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

Re: The Limits To Growth



On Fri, 06 Dec 1996  Dale Wagner <dwagner@mail.coos.or.us> wrote at some 
length and offerred some good ideas.

> Mason A. Clark wrote:  (a bunch of pro-environmentalism stuff (mac))

> > > Now a reaction has set in: many people have looked at what went on
> > > under the aegis of "environmentalism" over the last thirty years, and
> > > found much of it lacking.
> > >
    OK, be specific.  Did they miss some super-polluted sites or what?

> > Where the hell have you been living these last thirty years?  If it weren't
> > for the environmentalist who started controlling smog more than thirty
> > years ago, California would now be unlivable..
> .
> But now you are saying man must go so nature can live.  You have went as 
> far off as to be a haszardous to mans health as the pollution was before. 

     I missed that part.  Where did I say anything of the kind?

> Until the 'middle' ground is achieved, we are going to have this fight. 

      HEAR ! HEAR !
 
> Almost all pollution is caused indirectly.  The air in Cal was polluted 
> by cars burning 'cheap' fuel.

   How is that "indirect"?  

>  'cleaner burning' fuel cost more to  produce and so you wouldn't buy it.

   Not so, we took out the lead and recently switched to a "cleaner" gasoline.
   Also spent more than other states reducing exhaust pollutants by special 
   "California" auto engines.

> Riding a bus didn't fit your  lifestyl, so you drove 50 miles to work.

  The bus didn't go from here to there.  I did vote money for public 
  transportation and we do have more buses.  A long way yet to go.

> Especially how to feed our familys when the morgage is half the income.

  One way, get an environmental job.  Rampant environmentalism would 
  create many jobs - already has in fact.

>  If this wasn't 
> empty retheric, the Earth First and Greenpeace would be the ones 
> promoting and operating the abortion clinics and other population control 
> clinics.

   It's the Industrial Revolution: job specialization.

>  Hugging a tree or kissing a owl's ass is not going to save 
> nothing.  Developing an alternitive that is viable will.
> Rewarding responsible stewardship is the best way to do it.  Tax those 
> who damage the world and give incentives to those who improve it.

    HEAR HEAR !   But how to overcome the anti-environmentalist
    ideologues who slam any and all efforts - even efforts to publish data?

>  BUT you also have to remember that TODAYS BEST ANSWER may be 
>TOMORROWS PROBLEM.

   Yes, the "law of unintended consequences."    But it's hard to know in 
   advance.  Fear must be overcome so as to try "today's best answer."    

>  Only by keeping an open mind and continuously researching will we gain.

   Can we post this as a FAQ and keep it always before us?

> Most of you remind me of a visitor that came to the ranch one 
> time.  He got carrying on about how wonderful it was to can some of the 
> fruit from his garden so as to have it later.  He'd canned up 16 pints. 
> I asked the neighbor lady,who was politly listening to his spiel, how 
> much she'd canned so far as the season was about 2/3 over. She replied, 
> "600 quarts."

  Big oaks from little acorns grow.  Even Campbells started with one can. 
  We've cut down more than 95% of the redwoods in California.  May we save a few?
  By the way, cutting down zero redwoods when they're all gone won't be paying 
  any mortgages.

-----------------------------------------------
Mason A Clark      masonc@ix.netcom.com
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
  www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210
  www.netcom.com/~masonc

Vickery on the "Deficit" and notes on Vickrey

  www.netcom.com/~masonc/vickrey.html
  www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210/vickrey.html
---------------------------------------------------




References: