,Originally Posted by Melonie
Not arguing the Mexican plants are horrible, just arguing your 100:1 assymption that modern releases in both countries are that far off.
It's your numbers I am questioning...not the lack of riles in Mexico
,PRECICELY. And a simple US law that requires all factories producing items for the US follow our rules for safety and environmental protection woud simultaneousl reduce the attractiveness of offshoring factories (preserving US jobs) and also protect worker health and the global environment, not to mention the "blowback pollution" you mention, This has nothing to do with the ABILITY/TECHNOLOGY to reduce air and water pollution, it has to do with the INVESTMENT/COSTS of reducing air and water pollution or more specifically in avoiding those costs.
, again, where are you getting these numbers? Illustrations without fact?,Again it has nothing to do with technology ... it has to do with cost/benefit ratios. If a 90% reduction in pollution costs say $100,000, but a 99% reduction in pollution costs say $1,000,000, and a 99.9% reduction in pollution costs $10,000,000 ---
,Again, implement my policy and this no longer is the deciding factor., but the company can't make a profit if it is forced to spend more than $1,000,000 --- what has the EPA accomplished by requiring them to spend $10,000,000 or go out of business in the USA ?
What you're suggesting is we choose - pollution or progress, when we KNOW thechnologies exist to do it better - they are subsidiezed by our not implementing such a rule.
As for cost comparisons, Been there. I'm working with a major state university on just this problem - greening their faciliteis and reducing inflows/outputs WHERE FEASIBLE. Not saying we can make it perfect, not even arguing for the existing EPA regulations (there are as many loopholes as draconian rules. just ask CAFE standards experts) Simply stating that it isn't an either or proposition....and that we'd spend alot less subsidizing the EPA regulated technology improvements for ALL companies in the US than spending for rettraining (for what jobs, McDonalds?) and extending unemployment while trying to cleanup from pollution at factories that are now closed and fixing "blowback" pollution issues. I'm arguing that if we adopted our own rules accross the board, other countries wouldn't get an unfair advantage
,Enact balanced rules...save the people of ElPaso!It's no joke in El Paso, Texas for example.
,You mean no enterprising company with a PROVEN market share would fill the niche? I find that hard to swallow., If the US laws are changed to prevent US citizens from buying products made by polluting factories in Mexico or other countries, at this point in time, there are already many products that US citizens simply won't be able to buy anymore.
Tell you what, I'll be the monopoly in any profitable industry that doesn't rise to meet the guidelines.
NIKEwill close rather than improve? Even with federal subsidies we know they'll get?
Oh well, if their survival depends that much on killing me with pollution, then I guess bye bye to them.
What you're saying is that it isn't worth it to inconvenience the industries or consumers to fix a real and growing problem? What makes it worth it?
,For example, the next time your refrigerator quits, if you can't buy one made by a polluting company outside the US, you're not going to be able to buy one at all (or maybe you'll be able to stand in line for a limited number of units still produced in the USA at twice the current price).
1. I don't agree this is correct, but even if true I don't think US units are 2x the cost of comparable quality imports
2, aren't you concerned your fact presents a security risk to our at-war nation? Shouldnt our leaders who have sworn to place Homeland Security as a prioirty fix this issue and make sure America can supply Americans>? Seems so important for Oil we're drilling in a pristine enviroment to reach a puddle...why is the rule variable depending on what "security" will mean to profits?
Interesting. Please prove or define this,The only way that your proposal could actually be implemented is via draconian wage and price controls, accompanied by a major across the board decline in the US standard of living.
Did requiring all imported cars meet US crash test ratings do this? or did it make foreign cars more cost competitive and save the lvies of Americans?
Did requiring all imported cars meet emission standards end the US standard of living
Can you show one industry that was destroyed by requiring the imports follow the same rules as US companies?




Bookmarks