EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 10, 2011 15:16:44 GMT -5
140 billion a year to comply with this and by the EPA's own numbers we'd save 17,000 lives. Do the math, and while you're figuring out how much per life saved that is...bear in mind that somewhere between 48,000 and 53,000 people die every year in car accidents- and a lot of those deaths (most in fact) are the result of government mandated fuel economy standards that force people to drive death traps. People may die when they are hit by SUVs, but people IN SUVs do not die. So what is a human life worth to you?
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 10, 2011 15:23:18 GMT -5
$180 billion dollars my butt ;D
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Jun 10, 2011 15:47:05 GMT -5
By your reasoning, even more people die per year in car accidents with even higher medical costs. All cars should be outlawed too? Life is risk versus comfort, should be self evident. Asking what side I'm on is irrelevant to the problem.
You're kidding me right? Next time you get in your car, note the seat belt, air bags, safety glass, traction assist, anti lock brakes...... Those devices cost money but they save American lives. Really you were kidding...right?
But they are not, and cannot. Gotta love it.
Who's not paying for it? I pay my bills and truthfully, my electric bill isn't huge so I'd be happy to help fund cleaner air. I pay a lot more than that to give my kids straight teeth.
140 billion a year to comply with this and by the EPA's own numbers we'd save 17,000 lives. Do the math
If you're going to do the math for me, do you think you could start with the numbers in the article YOU posted in the OP. That would be $180 billion and 36,000 American lives.
bear in mind that somewhere between 48,000 and 53,000 people die every year in car accidents-
WTF!!! So your argument is that because approximately 50,000 Americans die each year in car accidents, we should allow another 36,000 to die because of polluted air, air that we could clean. To think how wildly more successful al qaeda would be if they just funded lobbying efforts against auto safety devices and air pollution devices. Shutting down the EPA could kill way more people than their silly underwear bombs.
You can save human lives all by yourself by unplugging from the grid, champ.
Why would I want to do that when I can pay my way? Power companies can feel free to raise my rates as much as they want, right up to the point where someone figures out a cheaper way to produce electricity, then I'll take my business to them. Power companies need to provide safe product, just like every other company in this country. If you've ever lived near a coal burring plant and seen the residue that lands on cars, trees, houses and is breathed by people you'd want these companies to install scrubbers and filters in their stacks too.
Is your computer you're posting this tripe from powered by gerbils hoofing it on the wheel or are you just another liberal willing to put their personal needs before common sense.
Maybe if it type slowly you'll be able to understand, my computer is powered by electricity WHICH I PAY FOR. I don't have a problem paying more for the luxury of educating you if doing so SAVES AMERICAN LIVES.
Seems there's a lot of us inconsiderate a-holes on these boards putting their personal needs above common sense. Glad to see I'm not alone.
Try not to be so hard on yourself. You may have been suckered into believing that unregulated coal burning power plants produce cheap energy but you're right, you are not alone, others here seem to be just as mis-guided as you.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Jun 10, 2011 15:53:03 GMT -5
If they did the math, they would drive a 4 cylinder compact or ride a bike. To feel good about responding to you Zipity probably unplugs the laptop, and operates only on battery while typing his posts. That way no fossil fuels are used during that moment of smugness.
Conservative SOP, can't add anything to the discussion so attack the other posters. I pay for my electricity, I don't expect the government to allow power companies to kill Americans so I can save a few dollars.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Jun 10, 2011 15:59:18 GMT -5
So, do you think zippy is plugged in to his prius to charge his battery?
Exactly, can't debate the OP so lets talk about me. Personally I don't mind paying for my gas either and although my '99 C5 vette gets about 30 on the highway it really drinks the go juice around town. My Jeep however gets pretty crappy mileage where ever I drive it. As for charging off my car batteries, only when I need to listen into a webex while on the road.
Come on now, my kids can throw better insults than you ladies.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 7:54:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2011 16:05:48 GMT -5
The poorer that politicians keep us, the better for them as then we become their dependents.
I know that MOST democrats look at their programs as helping the common man. I do wonder though what percent of the democrat politicians behind closed doors are honest with each other & laugh about all the new votes they will get because of the people that have to vote for them to keep the social programs going that they live off of? I'm sure that it happens (not all democratic politicians are fools) but I do wonder how many are in the know.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 10, 2011 20:24:46 GMT -5
"The poorer that politicians keep us, the better for them as then we become their dependents." Makes no sense at all... Anyway, nonrich do better under DEMS, and always have. You are misled. ;D
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 10, 2011 20:49:57 GMT -5
A study completed by activists. Yep, unbiased research at its best. Have you read the study, looked at the funding sources of the writers or anything of the sorts?
