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.
|
Keeping status quo while increasing consumption is a hefty task in itself...
In any case.... my values... I value the quality of air we breathe - but I'm not afraid to say that economics plays a role in my decisions... college debt
Quote:
|
The ozone hole has not decreased in size one iota. This treaty has been in place for twenty years and nothing positive has come of it.
|
There's no instant gratification here... If we switch over to completely environmentally friendly practices today - we're not going to see things restore to the "before we screwed them up state" tomorrow.
CFC's came into use in the 1920's - Ozone depletion hole was discovered in 1985 IIRC (maybe it was early 70's - or that might have been when the hypothesis started gaining traction)... So lets say 1970... It took ~50 years to start making the hole - and you expect it to be better in less than half of that time?<- that despite the fact that some places are still using them.... It's probably going to stay somewhat crappy for awhile due to the poison fed to it 10 - 20+ years ago.