Bush taking action to lower gas costs...

[PhillyKev 0]

The administration has proposed reducing pollution control restrictions to bring down the cost of gas.



(front page today's WSJ)

[Nightingale 0]

sigh.

I'd rather pay a few cents more a gallon for a cleaner environment...

then again, I use the train to commute to work so my car isn't even on the road, so I'm doing my best to not add to Los Angeles' already rotten pollution problem.

I hope that more people, especially here in Southern Cali, take a second (or first!) look at public transportation. The metrolink trains are comfortable, faster than driving, and you can read a book, listen to music, or read the newspaper, so you're not just wasting time sitting in traffic.

[lawrocket 3]

Hmmm. I don't entirely disagree with it. The regulations in fuel create built-in shortages here in California every six months.

Since I don't get the wsj, what are the "proposed reducing pollution control restrictions?" Something like bringing them to 1998 levels?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Kennedy 0]

I'm still convinced the only reason DC is ranked thrid for worst traffic (behind LA and NYC) is it's lack of quality public transportation. Back there, it's not that people don't take advantage of PT, it's that it just doesn't work for them. If you live and work near a Metro stop, you're in luck. Everyone else, you're S O L.


Wouldn't the best way to lower gas costs be to allow car makers to relax some of the safety requirements, and allow people to choose? If cars didn't weigh ten tons, they wouldn't suck up so much gas. Taxing SUV purchasers (not a recurring fee) would be a plus as well, in my book (yes, I drive a pathfinder).

Alas, our cities are just not built to encourage walking and make driving harder.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

hope that more people, especially here in Southern Cali, take a second (or first!) look at public transportation.

For a lot of people, particularly me, it is a tough option. In four or five years, it will not be for you, either, for the most part.

Public transportation is a nightmare in LA because there is no "hub and spoke" of activities. Honestly, it's not like Manhattan or even SF, where a large portion of the population goes downtown to work.

For you, you'll have to be in court in any of the numerous LA courthouses, travel to the Westside for depositions or back to OC, etc. While the train and bus rides are cheaper than driving, in many instances they can take two or three times as long as driving, and time will be money. it'll be tough for you to take public transportation from Santa Ana to Century City for the 1:00 depo.

Sad but true.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

I'd wonder which restrictions before making any judgement. We have so many formulas making it out of hand anyway. If the market wants cleaner fuel, then there will be demand. Else, it's just a bunch of people saying they are willing to decide for other people to pay a few dimes more for cleaner air.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Actually, I wonder how much Ralph NBader would be in favor of your system.

You know, "Unsafe at Any Speed" was a demand to build cars to tank-like safety specifications. Of course, the Watermelons (Green on the outside, Red to the core) isn't fond of the pollution caused by the land yachts.

Why didn't I think of that? We should blame Ralph Nader for this issue!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

If the market wants cleaner fuel, then there will be demand.

You don't have a choice to purchase cleaner fuel. The gasoline delivery system in to gas stations is federalized. It's a single pipeline network. When you buy gas at Exxon, it wasn't necessarily from an Exxon refinery. All the gas is mixed together from the different companies and they get credited for however much they contribute.

Quote

Else, it's just a bunch of people saying they are willing to decide for other people to pay a few dimes more for cleaner air.

Whose air is it exactly?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Since I don't get the wsj, what are the "proposed reducing pollution control restrictions?" Something like bringing them to 1998 levels?

Scrapping the Clean Air Act's requirement that older facilities install modern pollution-control devices when they modify their plants in ways that significantly increase emissions.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You don't have a choice to purchase cleaner fuel.

Damn straight.

Quote

Whose air is it exactly?

MINE, mine, mine, mine, mine, MINE, mine

Seems it's everybodies, therefore the natural market could drive how we use that resource. That's only unacceptable if you don't think the average consumer is intelligent enough to make their own choices...........

Actually we all use, just some people seem to suck up all the oxygen and not use it for any benefit. Sorry, just got out of a planning meeting with a bunch of execs. Ever notice how each one of them has to say something on each topic even if they have nothing substantive to say. Much like me on this thread.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,991]

>Else, it's just a bunch of people saying they are willing to decide for
>other people to pay a few dimes more for cleaner air.

Actually, it's a bunch of people who want to pollute the air and make my kids sick. You don't have the right to do that any more than I have the right to toss my trash over the fence into your yard.

Amy was born in LA. Shortly after she was born, her family went to a doctor about their asthma problems. He advised them to move because the air was so bad. They did; they moved to Portland.

Since then the air has cleared dramatically due to emissions controls laws. San Diego isn't exactly clear air, but it's usually pretty good. I do not want to have to move in ten years because the selfish, unthinking people on the roads once again make the air unsafe to breathe.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Scrapping the Clean Air Act's requirement that older facilities install modern pollution-control devices when they modify their plants in ways that significantly increase emissions.

So, let me put another spin on this. GWB is proposing eliminating the potential pollution of the waters and soils that is caused by particulates that could be in the air.

So when a petrochemical plant increases its production, it will increase emissions into the air. Current regulations would require the airborne pollution to be scrubbed and disposed of elsewhere, thereby polluting our soils, lakes, rivers and streams, and putting delicate ecosystems and precious wetlands at risk.