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 10, 2011 20:51:30 GMT -5
The top 1% held more of the net worth in this country under Clinton than Bush.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 10, 2011 21:24:02 GMT -5
A study completed by activists. Yep, unbiased research at its best. Have you read the study, looked at the funding sources of the writers or anything of the sorts? I guess we should rely on a study by the coal lobby or chamber of commerce- maybe the anti-global warming studies funded by the oil companies touch on this area ;D
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 10, 2011 21:29:09 GMT -5
"The poorer that politicians keep us, the better for them as then we become their dependents." Makes no sense at all... Anyway, nonrich do better under DEMS, and always have. You are misled. ;D That is complete and utter bullhockeypucks, warsaw.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 10, 2011 21:30:38 GMT -5
140 billion a year to comply with this and by the EPA's own numbers we'd save 17,000 lives. Do the math, and while you're figuring out how much per life saved that is...bear in mind that somewhere between 48,000 and 53,000 people die every year in car accidents- and a lot of those deaths (most in fact) are the result of government mandated fuel economy standards that force people to drive death traps. People may die when they are hit by SUVs, but people IN SUVs do not die. So what is a human life worth to you? What's life without liberty worth to anyone? I'm sick and tired of statists selling us on tyranny in the name of keeping us all safe and making sure we live forever-- for free of course. But before we get too far down the road with this silly question- let's at least mutually acknowledge that we make life and death cost-benefit analysis of policy ALL THE TIME. Why not make the speed limit 5 mph? Then nobody would ever die in a car crash. Why not set the acceptable level of toxins in drinking water to ZERO?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 10, 2011 21:59:12 GMT -5
But before we get too far down the road with this silly question- let's at least mutually acknowledge that we make life and death cost-benefit analysis of policy ALL THE TIME. Why not make the speed limit 5 mph? Then nobody would ever die in a car crash. Why not set the acceptable level of toxins in drinking water to ZERO? It isn't the analysis, it is who is doing the analysis. A corporation is not capable of determining what is acceptable damage to the environment/people/wildlife/etc. versus the benefit to society. You can choose not to drive, but everyone has to breathe and most of them are not wealthy enough to just move away from the problem areas. Of course the polluters don't live in the problem zones, do they, they just pump their shit onto the people that do. I think you probably haven't the slightest idea of how much toxic garbage corporations unleash on people every year and the toll it takes.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Jun 11, 2011 0:10:11 GMT -5
Why not make the speed limit 5 mph? Then nobody would ever die in a car crash.
Because you don't have to. You can put a ton of safety devices in a car and give a person a reasonable chance of surviving a crash at 65 mph. By the same token you don't have to get rid of coal burning power plants but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do what you can to make them safe. Even with the new regulations the plants may still pollute the air enough to kill a person who is already suffering from chronic lung disease. Saving the lives of 36,000 Americans is a worthy cause and as a voter/taxpayer I personally support it.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jun 11, 2011 8:46:43 GMT -5
If the EPA wants me to be on their side they are going to have show where the numbers they quote come from. Until then I don't believe them. It appears they are just something they came up with to make their rules seem logical. The reason I say this is that about 25 years ago a extensive pollution research team did a long study on the subject at a large coal fired electric plant and found the mercury emissions were really quite small. The largest pollutant emission was CO2. Wish I could find the study but it was sometime ago. This reminds me of the snail darter story that did not allow a dam to be built because it would destroy the only place snail darters lived. Turns out later it was a fabricated story. Yet the court ruled the dam to generate electricity could not be built.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 11, 2011 8:54:59 GMT -5
Why not make the speed limit 5 mph? Then nobody would ever die in a car crash.Because you don't have to. You can put a ton of safety devices in a car and give a person a reasonable chance of surviving a crash at 65 mph. By the same token you don't have to get rid of coal burning power plants but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do what you can to make them safe. Even with the new regulations the plants may still pollute the air enough to kill a person who is already suffering from chronic lung disease. Saving the lives of 36,000 Americans is a worthy cause and as a voter/taxpayer I personally support it. We still lose at least 48,000 people a year in car crashes. Look, I'm not arguing against the intrinsic value of every life. It cannot be calculated. It sounds cold to say, well- we're going to burn your kid on the altar of lower electricity bills. It sounds especially cold if you stop there. But I'm not going to stop there. The NUMBER ONE thing that has led to a longer and better quality of life is economic prosperity. There's NOTHING we could do that's better than that, so every time we implement a policy that stiffles the economy and costs us gainful employment, and raises our cost of living-- botht the quality and the length of life will get shorter. The world over you can see where top-down, one-size-fits-all government by a small group of elites who think they know what's best for everyone has failed. The United States has the best of everything- and that includes for the poor. Because when the Obama regime jacks your utility rates by 35% (after increasing the cost of gasoline by $1.50 a gallon) that comes out of the grocery budget of the poor families. When the prices go UP at the store because the cost of transporting goods, and the cost of keeping the lights on at the store have skyrocketed-- then it doesn't necessarily have to cost you your job directly. It's still costing the poor. You ASSUME corporations can't be trusted, but then ASSUME the government can be? You need to start THINKING.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jun 11, 2011 9:05:17 GMT -5
So it's okay to listen to one biased stance over another?
I'd prefer science and research to take a neutral approach. Doesn't seem like there are many scientists anymore that have come up with a hypothesis before the conclusion.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 11, 2011 9:11:24 GMT -5
Yes, but since there's no such thing as a person without an opinion, or a bias-- I find it especially dangerous for one side to have all the guns. A corporation can only do so much. They can try to not give a crap and kill you. They can try to whitewash everything. But only for so long. At some point, there's some accountability. I'm unaware of when the government and their activist allies have EVER been held accountable? I mean, when you learn that the entire Erin Brocovich story is a complete fraud-- it shocks even me, and it makes me deeply skeptical of government funded science. When you learn that global warming is a giant hoax created by government funded science, we're then supposed to trust the EPA?
|
|