On Feb 22, 7:55 pm, "Moby Dick" wrote:
On Feb 22, 8:44 am, "donquijote1954"
wrote:





On Feb 21, 3:50 pm, "Moby Dick" wrote:

Good responses but I take issue with a few things.

I'm not convinced the government can do better at developing
alternative fuels than the competive marketplace. In fact, investors
may be holding out in hopes of getting a piece of pie from the
govenrment instead fo forging investments themselves. Also, I view the
biggest impediments to mass transit like trains and subways as the
airline and auto lobby, not the gas lobby. Oh, and our devotion to
property rights isn't helping either.

The government can do EVERYTHING if not directly, indirectly via the
private market. The private market is stupid however, just GREEDY for
the most part, so only the government can keep THE BEAST in check. The
question is WHO keeps the government (that seems to be controlled by
the beast) from doing extravagant projects (Iraq or Mars) and not the
environment? Well, WE THE PEOPLE. If only we had the right issues (not
gay marriage) before the elections...

There are many good ideas sitting out there, but the LOW OIL PRICES
don't make them competitive, and we go back to square one where
nothing is done.

NATURAL CAPITALISM
"The book will find its audience, regardless. It is that important.
The authors are setting out a boldly different framework for
understanding the ecological crisis.... This perspective has something
to offend nearly everyone: Business interests will choke on the
apocalyptic description of the earth in crisis but may be flattered by
the suggestion that they have the means to solve it. Most
environmentalists agree on the vast dimensions of the threat to nature
but may dismiss the authors' can-do optimism as dangerously naive. I
have particular doubts of my own. Nevertheless, Natural Capitalism
poses an intelligent challenge to lazy assumptions on both sides of
the political divide and ought to jump-start a reinvigorated
environmental debate." -William Greider

http://www.natcap.org/

I've spent a lot of time in Europe. I don't think the price of gas is
preventing them from pollutiong. I think they have population density
advantages. When a European can afford a big car, they get one, just
like Americans. That's just my experience, not a scientific study.

So are many Americans too affluent too drive anything but the biggest
behemoths they can lay their hands on? How about taxing gas to
SUBSIDIZE OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT INCLUDE THE BIKE. Yep, it's not
always high tech, sometimes it's simple, like GOING BACK TO BASICS,
you know. HOW ABOUT LAUNCHING A NATIOWIDE CAMPAIGN TO ENCOURAGE
*SAVING*.

You know the message people get from watching commercials? Yep, YOU
NEED AN SUV, even if you pollute whatever is left. YOU ARE THE KING OF
THE JUNGLE AND... PHUCK (?) THE WORLD.

Regarding the Kyoto protocol and the "worst predator": heck no I
wouldn't join up for these either since somehow China and India are
left out. On the whole those countries may be second or third world
but regions are definitely some of the world's worse polluters, east
China for example.

Well America uses 25% of resources and pollutes accordingly and it's
the only major power to retire from any Kyoto commitment. We're only
committed to victory in Iraq... (?)

Regarding public works -- FDR proved deficit spending can spur the
econmy. Various presidents have used that technique again and again.
Putting someone or something on Mars wilpsur technology just like
putting a man on the moon did. BTW, IIIRC, Bush is spending a lot on
fuel cells and clean coal. Both are good things. We should be allowing
nuclear power, too.

And BIKES and SAVING too. Any real change must take into account the
individual who can then ride a bike, switch to fluorescent lights,
plant trees, etc, etc.

The rest is BS and balloney.

ECONOMIC APARTHEID?
Is there a solution? Maybe. A massive public works project that did
not expand the deficit would help; something like a massive clean
energy program or nationwide high-speed rail network financed by new
taxes on pollution and fossil fuels. A more progressive tax system
would help as well. Both seem inconceivable since the Bush
administration wants to spend public works dollars on Mars not earth,
and Congress that has just enacted tax breaks that exacerbate the
wealth gap.

http://www.eugenelinden.com/news280.html

Just my opinion. Not wanting to start a fight.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No fight. We follow here Jesus on the donkey --or canoe. And he was
still crucified!

We let's agree to disagree. I do not believe government should be in
the social engineering business or the wealth redistribution business.
I also don't beleive in progressive tax. How do you decide how
progressive it should be -- so progressive that everybody makes the
same? I believe in equal opportunity but no equal outcomes. I believe
government is the solution of last resort, not first resort.

Deficits don't matter much. Read P.J O'Rourkes new book on the Wealth
of Nations.

Stop griping about the Iraq war and help us win it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It sounds like motorboat anti-evolutionary thinking. Canoeing thinking
sees the need to take of our own environment and our own problems
(saving gas for one) and not doubtful democracy for Iraq. I see a lot
of garbage floating out there and nobody is taking care of it. Perhaps
we should outsource it like in Iraq. Where's the money though?