If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
"Jeff" > wrote in message ... > On Jan 17, 4:28 pm, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote: >> All one need do is look at the price of property in California and it >> become >> apparent what the runaway environmentalism of the environuts has done to >> its >> cost, and the costs of many other things in that state like prices for >> fuel >> and electricity > > Certainly, the price of buying houses in the Silicon Valley Area and > San Fransisco are amoungst the highest in the nation. But this has > very little to do with the environmental regulations. It has a lot > more to do with people love the climate and people like to work for a > lot of money in the electronics and biotech industries as well as at > some world-class universities. > > The cost of electricity in CA is less than the cost in New England > states. I don't know how much of this has to do with environmental > regulations. Much of the cost might have to with the free market > system where utilities bought electricity from companies like Enron. > California now gets a lot of its electricity from burning natural gas. > > However, I don't consider environmentalists nuts. Rather, they are > people who like the environment that we all share to survive. I don't > see what is so nutty about that. Social engineering, the DAHLING of LIEbrawls everywhere is what is nutty. Penalize industry and you won't HAVE the revenue to your greeny ****. > > jeff > >> "John David Galt" > wrote in >> ... >> >> >>>> The true purpose of the environmental movement is to keep the prices >> >>>> of homes, especially good (single-family detached) homes, >> >>>> outrageously high and climbing higher forever. >> >> >>> Now there's a fascinating statement. I'd love to see the full thesis >> >>> and supporting evidence that backs it all up, but since this is >> >>> USENET I know I never will. >> >> >> And if that's the case, Wall Street and the banking industry is chock >> >> full of environmentalists. >> >> > Marin County certainly is, and it demonstrates how they got their way. >> > Just TRY to move there if you don't have more money than God. > |
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
In article >,
Jeff > wrote: >> >> Buses put a lot more wear and tear on the roads than cars. =A0And trucks >> (which are not impacted by public transportation) do most of the >> damage. =A0So no, you won't get less wear by increasing public >> transportation use. Buses also cause traffic delays and belch enormous >> clouds of diesel smoke. > >So having 20 cars is better for the roads than one bus? As far as wear is concerned, likely so. Road wear goes up much greater than linearly with weight. -- It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
Jeff wrote:
> Certainly, the price of buying houses in the Silicon Valley Area and > San Fransisco are amoungst the highest in the nation. But this has > very little to do with the environmental regulations. It has a lot > more to do with people love the climate and people like to work for a > lot of money in the electronics and biotech industries as well as at > some world-class universities. Bull. There's still plenty of vacant land there; the only reason housing is expensive is that the eco-nut movement "protects" most of it in order to MAKE it expensive. > The cost of electricity in CA is less than the cost in New England > states. Both areas have adopted so much eco-nut regulation that it's next to impossible to build or expand power plants. Thus it's a race to see which area will outgrow its installed capacity first. Up to last year I would have bet on CA, but now that Schwarzenegger (a Democrat in sheep's clothing if there ever was one) has managed to ruin CA's economy even more than Gray Davis did, New England may get there first. > I don't know how much of this has to do with environmental > regulations. Much of the cost might have to with the free market > system where utilities bought electricity from companies like Enron. > California now gets a lot of its electricity from burning natural gas. California has put off the problem for a few years by building wind power plants (and forcing utilities to subsidize them), but the sites where they'll work are pretty much exhausted (unlike New England, where I hear Ted Kennedy still prevents them being built where they would spoil the view from his beachfront house). > However, I don't consider environmentalists nuts. Rather, they are > people who like the environment that we all share to survive. I don't > see what is so nutty about that. Two things are nutty about the environmental movement. One is that it is based on assertions of emergencies that just don't exist (and the fact they don't exist is obvious to anyone who knows what he's talking about). The other is that the movement explicitly rejects the only two mechanisms that could solve such a problem if it did exist -- the free market and new technology. You need to read the works of Julian Simon, especially "The Ultimate Resource 2". |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
On Jan 18, 1:58*pm, John David Galt >
wrote: > Jeff wrote: > > Certainly, the price of buying houses in the Silicon Valley Area and > > San Fransisco are amoungst the highest in the nation. But this has > > very little to do with the environmental regulations. It has a lot > > more to do with people love the climate and people like to work for a > > lot of money in the electronics and biotech industries as well as at > > some world-class universities. > > Bull. *There's still plenty of vacant land there; the only reason > housing is expensive is that the eco-nut movement "protects" most of > it in order to MAKE it expensive. No, they preserve the land so that there will be nature there in the future, like a national forest is preserved to keep the forest. > > The cost of electricity in CA is less than the cost in New England > > states. > > Both areas have adopted so much eco-nut regulation that it's next to > impossible to build or expand power plants. *Thus it's a race to see > which area will outgrow its installed capacity first. *Up to last > year I would have bet on CA, but now that Schwarzenegger (a Democrat > in sheep's clothing if there ever was one) has managed to ruin CA's > economy even more than Gray Davis did, New England may get there first. Certainly, with so many companies making do with the technology they have, the economic slowdown has greatly affected many companies in the Silicon Valley area, causing many lay-offs. The state universities have limited the number of students in attendance and cut budgets, which affects the communities in which the universities are based. The economic problems have limited biotech R&D as well as biotech and technology IPOs as well as start-ups. Clearly, these problems were not caused by the gubinator. > > I don't know how much of this has to do with environmental > > regulations. Much of the cost might have to with the free market > > system where utilities bought electricity from companies like Enron. > > California now gets a lot of its electricity from burning natural gas. > > California has put off the problem for a few years by building wind > power plants (and forcing utilities to subsidize them), but the sites > where they'll work are pretty much exhausted (unlike New England, where > I hear Ted Kennedy still prevents them being built where they would > spoil the view from his beachfront house). Not to mention by using other forms of solar energy (the winds are created by energy from the sun). > > However, I don't consider environmentalists nuts. Rather, they are > > people who like the environment that we all share to survive. I don't > > see what is so nutty about that. > > Two things are nutty about the environmental movement. *One is that it > is based on assertions of emergencies that just don't exist (and the > fact they don't exist is obvious to anyone who knows what he's talking > about). I have to disagree with you here. There are major environmental problems, like the lowering of thee water tables and water shortages in many parts of the world, including US West, global heating, disappearing forests, decrease ocean pH (as result of CO2, which is an acid) and a generally degraded environment. > The other is that the movement explicitly rejects the only > two mechanisms that could solve such a problem if it did exist -- the > free market and new technology. The free market system doesn't work properly unless the enviornmental cost is included. I see what you mean. It is not like any environmentalists are suggesting people use electric cars, hybrid cars, solar power, wind power, nuclear power, power from waves, improved computer efficiency, flourescent lights or anything like that. > You need to read the works of Julian Simon, especially "The Ultimate > Resource 2". Jeff |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
On 2009-01-19, Jeff > wrote:
> On Jan 18, 1:58*pm, John David Galt > > wrote: >> Jeff wrote: >> > Certainly, the price of buying houses in the Silicon Valley Area and >> > San Fransisco are amoungst the highest in the nation. But this has >> > very little to do with the environmental regulations. It has a lot >> > more to do with people love the climate and people like to work for a >> > lot of money in the electronics and biotech industries as well as at >> > some world-class universities. >> >> Bull. *There's still plenty of vacant land there; the only reason >> housing is expensive is that the eco-nut movement "protects" most of >> it in order to MAKE it expensive. > > No, they preserve the land so that there will be nature there in the > future, like a national forest is preserved to keep the forest. If you want to preserve land you buy it add rules to the title and pass it on in your family or to a group that will preserve it by obeying your legally binding wishes. A national forest or other government controlled land is protected so long politics make it so. Those in government will gladly lease the land to their friends to exploit the natural resources. Not being owners but merely renters of 'public land' they will destroy it entirely. Passing laws to restrict your neighbors from building on their land after you built on yours is just plain incompatible with liberty. >> The other is that the movement explicitly rejects the only >> two mechanisms that could solve such a problem if it did exist -- the >> free market and new technology. > The free market system doesn't work properly unless the enviornmental > cost is included. I see what you mean. It is not like any > environmentalists are suggesting people use electric cars, hybrid > cars, solar power, wind power, nuclear power, power from waves, > improved computer efficiency, flourescent lights or anything like > that. The free market does include the environmental cost. Except there hasn't been a free market in the modern age. What was decided is that certain people were allowed to foul their neighbors' and public lands and waterways. A true free-market property rights system would have requred that the pollution remain on the property of those creating it or otherwise safely disposed of. The system that is in place is one where the government allows those with the right connections in the political system can dump a particular amount of their wastes into the waterways, are allowed to have so much pollution damage their neighbors' property and so on. Then instead of actually going to a property rights point of view environmentalists want to tax end users for the 'environmental cost' of the products. The tax is placed on products that are made regardless of how responsible the manufacturer is and favors the politically connected persons (who are favored by the existing regulations). It's absurd. True environmental costs will be reflected once we have system based on property rights instead of political power. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
On Jan 18, 1:58*pm, John David Galt >
wrote: > Jeff wrote: > > Certainly, the price of buying houses in the Silicon Valley Area and > > San Fransisco are amoungst the highest in the nation. But this has > > very little to do with the environmental regulations. It has a lot > > more to do with people love the climate and people like to work for a > > lot of money in the electronics and biotech industries as well as at > > some world-class universities. > > Bull. *There's still plenty of vacant land there; the only reason > housing is expensive is that the eco-nut movement "protects" most of > it in order to MAKE it expensive. > > > The cost of electricity in CA is less than the cost in New England > > states. > > Both areas have adopted so much eco-nut regulation that it's next to > impossible to build or expand power plants. *Thus it's a race to see > which area will outgrow its installed capacity first. *Up to last > year I would have bet on CA, but now that Schwarzenegger (a Democrat > in sheep's clothing if there ever was one) has managed to ruin CA's > economy even more than Gray Davis did, New England may get there first. New England (at least my part) has the means to create plenty of clean power. The nuke plant in Seabrook was supposed to have a second reactor, but that was squashed. The amount of additional power that second reactor would generate is huge. There is also a plan in the works for underwater turbine in the Piscataqua river. We'll have to see how that progresses. There is currently a company in Newburyport, Mark Ritchey Woodworking, that is putting up a wind turbine to provide their own power. It's in the middle of an industrial park, not like it overlooks anyone's yard. Still, opposition was fierce and they were dragged to court countless times over it until the judge finally had enough and gave them the go-ahead while pre-emptively squashing any further appeals. It can be done, and we have the means. The problem is those opposing every step to get it done, while of course running 5 ACs in the summer and being part of the cause of the brown-outs. Everyone wants "something done", but whenever anyone does something those same people object. It's both frustrating and amusing to watch. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:58:14 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote: >On 2009-01-15, Gordon McGrew > wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:46:29 +0000, Eeyore > wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>Brent wrote: >>> >>>> Eeyore > wrote: >>>> > Tim Howard wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Oregon looks at taxing mileage instead of gasoline >>>> > >>>> > The basic problem is that government in much of the west (not just the USA) >>>> > is now out of control and any pretence at democracy is only nominal. >>>> > >>>> > The events of the last year or so have convinced me that only a full scale >>>> > revolution can restore peoples' rights and stop government poking its nose >>>> > into stuff it has no business in. >>>> >>>> Nanny state finally went after something you care about? >>> >>>It's the economy stupid ! But they've become unstoppable here now. They just >>>ignore protest. >>> >>>Graham >>> >> >> Uh huh. >> >> http://tinyurl.com/6t3huj > >That happened in 2003. The war continues today. You just supported >Graham's point. Uh huh. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
>> Bull. There's still plenty of vacant land there; the only reason
>> housing is expensive is that the eco-nut movement "protects" most of >> it in order to MAKE it expensive. > No, they preserve the land so that there will be nature there in the > future, like a national forest is preserved to keep the forest. If there were ever a shortage of scenic, natural terrain, then the price of land kept that way would rise enough that it would pay to maintain it and charge admission to the hikers, campers, and hunters. The fact that it hasn't happened yet through the free market shows that there is no such shortage, nor any prospect of one. Way too much land is unbuilt and going to waste now. Anyone who tells you different is lying. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers!
"John David Galt" > wrote:
> If there were ever a shortage of scenic, natural terrain, then the > price > of land kept that way would rise enough that it would pay to maintain > it > and charge admission to the hikers, campers, and hunters. > > The fact that it hasn't happened yet through the free market shows > that > there is no such shortage, nor any prospect of one. Way too much land > is unbuilt and going to waste now. Anyone who tells you different is > lying. You just need to fly across the country and look out the window to see how much land is uninhabited. pj |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers! | Tim Howard | Driving | 133 | January 22nd 09 02:14 PM |
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers | Tim Howard | General | 35 | January 18th 09 12:25 AM |
Some states want to punish fuel-efficient car drivers! | Tim Howard | BMW | 38 | January 12th 09 12:25 PM |
Most fuel efficient RPM? | [email protected] | Driving | 11 | October 26th 07 06:34 PM |
Bicyclists - Best way to punish drivers who endanger you | Laura Bush murdered her boy friend | Driving | 271 | February 25th 05 06:46 PM |