[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: The Limits To Growth



In <59l0fh$8a8@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw)
writes: 
>
>In <59hfsr$bag@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> tamco1@ix.netcom.com(Thomas
A
>McGraw) writes: 
>>
>>In <59h0e5$dfh@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw)
>>writes: 
>>                        
>>>Negative effects are side effects
>>>of our living, consuming, producing.
>>>If we can reduce a negative effect 
>>>without reducing corresponding positive effects,
>>>then we should do it. For example, cars pollute the air, 
>>>but they also help people move around. More efficient
>>>cars reduce pollution *and* are better for
>>>the owners. It is, then, a good idea to improve
>>>gas efficiency. But prohibiting private cars 
>>>wouldn't be a good idea, even if it
>>>reduced pollution even more. 
>
>>   Are you saying that it is possible for polluting cars to be
>>beneficial? 
>
>Certainly: *all* cars are polluting, and nevertheless
>beneficial - or else why do people buy them?
>                                                                      
    Are you saying that fuel effecient technology should not be
introduced until it's better for the buyers? Do you make a distinction
between environmental degregation and what's good for the buyer? The
car & oil industries do...and you. The way it works is, you have green
technology compliance forced down your throats to prevent you from
poaching.                                                              
                                                                       
                                                                       
              
>>Are you saying that less polluting cars have been
>>introduced because they are "better" for the BUYERS?                 

>
>In part: more fuel-efficient cars are also less
>polluting - and fuel efficiency saves the buyer 
>money and refilling time. In part, for other reasons.
>                                                                      
    Are you saying that technology affecting fuel efficiancy is
introduced to save the BUYER money? Do you think that this technology
was introduced by industry out of a concern for the environment? If you
do, then you are nieve.                                                
                                                                       
                                                                       
                           
>What's the point of these questions?
>
      The point of the rhetoricals is to elicit predictable responses
from environmental suicidalists.   


Follow-Ups: References: