution levels being generated in China as a reasonable compromise in order to retain the industries and the jobs. But with EPA regulations setting a maximum of say 0.01% of the current pollution levels being generated in China, we effectively drove out the industries, lost the jobs, and still get 10 times as much global pollution generated which eventually blows or floats back here anyhow (and which we now have absolutely no means to prevent).
    There's far more to it than that: the increased costs of complying with the environmental regulations that have gone into effect over the past 30 years are but one of the many (and varied) causes for the exodus, and they're a "lesser cause" at that - labor cost differentials and quantum reductions in transport costs (containerized shipping) combined to play a much more significant role in the shift than the costs savings achieved due to avoidance of US environmental regulations. In this regard, note that both the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air were not only passed in the '70's but, to the extent industry's original objections proved true, have also been adjusted on several occasions to meet same - but the "exodus," for the most part, didn't really occur until the '90's, when the changeover to containerized shipping began producing such enormous cost savings in shipping. Moreover, several of the industries that have gone elsewhere had no real problems and/or significant costs associated with compliance - but were able to achieve much savings due to some of the more asinine provisions of the tax code.

    As for us having "absolutely no means to prevent" their pollution elsewhere, that doesn't necessarily have to be the case - but, like just about everything else we want, it's going to require a lot of "give" on our part and it's going to cost us a lot of money to achieve any meaningful reductions.
    "That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
    - Luke
    "Some men, you just can't reach...."
    - Boss, re Luke

    If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
    it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
    -Cowboy Junkies

  5. #5
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    Small amounts of pollution. You mean like the Woburn, MA case (close to my heart because a family member was involved on the wrong side of it)where 30 years of pouring industrial solvent into a hole in the ground caused humdreds of leukemia cases?

    Or Love Canal, The Superfund Act (basically federal government's word for cleaning up after industries pollute and leave the scene with profits in hand and people in hospital), Millions of acres of "brownfields", abandoned mines, toxic mine runoff (mine companies long gone, but not forgotten), an entire TOWN near me had to be bought by the government because a fire rages underground in the mine that cannot be put out.

    Yes, if China and the rest of the world follow our pattern (and we're doing nothing to stop them) they will have the same - or worse - things in their future, and the US government will have to step in to fix the issue....but that won't matter to the consumer getting a $10 DVD player or the stockholder with his/her profits. UNTIL IT COMES TIME TO PAY TAXES.

    I believe in growth, economic and social. I believe people can live sustainably - that society can modify itself so that our daily operations (building, growing, producing and partying) don't adverseley effect the surroundings that we depend on for life. It can be done - sadly, it was done better 100 years ago than it is today...things were built to be reused because resources were more expensive (not subsidized by the taxpayer).

    The truth is, most companies that "go green" see a bigger boost to their bottom line than the "greening" cost them. Just because it isn't typical doesn't mean it doesn't work. Ask Henry Ford, who used to dis-assemble old cars to make new ones...and whose decendants just renovated the River Rouge plant (once an industrial cespool that was almost condemned by OSHA) to be a clean, green, sustainable facility. Not only are they saving $$$ on energy, and reducing the likelihood workers will sue later for problems, they actually have had WORKERS THAT QUIT RETURN TO THE PLANT BECAUSE OF HOW CLEAN IT IS. Productivity has gone UP. Just check out the article in [email protected] magazine.

    Technologies and people exist that know how to do it - we just have to care enough to make the companies do it, or make the governments require it. But rather than make the changes, or mandate them from a governmental level (not my choice, but people love to let the government run their lives) - we institute "Tort Reform" and limit "ClassAction" lawsuits - which (among some good things) prevent the companies which disregard sustainable, safe or effective practices from having to pay for their mistakes.

    In my research, the main reason that companies go overseas is because of profit -because they can, and do, make more $$ overseas by selling products cheaper here. More profit, happier shareholders. Or so goes the theory... As Melonie said about pollution, it eventually comes home to the US...as will social unrest (do you see these "outsourced" countries being nice to the US because of our largesse? NO, They're actually the most threatening nations in the world), and loss of strategic security.

    I do agree with the previous post...making changes will take work. Like it or not, we're in charge, every time we make a purchase. We decide how the products we buy are made by the choices we make. You get 10 MPG in your SUV, I get 55 in my wagon...my choice is to use less resources and buy from companies that don't support bad practices. My belief is that homeland security begins with secure water, air, social, and environmental resources - in short, a sustainable society.

    For those in PA, I'm attending a conference on sustainability this spring that describes some of these possibilities.

  6. #6
    Featured Member Wwanderer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Most of the time in N. America, Asia, Europe or Australia
    Posts
    1,337
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    While there are indeed a complex of factors and considerations, I think that the basic reason that US jobs are going overseas is "dirt simple", and it has nothing much to do with environmental regulations. Namely, the US per capita consumption of most raw materials and manufactured goods is typically 5 or 6 times higher than the world average; there are variations of course, but for most things it is in the range of 2 to 10 times the world average. This means that, at the bottom line, after you have waded through all the complications of wages and exchange rates and borrowing/saving patterns and import/export policies and everything else, you can reduce it all to a sort of imaginary barter economy in which, on average, you have to give a US worker 5 or 6 times as much stuff (whether it is food or cars or fuel or TV sets or fresh water or whatever...actually it is the purchasing power you are giving him/her, of course...but that is just bookkeeping) to get him/her to do the same amount of work as someone elsewhere in the world. And if the work in question is manufacturing something, it is as though the US worker is making one car or TV or pound of bread and insisting on trading it for 5 cars, TVs or pounds of bread in return! Furthermore, if you compare to a worker in a country with a standard of living/consumption below the world average, the ratio is going to is going to be even higher.

    The simple bottom line is that people in the US cannot keep taking that much more than their fair share of the world's resources and paying for it with the products of their labor.

    (Of course, the above does not imply that US environmental laws are sensible or that they have not made matters worse re loss of jobs, but I think they are a minor factor.)

    -Ww
    "At this moment what more need we seek?
    As the Truth eternally reveals itself,
    This very place is the Lotus Land of Purity,
    This very body is the Body of the Buddha."
    - Zazen Wasan

  7. #7
    Banned BigGreenMnM's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia countryside.
    Posts
    3,299
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    Quote Originally Posted by GnBeret
    labor cost differentials and quantum reductions in transport costs (containerized shipping)
    I see this as one of the main problems.I also see it as a solution.
    Check each container comming in,charge the big companies who use them.
    Way to many comming in to check now,so charge more and set limits on how many can come in.

    I cant blame the big companies for going overseas.A worker in china works 12-14 hour days for less then half of what an American would do it for,and take less time off per year for sick time and vacations.

  8. #8
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    Small amounts of pollution. You mean like the Woburn, MA case (close to my heart because a family member was involved on the wrong side of it)where 30 years of pouring industrial solvent into a hole in the ground caused humdreds of leukemia cases?

    Or Love Canal, The Superfund Act (basically federal government's word for cleaning up after industries pollute and leave the scene with profits in hand and people in hospital), Millions of acres of "brownfields", abandoned mines, toxic mine runoff (mine companies long gone, but not forgotten), an entire TOWN near me had to be bought by the government because a fire rages underground in the mine that cannot be put out.
    No, obviously I was not addressing pre-environmental regulation levels of pollution which were spit out by American industries two or three generations ago. I was speaking about the actual difference in pollutant levels between a 'reasonable' emission level being established, and the EPA's 'laboratory equipment' emission levels of some current and most proposed US environmental regulations. To put some numbers to an example, consider a coal fired steel mill. Two or three generations ago this steel mill would have emitted say 1000 pounds per hour or pollutants. A 'reasonable' regulation would ask that this previous emission level be reduced to say 10 pound per hour using pollution control equipment which was reasonably affordable. However, actual EPA regulations required the use of 'best available technology' pollution control equipment to reduce emission levels to say 0.1 pounds per hour - but at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of initial investment plus hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of annual operating and maintenance costs.

    So what happened ?! That US steel mill closed down due to the tremendous cost of complying with new EPA requirements (in addition to other high cost factors of continuing to operate in the USA). So instead of accepting an emission level of 10 pound of pollutants per hour under a 'reasonable' regulation, that plant now emits zero (and environmentalists dance with glee).

    However, that plant closing also cost the jobs of 1000 unionized US employees, plus loss of benefits, plus loss of tax revenue. But the customers for the steel that plant formerly produced now simply buy an equal amount from a Chinese steel mill, probably at a lower price than previously paid to the US steel mill. The Chinese steel mill of course emits the 1000 pounds per hour of pollutants just like unregulated US plants did two or three generations ago. Thanks to prevailing winds, while 900 pounds of those pollutants stay in China, 100 pounds start blowing east towards the US. Say 90 pounds of that 100 falls into the Pacific ocean on the way, leaving 10 pounds to come down on California, Oregon and Washington.

