Bravo! Now this is some good stuff.

[AlmostStock]

Originally Posted by tenguzero

These parties ARE getting off their asses and doing something about it, and yet YOU still complain that people AREN'T. I'm seeing a lot of contradictions here.

What these states, communities and people are doing is a step in the right direction. I don't see how anyone can find fault in this.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by tenguzero

These parties ARE getting off their asses and doing something about it, and yet YOU still complain that people AREN'T. I'm seeing a lot of contradictions here.

There is no contradiction.

I said that in reference to the people here who demand that we find alternate fuel sources and or conserve. Are they putting their time and money where their mouth is? Or, are they still hopping in their car to go cruising around town and whine about gas prices? Are they modifying their cars to improve performance while lowing efficiency? Are they turning down the heat in their homes? Turning off the extra lights? Moving to a temperate climate that reduces the need to heat their home – or cool it? The answer is an obvious ‘no’. There are a lot of people that are demanding that someone else needs to do something.

What those buisnesses are doing is great. Good for them. What the states are doing is wrong.

[tenguzero]

I said that in reference to the people here who demand that we find alternate fuel sources and or conserve. Are they putting their time and money where their mouth is? Or, are they still hopping in their car to go cruising around town and whine about gas prices? Are they modifying their cars to improve performance while lowing efficiency? Are they turning down the heat in their homes? Turning off the extra lights? Moving to a temperate climate that reduces the need to heat their home – or cool it? The answer is an obvious ‘no’. There are a lot of people that are demanding that someone else needs to do something.

That, I'm not going to argue with. I could easily list the things I do personally to try and contribute to the cause, but I can't vouch for the practices of anyone else here -- though I'm sure I'm not alone.

As for the state getting involved, I think that, unfortunately, it's the kind of thing that may need to be done in an attempt to protect people from themselves. Don't think for a second that I don't arrive at this assumption easily, either -- doing "what's best for the people" is an approach that has a history of being applied to very good things, and very BAD things. But this may be the kind of situation where you weigh your options and use common sense. Littering fines, while obviously not a catch-all deterent, still works to some degree (I don't personally know many people who would consciously throw garbage out a car window.) Dumping regulations, including enforcement of chemical disposal and hazardous material disposal (computer monitors, etc.) keep the average person from just depositing harmful refuse anywhere they feel like.

Obviously, while not bulletproof (I still see plenty of ignorant assholes tossing their butts or fast food wrappers out the window.) Regulations still go a ways to combat the problem -- they're like locks, really: if someone really wants to get into a locked area, they'll get in, but otherwise the dilemma posed by a lock usually succeeds in keeping honest people honest.

And I still don't buy into the idea of stricter environmental regulations harming economic growth (people didn't stop buying cars when catalytic converters were made mandatory, and it forced automotive manufacturers to overhaul their systems -- to the effect that the consumer ended up with much lower emissions and much better fuel economy!)

There's a lot of dispute over the Kyoto Protocol, and I understand that. However it's obvious there are people, companies, and local governments willing to give it a shot, and that's more than I can say for the feds -- they won't even consider it. How can they definatively claim it will hurt growth? And what do they mean by "growth"? Are we not already the leading power in the world? All we're experiencing right now is the natural cycle of the economy as it's essentially been since the industrial revolution -- a decade or two of growth, a pinnacle, then a bust. Using this kind of rationale they'll always have an excuse: "We don't want to risk harming the economy in this period of growth." "We don't want to risk harming the economy now that it's stable." "We don't want to risk further hurting the economy now that it's in a downturn." See where I'm going? At least TRY it before you completely dismiss it. Prohibition failed MISERABLY, so they repealed it -- everything went back to "normal".

[2strokebloke]

Alot of people are doing alot of things to reduce dependance, pollution, traffic etc. etc. Just because certain people don't personally do anything to help or solve problems, doesn't mean they ought to assume that everybody else doesn't. I imagine that alot of people in gneral and on this forum probably do care, and I know for a fact that there are some members here who are tuning for increased fuel efficiency, as well as countless individuals not on this site.
The idea that people are asking their states to deal with their problems because they don't want solve them is almost rediculous.

[YogsVR4]

The economic impact has to do with the cost to businesses to retrofit their production facilities. I don't know how you run your business, but when you build your business plan, you need to have included the cost of operating. Now, the government throws additional regulations at you that drive up your cost. What do you do? You can't operate at a loss (not indefinitely anyway) so do you raise prices, fire workers, reduce pay, fold? Given the tenuous position of a lot of manufacturing plants, fold is more likely then not. I wonder who will get blamed for more manufacturing job losses because of this....

[2strokebloke]

Probably the bad management that got them into such a precarious state to begin with...