Gas Prices -- Help at last?

"Jose" wrote in message
...
I don't believe anyone here has argued in favor of unfettered industrial
waste.

You appear to be.

No he doesn't.

The bottom line is this: If we've been unable to build new refineries
because we made them a regulatory nightmare, it's time to ratchet the
regulations back a notch or three.

That's not the measure of the worth of regulation.

What is?

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
In fact, the removal of onerous legislative barriers -- which is what
this bill attempts (and fails, BTW) to do -- will once again allow the
free market to prevail.

The free market fails when costs can be passed on to others without
recourse.

That increases a producers cost and makes them uncompetitive.

Pollution passes costs on to others without recourse, sometimes
permanently. "Onerous legislative barriers" are one way to ensure that
this doesn't happen (as much).

They are a Good Thing.

Most environmental regulation is based on junk science.

No he doesn't.

Yes, he does.

That is, he does appear to be arguing in favor of unfettered industrial
waste (as the reasonable alternative to overregulation).

What is [the measure of the worth of regulation]?

Whether it accomplishes its goal, whether the goal is worthy and
consistent with a free society, whether there are better methods which
will accomplish this goal, and what the likely outcome would be were
that regulation not to exist.

The goal of preserving a clean environment is certainly worthy, sharply
limiting industrial pollution =is= consistent with a free society, since
"your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins", the likely
outcome of eliminating "onerous environmental regulations" would be
unfettered pollution and a country that smells like 1960s New Jersey.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

The free market fails when costs can be passed on to others without
recourse.

That increases a producers cost and makes them uncompetitive.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that by not
allowing a producer to pass costs on to others without recourse, this
makes producers uncompetitive? I suppose I'd agree. My own business is
unfairly restricted because I have to take care of my own garbage rather
than just toss it at my neighbor, I have to buy my own supplies rather
than just raid my neighbor's house, and I have to follow laws. Bloddy
inconvenient, I say.

Most environmental regulation is based on junk science.

It doesn't take much science to compare before and after. I'll take
"after".

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
".Blueskies." wrote:

but the areas where I've been I never saw business-like dressed
people waiting or boarding a bus.

because it would be a colossal waste of their time?

But being stopped in rush hour traffic alone in their car isn't? Many
commutes in So Cal are 45 minutes or more. Riding
the train or bus allows active work to be done...

I suspect that Martin hasn't visited So Cal all that much.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

In article , "JohnH"
wrote:

I, for example, would be a perfect candidate for mass transit. My
home is four miles from my office,

Your route sounds like an even better candidate for a bicycle commute.

Yeah, that would be a sight in January... :-/

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"George Patterson" wrote

I don't know of any companies who follow this rule. Most try to run
between 85%
and 90% to give them time to expand with demand.

I occurs to me that a large part of the current problem is the fact that
once some of the refineries were damaged, or had to shut down, there was no
stockpile (or inadequate stockpile) to keep the supply of fuel going, until
the refineries could ramp up production, to get production even with demand.

Along with increased production by building increased refinery production, a
large emphasis should be placed on building large storage facilities. There
could be a national fuel reserve, instead of just a strategic oil reserve.

We need this capability, badly, IMHO.
--
Jim in NC

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

I, for example, would be a perfect candidate for mass transit. My
home is four miles from my office,

Your route sounds like an even better candidate for a bicycle commute.

This sounds like a certain death sentence, to me.

There are no provisions for bike lanes, and traffic would soon kill bike
riders. Once again, it is the problem of the vastness of the US, that
prohibits building enough bike lanes to make a significant difference.
--
Jim in NC

Bob Noel wrote:
In article , "JohnH"
wrote:

I, for example, would be a perfect candidate for mass transit. My
home is four miles from my office,

Your route sounds like an even better candidate for a bicycle
commute.

Yeah, that would be a sight in January... :-/

And what "sight" would that be? Some warmer clothes?

"Jose" wrote in message
...
That's not the measure of the worth of regulation.
Of course not. It's the measure of the disaster of over-regulation.

The ability to breathe clean air and drink clean water is a measure of the
success of "over"-regulation. New Jersey in the 1960s was the disaster
(as kids we held soaps up to our noses while driving down the turnpike in
order to not throw up).

I don't want to return to that ever again.

Analogy: death sentence for speeding.

Rationality dictates a response appropriate to the problem. Irrationality
dictates over-reaction and hysterics.

Also, most regulation is based on junk science.

You made your bed, now sleep in it.