Harry Krause wrote:
Gould 0738 wrote:

Now, if we can only get RI and MA off their respective butts and start
on making Narragansett Bay and in particular Greenwich Bay cleaner,
we'll be all set. :)



The key really is funding.

One highly effective way to prevent environmental concerns from
screwing up
the works for commerce and industry is to pass a very comprehensive
sounding set of
projects and restorations. This will tend to silence and disband the
critics.
All subject to funding, of course, and when the funding never appears
the end
result is the same as though there had never been anything passed in
the first
place. Works well for those who will be financially inconvenienced by any
change in the status quo.



How can we fund environmental cleanup when there are still A-rabs to kill?

That sound you hear...it's the USA, going down the toilet.


Firstly, I for one would like to sincerely thank our well known
political OT team lying hui union & gui spam for confining their OT
political rants to just another response to a genuine ON topic thread.

This is much less annoying than starting your usual day's load of OT
political rubbish & genuine thanks again, we appreciate it blokes we
really do, please stick with it:-).

As for the subject of the thread; I think waterway pollution as it
applies to us should be strictly polluter pays which means retail
purchasers of resultant goods/services pay. Yes, yes I can hear the farm
lobby but so what???

This way the real costs get fed into the cost/price of the goods, so
consumers who create the demand that creates the pollution in the first
place, can make a rational choice about the particular products they buy.

It will also drive real advances in creative solutions at all levels.
Again you watch a farmer quickly levy bank has perimeter when he knows
it's against the law to just pollute because his/her father did & they
will do it cheaply because they know other farmers in more
environmentally suitable areas can grow the same or better produce with
less costs. Or maybe the farmer will change the crop, or the fertiliser
or whatever, it's all about setting a standard & leaving it to free
choice as to how people comply.

By having Govt. spend compulsory acquired tax payers' dollars
effectively socialising cleaning up a mess which is created by a small
percentage of consumers of particular products, is tantamount to
subsidising the end price of the dirtiest producer & encouraging them to
pollute even more. The politicians love this of course, it means they
can tax & then be in charge of "spending" in their own areas on
"special" projects = theft.

A good example might be our OB engines?? The users were required to
clean up the pollution & the users were required to pay for it, cost the
govt & general non boating tax payer nothing; we all win!!!! (if you
don't count the union pension funds backing the unionised OMC & losing
1.3 billion in unionist retirement funds). OBs are quickly changing from
predominantly cheap to buy, dirty, expensive to run throw away 2 strokes
to better quality, better performing, longer lasting & cheaper to run 4
stokes. So, they set a standard & left if to free choice as to how it
was met; us the boat buying consumers, got to make the decision with our
purchasing & so far it seems the decision is to go 4 stroke.

If we need any reminding we've seen it all before with cars, when the
CARB rules started everyone was in shock but now look??? even a garden
variety car with essentially the same basic engine (in a couple of cases
with the actual same basic engine:-)) uses much less fuel per HP, makes
huge amounts of politely quietly delivered power, lasts much longer &
hey presto pollutes a tiny fraction. Almost the exact same thing is in
the process of happening with OB engines.


K