Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trebuchet03
You're not alone And does big GDP really mean quality? Rather, is quality a feature of a high GDP - especially for a primarily service based economy... Or am I just reading too far into those couple sentences
In any case, I've been saying it for awhile.... We have the ability to regulate ourselves... We can do that, or let nature do it. It doesn't matter who does it - but it's going to happen. The major difference is, the nature option isn't a pleasant one...
|
I meant quality as in a characteristic/feature
(i.e. a quality of this wound is gangrene).
Using the whole "means/ends" analogy, I think the GDP is a means that became accepted as an ends. Logically, the ends should be
human well-being. Ofcourse, that is hard to define. While material possessions seem to be an aspect of human well-being, I think most could tell you it isn't the
only component. So...why do we treat it that way?
As far as self-regulation, I don't think any path will be particularly pleasant.
Try to get any "king" to live like a "commoner," most won't go without a fight. But you are right, I bet Nature will be particularly unpleasant.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Big Dave
Well, we all make our own value judgments (mine is MPG uber alles), but ULSD/Tier II better show a noticeable improvement in air quality and public health or there will be a backlash. You cannot expect to impose such a huge economic penalty without seeing a proportional benefit or people will start asking: “Is it worth it?” This will be like the failure of the Montreal Protocol, but writ very large and affecting a very large number of people.
In the face of the best ambient air quality in living memory, it will be very difficult for anybody to show any improvement at all from these regs.
|
I see it as an analogy. Two different areas of the nation, each with a lake and a pay-outhouse.
Area 1, with 250 people, will easily agree defecating into the lake is better then spending their hard-earned salary on a pay-toilet.
Area 2, with 14 million people, will easily agree defecating into the late is a bad idea compared to spending 25 cents for sanitation.
As America's population grows, I see us approxiamating Area 2. In that respect, I support clean diesel. I'd be pissed if my ancestors left me a cesspool because they lived purely for themselves. I'm sure people in the future will be mad at the way
I lived, and I'm arguing in their favor.
Also, while the air quality may be the "best" it has been it recent memory, it still downright sucks. I can see brown skies outside my window now. I remember as a kid staying in class all day because the air was too bad. Didn't Bush recently talk about the war on pollution? Oh that's right:
Montreal Protocol
I don't want to knock this off on a tangent, but when was the Montreal Protocol a failure?
Small economic hit to ban CFC's, stabilize the ozone layer, and prevent thousands of medical cases of skin cancer/cataracts a year. Sounds like a nice investment to me.
Not to mention ozone thinning was occuring over some areas least responsible for its cause.
- LostCause