Can we afford to take that risk? I applaud GWB for his proposed efforts to protect our precious soils and wetlands, while keeping fuel affordable to all Americans.

Edited to add: upon re-read, it was not as sarcastic as I hope it would be.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,991]

>GWB is proposing eliminating the potential pollution of the waters
>and soils that is caused by particulates that could be in the air.

?? Soil is full of uranium, thorium, mercury etc. Always has been, always will be. When those same materials are in the air they kill people. A coal power plant puts hundreds of pounds of uranium and thorium in the air every year. That kills people. The emissions from two coal fired power plants in Massachusetts alone kill 159 people a year. Doubling that number to make a buck seems pretty evil.

[PhillyKev 0]

Another aspect of this is that numerous companies that were cerated to build the scrubbers will no longer have a purpose and most likely go out of business.

[rehmwa 2]

Actually, I have asthma too - being treated well. And I've smelled the air in other countries and don't want our nation to go that route. So clean air is good.

But, I do need to stay on point and that's to trust the market and people to drive the right behavior (eventually). I do believe one thing though and that's we have too many formulations and likely most are unnecessary or even insignificant in the incremental impact and that causes inefficiencies in the market and higher prices. A little simplification would be nice.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

But, I do need to stay on point and that's to trust the market and people to drive the right behavior (eventually).

I agree for the most part, but in this instance we're dealing with A) monopolies and B) something that effect everyone not just the consumer making the choice.

It's like saying you think people should be allowed to drive unsafe automobiles that suddenly swerve out of control. Do you want to be on the road with that person?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

The administration has proposed reducing pollution control restrictions to bring down the cost of gas.

If the administration forces a uniform standard across the nation for fuel formulation (say to CARB levels of 2000), not only would most of the country benefit, but it would likely reduce "at-the-pump" costs, formulation costs, and reduce the "built-in" shortages that have to be endured in regions like California, Chicago-Detroit, NYC/New England/Winter reqs...etc.

With exception of the recent up-tick in oil prices/futures, almost every increase in gas costs are the result of local municipalities/counties forcing vastly different formulation requirements for their fuel. Not only must refineries meet different geographic requirements, but also different seasonal requirements. In some cases, refineries must shut down completely to "clean out" in order to formulate to other requirements.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[PhillyKev 0]

See my post further down where I clarify what the change is.

[billvon 2,991]

>I do need to stay on point and that's to trust the market and
>people to drive the right behavior (eventually).

This works for most things, but it does not work in this case - because air is free, and thus any free market based scheme will make maximal use of the air as a trashbin because it is simply cheaper to do so. End users cannot regulate this either; a user must rely on everyone else's emissions controls. He cannot make his own air cleaner by making his own vehicle cleaner.

How to get around this? One way is to use simple rules. You cannot emit more than X pounds of toxins per megawatt-hour, or per mile, or whatever, period. This in many ways is the most fair system - everyone simply plays by the same rules. Next is a market-based system where it costs X to pollute a given amount, with X gradually increasing as new technologies come on-line.

The system we have now has gotten incredibly complex, with old sources of pollution regulated differently than new sources, and byzantine rules that describe when an old source 'becomes' a new source.

>A little simplification would be nice.

On gas refining? I would agree there. We could probably go with the cleanest winter blend on the market and still end up saving money by reducing the complexity of the delivery system.

[Casurf1978 0]

Also remember LA had a good PT system back in the 1930s,over 1150 miles of track. It was the Auto industry that influenced LA away from PT through the building of the freeways. Yes we needed them, but they poured huge amounts of money in them. Not that a good PT system would be a panacea for our ills, but it would help a lot.

[rocketdog 0]

well i know how we can solve this: DON'T VOTE FOR BUSH!

see the world! http://gorocketdog.blogspot.com

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

well i know how we can solve this: DON'T VOTE FOR BUSH!

That alone won't solve it.

we need to VOTE FOR KERRY otherwise Bush may win.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'd wonder which restrictions before making any judgement. We have so many formulas making it out of hand anyway. If the market wants cleaner fuel, then there will be demand. Else, it's just a bunch of people saying they are willing to decide for other people to pay a few dimes more for cleaner air.

As Bill says, market forces aren't effective on a common good like air. The freeloader concept dooms it unless regulations come to bear.

I wouldn't mind however, if one on the changes was to remove the requirement that CA use oxygenates in fuel. With MTBE no longer acceptible, we have to use ethanol even though it's believed it could be delivered as a 'clean' fuel without it. As part of Bush's 'screw California' platform, he denied the request to do this. Crappy for us, but great for those overproducing corn. It certainly is responsible for a bit of our higher gas prices.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

well i know how we can solve this: DON'T VOTE FOR BUSH!

That alone won't solve it.

we need to VOTE FOR KERRY otherwise Bush may win.

By that token, my new slogan is "VOTE FOR BUSH, otherwise Kerry may win."

edit: this is why third parties need to be validated before the next election. Do you want to vote against the worse candidate, or for the one you believe in?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Jib 0]

No amount of clean air regulations (or repeal thereof) address the primary problem: the dollar sux in the world. Compare it to the euro over the past 18 months. Wonder why gas went up 50%?

Personally, I think it's Greenspan's interest rates. More buying power for real estate = more expensive real estate among other things.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt