*Coughs*

[Andi]

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

If you are familiar with the bill, do you think it was "a very minimal proposal"? Having a Republican and a Democrat agreeing on something makes a nice change! Were the Senate right to shoot the bill down?

Has Bush outlined any plans for voluntary reduction? I suppose for it to be voluntary, he doesn't have to. But I can't imagine many companies rushing to cut emissions purely for PR, or a sense of responsibility. Clearly some would. It'd be nice to think most would, but seriously...where's the financial sense in that?

Is this even much of an issue apart from with the Green lot?

 

[Zepp]

Just more proof that our presidential administration, and those in the government backing it, don't give a rat's *** about protecting the environment unless there's profit in it for their friends.

Does anyone else remember back in 2001, when Bush's second or third act in office was to raise the allowable levels of arsenic in water that occur from coal mining?

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Andi


But I can't imagine many companies rushing to cut emissions purely for PR, or a sense of responsibility. Clearly some would. It'd be nice to think most would, but seriously...where's the financial sense in that?

With Vehicle emissions which are regulated, companies run out to be first to be low emission or meet or beat the newest standards. Why? Well they get to advertise it and also to get federal emission credits, for their company, which can equate to dollars or the use of these credits in future years on other cars and trucks that do not meet the requirements. So, yes they do it, yet you can see the financial sense in it.

As to power companies, this is my pet peeve. You get to choose you local power company and then you live with it. Oh, I know some states/cites have people who sub contract the existing infrastructure to then lease back to the customers the same product. This is done by buying in bulk or wiht loss leaders to get into the door, and then the rates rise.

Also with the Federal and State governments, that set emission requirements on vehicles yet refuse to do so on the power plants. Power plants use mostly sulfur coal to generate energy. So, in California the Zero emission vehicle (* Read Electric Cars and Trucks *), has actual high emissions per mile because of the coal burned to generate the electricity to recharge the batteries .

Morals, Values, Ethics and Laws.

People learn it is not good to pollute. - Morale
People Value Clean Air and Water to breath and Drink - Value

Buying a car that is better on gas mileage not because of the money, but becuase of the impact to the environment - Ethical

Laws, What government has deemed required to protect or to punish for the breaking of based upon Ethics.

The Government will not just go out and change the requirements until enough people believe it to be the ethical thing to do.

Get involved!
:asian:

 

[OULobo]

Unfortunatly, the power business is very established in the political feild and with the Dubya's big oil connections the idea of clean power is not a priority to the government right now. The fact is that there are current technologies that could cut fossil fuel consumption and therefore emissions, but less consumption means less money for oil and resource companies.

The trick is forcing the technologies to be adopted. Efficiency of energy conversion is the key and emissions won't change until this is accepted. It is theoretically possible (but expensive) to completly stop all air pollution from a powerplant, but those substances have to go somewhere. If its not in the air then its in the water or the soil.

The shame is that efficiencies can be so low that if we were to effectivly squeeze and capture all the power from all the fuel we consume we would reduce emissions (in all forms) by 30 to 50%.

A final note is that almost all powerplants cheat. They use dirty tricks and such to overstep federal guidelines. The amount of money they can make from breaking federal regulations can easily pay for the fines they incur, and that's of they get caught. Here in Ohio powerplants are self monitored or given only passing study by federal agencies. The most common emissions test here is seeing if the emissions of the stack are visible on a summer day. The dirty trick is to increase emissions at night when it's harder to notice in the dark and nobody's looking anyway.

 

[Blindside]

The only "voluntary reductions" that work are when there are some sort of incentives or benefits for the company to reduce. Alot of the "pollution credits" plans can be considered voluntary (simply because reduction isn't mandated) but there is a profit incentive to reduce emissions.

Some of the most successful environmental programs in US history were because of government mandates, namely the Clear Air and Clean Water acts. They aren't perfect, but they certainly improved the situation.

Without incentives voluntary reductions just lead to a "Tragedy of the Commons."

Lamont

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by Blindside
The only "voluntary reductions" that work are when there are some sort of incentives or benefits for the company to reduce. Alot of the "pollution credits" plans can be considered voluntary (simply because reduction isn't mandated) but there is a profit incentive to reduce emissions.

Some of the most successful environmental programs in US history were because of government mandates, namely the Clear Air and Clean Water acts. They aren't perfect, but they certainly improved the situation.

Without incentives voluntary reductions just lead to a "Tragedy of the Commons."

Lamont

I think catching a river on fire caused a lot of improvements around here. Necessity is the mother of invention.