>We are going to adopt more stringent auto emissions standards here
>on the east coast, even though our air blows out to sea, and the prime
>source of the air is manufacturers in the rust belt.
If it's an environmental (ie global) issue we're discussing, just because
your pollution blows out to sea doesn't mean that it's any less of a
problem than the pollution that may come from the rust belt.
As with most every issue, there is a middle ground that is the best course
of action. We certainly don't want to outlaw internal combustion engines
but we also don't want to do whatever is easiest and cheapest without
considering its effect. I agree that we shouldn't legislate solutions that
are impractical. At the same time, there needs to be some incentive for
people and businesses to change their practices.
As you'll recall, the beginning of the emission control days weren't
exactly easy. Some of the late 70's Corvettes ran about the same
acceleration times as modern sporty economy cars like the Nissan Sentra
SE-R and the Golf GTI. Today we have common cars like the Mustang Cobra
and Camaro Z28 which are, at the same time, faster, safer, less polluting,
and more efficient than all but the most exotic cars of 10 years ago. Much
of this is due to technology which wouldn't have been developed nearly as
quickly had the automakers not had to meet certain safety, emission, and
fuel consumption standards set by the government.
Just remember that many of the things we embrace today, whether scientific,
governmental, or religious, were opposed at their inception. Someday we
may look back at today's environmentalists and welcome their forethought.
And we may not.
I think everyone would rather save the environment than destroy it. The
only argument is what are we willing to give up to that end.
Getting off my soap box,
Matt Trostel
|