"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...

Two words: pollution credits

Who do you think dreamt up that cockamamie idea, and what motivated
them to do so?
A. A whole group of people, some actually on the "green" side...
B. Economics and pragmatism of how to actually make progress
towards achieving something both sides want.

--
What one side wants, in some cases, is to do nothing.

It's not good to blindly worship an industry because you worked in
it.
A. Even if it were true (which, in its entirety certainly, it isn't),
they didn't get their way, did they? That's the legislative method at
work. Neither "side" necessarily ever gets the entire piece of pie
they would like.

B. Factual evidence? Your initial allegation has melted away into
personal attack and/or such generalities as to be meaningless on
request for specifics. And, of course, it's not good to blindly
accept that another group is totally correct and not subject to
critical thinking, either.

Before we continue, let's clarify what you do not believe. I'll narrow
it down to two things for now:

1) Industries including utilities can and do purchase legislation.
True or false (your belief).
Environmental groups and other special interest groups can and do
purchase legislation. True or false (your belief).

True. When's the last time you heard of a fishery being injured by
environmental legislation?

Ever heard of tuna?

2) Some utilities have arranged to not install sufficient pollution
controls on coal fired plants because they claim it's not economically
feasible. True or false (your belief).
Of course, it isn't always economically feasible (and, again as stated
before) sometimes it isn't even technically feasible. No "belief" about
it, it's fact.

Correct. But, there's a big difference between a plant being too old, and
a company not wanting to spend the money because it's looking out for
shareholders. The latter reason is of no interest to people downwind, who
are suffering the effects of the pollution.

Well, that's debatable as well. Some of those people may well be
shareholders as well. And, "looking out for the shareholders" as you put
it, is part of their fiduciary responsibility to those shareholders.

And, it's not a simple matter of just pollution. For example, it has been
demonstrated that significant tourism revenue is lost when fish in a
particular place are no longer edible. Do I need to explain this further?

Do you think states like NY have spent so much time in court fighting
coal utilities from Ohio, just to practice courtroom skills?

No, but have they yet demonstrated the "bought official" you claimed
initially?

Let's try this, since you have such a fairy tale view of government:

Pollution credits: A company prefers to change nothing about their
facilities. For a cost that's less than making the needed changes, they buy
the right to do nothing.

What do you think would make a politician agree to vote for a law which
allows this? Be the lobbyist for a utility in Ohio, whose plant is "emitting
more smog-causing nitrogen oxides than all of the dozen or so coal-burning
plants in New York state, Federal emissions records show."

What do you say to the politicians you need to vote your way?