    Thus the net effect of extremely strict 'last decimal point' US environmental regulations which prompted the US steel plant to close, in reality vastly increased the total amount of pollution actually produced on a global basis instead of reducing it, did not actually reduce the amount of pollution being added to the USA as a result of the production of an equivalent amount of steel in China with virtually no pollution controls instead of still being produced in the USA under some 'reasonable' and affordable level of pollution controls which would have allowed the US steel mill to continue to operate, but DID export an important industry and all of its stable good paying jobs permanently.
    Last edited by Melonie; 02-22-2005 at 05:19 PM.

  9. #9
    God/dess
    Joined
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,352
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    I guess I am wondering if anyone here drives an alternative / or Hybrid vehicle I dont and in reality it doesnt bother me . I have although thought about a Honda Accord hybrid but have not taken the leap yet . I want the evironment to be clean as much as the next guy but really have not applied myself to the cause yet the only thing I really do is recycle cans and newspapers at work we purchase energy efficient lighta and motors thats about my participation level at this time, anyone else here make a contribution ?

  10. #10
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    Mel, I agree the EPA has at times been absurd in one direction, just as they are often ludicrous in the other (protecting polluters and industry) direction. Maybe more teh former than the latter (as is their job) but not recently.

    In fact, I just got this in from my ENN (ENviro News Network) newswire that the administration has admited several cases of pressuring EPA to alter their results. Hmm.

    But, moderation isn't the soul of government - either extremism or "better than awful" are usually the way regulations are written. That's where the people come in...bringing sanity to something before regulation is needed. If we work with companies (at least voting with our dollars) now....we can help things improve.

  11. #11
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    I live in an area that just lost its second largest factory (and second to last) to overseas competition...one of several moving out in recent years. The reasons pointed to were labor, not environmentally related - and I knwo the local political climate didn't help either. Partially, I blame the fact that we don't vote (through our elected leaders and directly) with our dollar and demand that all countries we trade with have reasonable labor and environmental practices....then the playing field will be more level.

    I say "more" not "totally" because the American appetite to conusme is larger than overseas, so they will likely need lower wages than we do for some time. However, the more box stores we have (with their high volume of low wage jobs)...that may not be true for long.

    I hope we can find a sustainable, balanced situatiion soon. Rresources, money and opportunity (that developing countries see we have and they want, but as things move overseas that tide may change)are often reasons for terrorism and war.

  12. #12
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    oh, and to CJ's point...I don't drive a hybrid (thinking about it, but went diesel) because I bought diesel. 50MPG, as clean as gas (when the US starts using the european formula for diesel) and once it's paid for we're going100% recycled VEGETABLE OIL

    Any diesel engine can run off biodiesel (made from veggie oil, even used like from a restaurant) or straight veggie oil (with engine modification) and that means free fuel for life!

  13. #13
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    oh, and to CJ's point...I don't drive a hybrid (thinking about it, but went diesel) because I bought diesel. 50MPG, as clean as gas (when the US starts using the european formula for diesel) and once it's paid for we're going100% recycled VEGETABLE OIL
    Look out for the upcoming separation of the actual cost of the fuel and the charging of state 'road tax'. While it's not posted at the pump, based on unleaded gas commodity prices it would appear that in most states the actual price of the gasoline amounts to 2/3rds of the price at the pump, and state road tax amounts to 1/3rd. However, this tax rate was arrived at when the average fuel economy per vehicle was say 20 mpg (with the road tax actually translating into something like 2-3 cents per mile driven). Many states, particularly Blue states which are seeing an increasing percentage of high mileage small vehicles and hybrid vehicles being registered and a large number of SUV registrations not being renewed, are now advocating de-linking the road tax in order to avoid a huge budget shortfall on state highway funds.

    Basically, if you are currently driving a 50mpg or hybrid vehicle, the amount of road tax you are paying at the pump is way below the amount necessary to build and repair roads based on the miles you drive. This leaves states with lots of high mpg and hybrid vehicles with a choice of doubling the per gallon road tax on gasoline, or to separately assess the road tax based on actual miles driven. The state of Oregon is currently involved in a pilot program where vehicles will be mandatorily equipped with GPS, where gas pumps will be mandatorily equipped with GPS readers, and where filling up your gas tank will include a two part charge ... the actual cost of the fuel (i.e. 2/3rds of the typical cost of gasoline with embedded road tax), plus a 3 cents per actual mile driven road tax. Thus a Lincoln Navigator owner might wind up paying $1.50 basic fuel + 50 cents road tax = $2.00 per gallon when he fills up, while your 50mpg car might wind up paying $1.50 basic fuel + $3.50 road tax = $5.00 per gallon when you fill up !

    Another option being talked about here in the east is dropping the road tax from gasoline altogether, but tacking on the actual miles driven road tax to the annual vehicle registration fee - with the motor vehicle inspection process being used to compare and inform the state of vehicle mileage at this year's inspection versus vehicle mileage at last year's inspection. However, this option is running into obstacles from low income advocates since if a driver clocks 20,000 miles per year at 3 cents per mile they would see $600 added to their annual vehicle registration cost.

    My point here of course is that the day is looming where even "free fuel" won't be free because the hidden subsidy in current road tax apportionment (via embedded road tax on gasoline, versus no road tax on hydrogen, ethanol, vegetable oil, propane etc.) is going to be removed one way or another, such that even 100% electric vehicles will wind up paying their share via a 2-3 cent per mile driven road tax.

  14. #14
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    True, and honestly well they should. Except for the fact that a GPS unit in my car would be an invasion of privacy, I am in favor of a "per mile" fee for travel....PROVIDED THE FEE COVER ALL TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE.

    Did you know the American Railroads are the only transportation infrastructure in the US that do NOT get federally underwritten? Amtrak has to pay to fix all its trains, tracks, stations, etc out of its own (partially subsidized) budget - and Congress makes a big deal out of "saving " Amtrak every year. But no one mentions the billions (way beyond the collected tax revenues) spent on airports, traffic controllers, highways, byways, etc.

    Not that I'm upset we have good transportation infrastrucutre, though it is beyond the Constitution's outline of what the federal govt should do...just noting the fact.





    Quick aside:
    Oh, and did you know the federal highway $$ has been the most popular tool for keeping states "in line"? When VT wanted to legalize weed a couple decades ago, teh feds said "OK, but we might forget to appropriate funds for your highways"...

  15. #15
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    Except for the fact that a GPS unit in my car would be an invasion of privacy, I am in favor of a "per mile" fee for travel.
    Coincidentally, this is one of the reasons that the western Blue states are so interested in the GPS technology !!! Can you say a speeding ticket waiting for you in your mailbox ? This potentially would generate way more revenue than the road tax ! There has also been discussion about charging a much higher road tax per mile to persons using the freeways at rush hour.

    Did you know the American Railroads are the only transportation infrastructure in the US that do NOT get federally underwritten? Amtrak has to pay to fix all its trains, tracks, stations, etc out of its own (partially subsidized) budget - and Congress makes a big deal out of "saving " Amtrak every year. But no one mentions the billions (way beyond the collected tax revenues) spent on airports, traffic controllers, highways, byways, etc.
    You better take a closer look at that one ... particularly in regard to who is actually funding railroad pensions !

    I also agree that lots of outright gov't subsidies to alternate forms of transportation are occurring every day, from city/state bonds being issued for airport expansion to diversion of the NY gasoline road tax to subsidize NYC subways. Most of this economic sleight of hand is far from transparent too, which is to be expected when politicians have social agendas they wish to promote which would not be well received were the general public aware of where their tax money was actually going.

    ... which brings us back to my point, which is that the current situation regarding road tax assessment via gasoline provides a major subsidy to hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles - ON TOP OF the direct subsidy they also receive via personal income tax credits - is being used to further an expensive environmental/social agenda. Not only are most taxpayers subsidizing this environmental/social agenda without their knowledge or permission, but in point of fact a switch to hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles may not actually be reducing overall pollution levels. Sure it reduces the amount of pollution coming out of tailpipes (creating smiles in the Blue states with thousands of miles of freeway), but it creates more pollution and may also use more total energy in the growing/manufacture of the fuel (which usually occurs in Red states). Trust me that the manufacture of lead-acid batteries for use in electric/hybrid vehicles is NOT a pretty industrial process (and BTW one which western Blue state environmental regulations has essentially driven to other states or out of the US entirely).
    Last edited by Melonie; 02-23-2005 at 12:39 PM.

  16. #16
    Veteran Member Lurker's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    209
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    Don't forget that damage is done by weight per axle much more than miles driven. That Civic hybrid is doing far less damage than the Lincoln Navigator as they roar down the nation's highways.
    "All this time you were pretending
    So much for my happy ending."
    --Avril Lavigne

  17. #17
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    road tax assessment via gasoline provides a major subsidy to hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles - ON TOP OF the direct subsidy they also receive via personal income tax credits - is being used to further an expensive environmental/social agenda.
    1. how is the fuel tax subsidizing the "environmental agenda" any more than sales tax (which is what fuel tax is) subsidizes those who buy more product (in this case driving miles) cheaper than someone else? If I can heat my hone for a month on the amount of oil you use in a week, I pay less sales tax. Is that a subsidy to me, or a reward for being smart? Is it a subsidy to the insulation manufacturers, or a reward for helping conserve limited resources

    Before we start another debate (though I'm glad to have someone to debate this with) - I won''t say whether we're "running out of oil" - just that the earth is a finite sphere....that can only hold so much volume of fossil fuels. There is a limit, and we know the earth isn't just a big bottle of oil.

    2. the "expensive agenda" is, to date, far less expensive than the cleanup costs estimated for our previous, "do all you can for profit" agenda or the current "WalMart" agenda where 70% of retail employees have no health insurance and have to receive public assistance simply to survive. Don't believe me about the second one, check out the book "Nickel and Dimed" about a reporter that tried to live the "walmart associate lifestyle" for a year.

    While you're reading, check out the success stories of companies who voluntarily support and profit from this "expensive agenda" - I refer you to Ikea, Ford, Ben & Jerry's, and those highlighted in "the bottom line of Green is Black" "[email protected] magazine" and "The Natural Step". If the agenda is so costly, why do most governments support alternative fuel and energy technologies, and whyu do companies like UPS choose "environmentally friendly" power sources for their vehicles?

    Not only are most taxpayers subsidizing this environmental/social agenda without their knowledge or permission
    No more permission than the average taxpayer gave to Bush's tax cut on large, gas guzzling vehicles bought for small businesses. That tax actually said a vehicle had to be OVER a certain size, meaning if I don't need a big truck, but can afford one, I should buy one for the tax deduction. Don't laugh, my friend runs a Hummer dealership and lOVED that law.

    Sure it reduces the amount of pollution coming out of tailpipes ... but it creates more pollution and may also use more total energy in the growing/manufacture of the fuel
    Oh, I'd love to debate this. First of, where is the fuel for hybrid vehicles grown? Second, most alternative energy sources (hydrogen, ethanol, biodiesel to name a few) can be made easily from things we now consider waste, or through totally non-polluting means. Actually, if hydrogen is managed correctly (which it won't be, cause there isn't much profit in this) each household or filling station will have an electrlyzer (powered by solar or wind or other neutral technology) that separates water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Releasing the o2, the H2 will be used to power the vehicles. Out the tailpipe comes water, making the system a zero-sum equation with NO TRANSPORTATION of raw fuel.

    (which usually occurs in Red states).
    um...how do you figure?

    Trust me that the manufacture of lead-acid batteries for use in electric/hybrid vehicles is NOT a pretty industrial process
    no, but it can be improved, the batteries recycled, and alternative energy modes developed such as capacitor storage.

  18. #18
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    in the interest of fairness, why aren't we discussing how the current fuel tax subsidizes people that travel by motorcycle, scooter or other "traditional" high-fuel-economy systems? There have always been differences in the MPG of vehicle, and that's simply a cost choice. Only now, when there's a real potential for change that impacts the environment, is it a problem and are we accused of "subsidizing an agenda" with a tax that pre-dates the emergence of the technology.

    How is a pre-existing tax a subsidy anyway? Last time I saw, the largest energy subsidies are for clean coal and new oil tankers and drilling fields.

    By the way, I'd love to trade resources with you, see if we can check out each other's sources. Let me know if interested

  19. #19
    God/dess
    Joined
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,352
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    They could tax per weight of the vehicle that would seem fair to me , I thought they did this in Michigan or in the midwest somewhere . ?

  20. #20
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    The premise of your argument ignores an important economic effect of environmental regulations: the delevopment of new high tech industry, employing high wage professionals instead of low wage factory workers. Along with these high earning professional positions comes the intellectual property they develop for US industries -- patents on environmental technology, which are highly lucrative internationally. Dow chemical has thousands of such patents, as do the auto manufacturers, and the hundreds of start up companies created to fill this need.

    Just around the bend are new strict diesel particulate and Nox emission standards. An army of smart folks are working overtime to find solutions. The day will come soon when the soot spewing garbage truck is history. This would never have happened without regulation (with the possible exception of class action litigation). Ayn Rand was dead wrong. Profit motivated industry is a single minded, master raper and pillager. Nothing wrong with that instinct. Industry just needs tough love to grow up.

    Guess who the fastest growing and voracious consumer of environmental technologies is? China. God knows they need it in spades. Thanks to the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, we have a highly developed industry to fill their need.

  21. #21
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    That tax actually said a vehicle had to be OVER a certain size, meaning if I don't need a big truck, but can afford one, I should buy one for the tax deduction. Don't laugh, my friend runs a Hummer dealership and lOVED that law.
    Yes, the 6000lb vehicle tax incentive which was designed to assist small American businesses also wound up assisting large American businesses like Hummer via the law of unintended consequences. Funny though that the Asian auto makers didn't have a product to offer in this category, wasn't it.

    how is the fuel tax subsidizing the "environmental agenda" any more than sales tax (which is what fuel tax is) subsidizes those who buy more product (in this case driving miles) cheaper than someone else? If I can heat my hone for a month on the amount of oil you use in a week, I pay less sales tax. Is that a subsidy to me, or a reward for being smart? Is it a subsidy to the insulation manufacturers, or a reward for helping conserve limited resources
    My comment was that the LACK of a fuel tax on hydrogen, ethanol, natgas etc. amounts to a subsidy. Your efficiency issue has nothing to do with these alternative fuels, since zero tax is currently collected regardless of the amount of alternative fuel used. I agree that in the case of hybrid gas/electric vehicles an efficiency issue using the same (taxed) fuel is a semi-valid point.

    Actually, if hydrogen is managed correctly (which it won't be, cause there isn't much profit in this) each household or filling station will have an electrlyzer (powered by solar or wind or other neutral technology) that separates water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Releasing the o2, the H2 will be used to power the vehicles. Out the tailpipe comes water, making the system a zero-sum equation with NO TRANSPORTATION of raw fuel.
    I'm VERY glad you raised this example, because it shows a case of subsidies building on subsidies i.e. wind power and solar power only being marginally cost effective due to the existance of investment tax credits, research grants etc. In the real world of course, those hydrogen electrolyzers will likely not be powered by local nuke plants, but probably by coal fired power plants in an adjacent state whose stack emissions drift in the opposite direction, and with the entire conversion process actually using more fossil fuel to produce the hydrogen than if the vehicle was powered by gasoline ! IMHO this merely amounts to relocation of the pollution at the expense of residents of another area/state where the power is generated.

    The premise of your argument ignores an important economic effect of environmental regulations: the delevopment of new high tech industry, employing high wage professionals instead of low wage factory workers. Along with these high earning professional positions comes the intellectual property they develop for US industries -- patents on environmental technology, which are highly lucrative internationally. Dow chemical has thousands of such patents, as do the auto manufacturers, and the hundreds of start up companies created to fill this need.
    Agreed - PROVIDED that Dow Chemical doesn't outsource the practical application of those patents to Bhopal, India (leaving the highly paid research scientists still working in the USA of course), provided that China respects Dow's intellectual property rights and doesn't 'clone' the technology locally etc. Yes highly skilled highly paid white collar jobs are very desireable, but at some point the lack of blue collar opportunities in the USA will lead us to a two class society which taxation of the white collar professionals to cover the benefit costs of the 'working poor' will become unworkable.

  22. #22
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    Yes, the 6000lb vehicle tax incentive which was designed to assist small American businesses
    Designed to assist small businesses, as long as they need/want huge, fuel-guzzling vehicles...if it were TRULY for all small businesses, then it would have extended to ANY vehicle (like the small, fuel efficient ones my business uses. I think the weight stipulation had as much to do with the Administration's connection with big industry and oil resources (as Bush says "my base").

    Funny though that the Asian auto makers didn't have a product to offer in this category, wasn't it.
    Yeah, if an entire nation's auto industry can do without it (not to mention the nation) that tells you something about the utility of those vehicles. By the way, when was the last time you saw a Hummer with a roof rack hauling ladders and paint? I don't think I've yet seen a Hummer doing real "work" but rather being an oversized, conspicuous consumption mode of personal transportation.



    [QUOTEMy comment was that the LACK of a fuel tax on hydrogen, ethanol, natgas etc. amounts to a subsidy. Your efficiency issue has nothing to do with these alternative fuels, since zero tax is currently collected regardless of the amount of alternative fuel used. [QUOTE]
    Uhhh, any fuel used on the road (from biodiesel to hydrogen and the rest) are subject to fuel tax. Check your research.

    Oh, and what about direct cash subsidies to coal and oil producers?

    is a semi-valid point.
    specifically what is invalid?



    I'm VERY glad you raised this example, because it shows a case of subsidies building on subsidies i.e. wind power and solar power only being marginally cost effective due to the existance of investment tax credits, research grants etc.
    Offering tax incentives (most of which are phased out by 2007, unlike coal/oil subsidies) for developing new technologies - technologies in which the US is DECADES behind Europe and Japan and which could offer renewable alternatives to our current polluting fuels..Now, how is that a good idea?


    In the real world of course, those hydrogen electrolyzers will likely not be powered by local nuke plants, but probably by coal fired power plants in an adjacent state whose stack emissions drift in the opposite direction, and with the entire conversion process actually using more fossil fuel to produce the hydrogen than if the vehicle was powered by gasoline
    First, who suggested nuke plants?

    Second, if proper incentives are offered to decentralize energy production...especially if people can write off 100 % of the cost (to stimulate home business, of course ) of these systems (or incentives on fossil fuels are removed) your prediction may not be true.

    Why would a government working so hard to support small business want to eliminate a whole new INDUSTRY of small business professionals? Seems like that might be a better investment than a bunch of Hummers.

    IMHO this merely amounts to relocation of the pollution at the expense of residents of another area/state where the power is generated.
    Not if clean air is a concern of the people and Clean Air regulations (not to mention NIMBY programs by local residents) are strong.

    Of course, with current economic incentives promoting offshore operations continue, the choice people will have is between $7 an hour part time at WalMart and a job at the coal plant...choice will be limited because of "small business incentives"



    at some point the lack of blue collar opportunities in the USA will lead us to a two class society which taxation of the white collar professionals to cover the benefit costs of the 'working poor' will become unworkable.
    EXACTLY why we need to grow new, local businesses with locally-based, decentralized new technology. Companies around the world (and the US) are working on these technologies...many of which are already so well tested they are working in industry today. But, with present tax subsidies and cost differences created by the mass-market economy of scale "traditional" technologies offer, it's getting harder and harder for the new businesses to survive without help

    (From Stant, who makes good points.) Just around the bend are new strict diesel particulate and Nox emission standards.
    already standard in Europe are low-emission diesel, biodiesel and other options. We could start by simply using what our "allies" already know....and catching up

    The day will come soon when the soot spewing garbage truck is history.
    Could be today, if we employ existing technologies ... problem is, they're in such small volume production today the cost differential present...that's where subsidies are needed.


    Thanks to the Clean Air and Clean Water acts,
    both of which this government have undermined, detrimental to small business, people and the environment. Not to mention the economy

    How would you define the strategic position of a nation with little home industry, forced to look overseas for 90%of its fuel, with few programs to find long-term replacements. Exporting most of its raw materials, and importing the finished products it needs for daily existence. Consiming more and more clean water, air, and natural resources....yet reducing controls to keep it clean and reducing the security surrounding areas from which those resources come (like the Alaskan Refuge, and open space). Sending high - paying jobs overseas, allowing companies to gain tax incentives and profit growth from that, and replacing the jobs with part-time, low-paying jobs that require state assistance for healthcare and childcare. Allows the most central industries to be controlled by overseas "partners", and doesn't encourage remaining industry to grow new technologies (CAFE standards did alot to bring US Automakers back to competitive advantage with their overseas competitors). Finally, the nation moves forward with foreign policy that pisses off other countries, defies the international body it helped develop. I define that nation as short-sighted, dangerously exposed, and risking economic failure. Of cours, another definition could be "Modern US"...but we have the power to change that.

  23. #23
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    How would you define the strategic position of a nation with little home industry, forced to look overseas for 90%of its fuel, with few programs to find long-term replacements. Exporting most of its raw materials, and importing the finished products it needs for daily existence. Consiming more and more clean water, air, and natural resources....yet reducing controls to keep it clean and reducing the security surrounding areas from which those resources come (snip)
    hmmm .... sounds a lot like China, parts of Russia, and most of the middle east !

    Not if clean air is a concern of the people and Clean Air regulations (not to mention NIMBY programs by local residents) are strong.
    Well if everybody in America got on the NO NUKE PLANTS and NIMBY bandwagon regarding conventional power plants, there wouldn't be ANY additional electricity available to charge those new hybrid vehicle batteries, except power imported across the border from coal and oil fired Mexican power plants (with the stack exhaust of course blowing north across the border too), or by running the hybrid's gasoline engine while the vehicle is parked in the garage !

    Like it or not, nuclear power is the only available technology which is cost effective and essentially non-polluting - yet the industry has basically been assassinated due to misplaced fears plus successful politicking and incredibly complex and expensive gov't regulations.
    Last edited by Melonie; 02-26-2005 at 05:46 AM.

  24. #24
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    hmmm .... sounds a lot like China, parts of Russia, and most of the middle east !
    Survey says XXX - America is the country described, as I don't see China, Russia or the Middle East being large-scale importers of finished products (considering China is one of the world's largest factories)



    there wouldn't be ANY additional electricity available to charge those new hybrid vehicle batteries,
    Check your research, hybrids NEVER NEED TO BE PLUGGED IN. They chage off the excess energy (now wasted) from the gasoline engine.

    running the hybrid's gasoline engine while the vehicle is parked in the garage !
    Hybrids get MORE than enough charge being driven normally. So much so, the european truck manufacturers are developing hybrid-diesel models.

    Like it or not, nuclear power is the only available technology which is cost effective and essentially non-polluting
    I guess if you ignore solar and wind, which are so cost effective companies are puitting up wind farms and solar farms every month in the US.

    And OF COURSE you have to ignore improvements to those technologies, and the century old tech of small hydro, new research on ocean wave "bouy" generators, hydrogen-powered systems, etc.

    I'm not an enemy of nuclear, it has its uses IF we can SOLVE THE POLLUTION PROBLEM. ASide from LARGE amounts of hot water (effectively considered waste, though it contains energy we can use), there's the pesky problem of NUCLEAR WASTE and contaminated materials, which hang around for MILLIONS of years.
    Non-polluting? Depends how you define it.

    Oh, and there's also accidental leaks, and meltdowns...

    yet the industry has basically been assassinated due to misplaced fears plus successful politicking and incredibly complex and expensive gov't regulations.
    here we agree....Nuclear plants have gotten a bad rap, though they could do alot more to be cleaner. As with any emerging technology, we'd rather kill it off than improve it and that's just stupid. No more stupid than suspending incentives to develop alternative fuel sources....

  25. #25
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: US Environmental regulations didn't prevent pollution ...

    Survey says XXX - America is the country described, as I don't see China, Russia or the Middle East being large-scale importers of finished products (considering China is one of the world's largest factories)
    Actually, China, Russia and the Middle East are major importers of finished products - advanced weapons systems, CNC and other precision machine tools, etc. immediately come to mind. China's factories, while moving up the technological ladder thanks to sending their brightest children to our schools and attracting our capital investment to their country, are still primarily involved with low tech products or the assembly of higher tech products (with the precision components being produced elsewhere).

    Check your research, hybrids NEVER NEED TO BE PLUGGED IN. They chage off the excess energy (now wasted) from the gasoline engine.
    Actually, that's not the case. You can't get something for nothing no matter how politically correct. A hybrid's batteries start with an initial charge, and then can either be charged by 'downhill' energy of a coasting vehicle, or charged by placing 'extra' load on the gasoline engine (and burning extra fuel), or be discharged when supplying extra power to the vehicle at high speeds or going uphill. The overall fuel efficiency increase comes from a hybrid's use of a much smaller gasoline engine which can operate in a more efficient spot on it's speed/horsepower curve (i.e. a higher average load) than a gas engine only vehicle (i.e. a very low load compared to engine rating most of the time), with the electric motor adding more power when needed. For a fact, sustained high speed driving of a hybrid vehicle where the gas engine's power must be supplemented by the electric motor to maintain speed does discharge the batteries, which must then either be recharged directly or by running the gas engine while the vehicle isn't moving (or driving at very low speeds). At any rate, you're correct that my comments would be more directly applicable to 100% electric vehicles.

    I guess if you ignore solar and wind, which are so cost effective companies are puitting up wind farms and solar farms every month in the US
    Yes, thanks to our extra tax money funding their investment tax credits, plus gov't research grants ! Don't get me going on solar cells - that's worth an entire thread unto itself !

    Please don't misunderstand me either. I am not calling for an abandonment of gov't subsidies to fund useful and promising research towards a technology which can actually stand on its own merits. However, I am definitely against having gov't subsidies as an embedded portion of the practical economics of a technology. I am definitely against technologies which look promising in a narrowly focused view but which actually create or transfer large amounts of secondary pollution and/or energy consumption which are not immediately obvious etc. Solar cells are probably the ultimate example of this sort of 'sleight of hand' - I may have to do that separate thread after all.

Similar Threads

  1. China Pollution Pictures (graphic)
    By J.D. in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-21-2009, 11:23 PM
  2. China's latest export - west coast air pollution ...
    By Melonie in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-04-2007, 07:31 PM
  3. New regulations of Clubs
    By in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-13-2006, 11:24 AM
  4. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-04-2005, 08:59 PM
  5. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 02-28-2005, 12:42 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •