From: billyg@lahonda.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Gogesch)
Newsgroups: ca.environment
Subject: Re: Gas Tax Debate on NPR
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:06:03 GMT
Reply-To: billyg@lahonda.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: lahonda

In article 92Jul23115719@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com, slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:
>In article <l6sad2INNime@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, bm@bike2work.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill Michel) writes:
>
>[...quoting Tsongas...]
>> Well I think there are two separate rationales: one obviously is
>> that we don't have an energy policy if you look at the cost of
>> energy in the United States, compared to our European trading
>> partners who have viable energy policies, it's no accident that
>> ours is much lower, considerably lower, and that we have, in
>> fact, no energy policy.

He is wrong. We do have an energy policy.  Blood for Oil.
>
>I can understand why politicians think we need a policy for
>everything (does the Democratic Platform have a plank covering
>the policy for nose picking?), but why do so many otherwise
>reasonable people accept such a politically motivated, 
>self-serving approach to problems?  We don't need a national
>energy policy.  Last time we had one, the lines at the gas
>stations stretched for blocks.
>--
>----
>Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
>slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
>408-756-0895                                   USA

I'm afraid that lines at fuel pumps, when weighed against the enormous
ecological damage caused directly by overconsumption and misapplication 
of fossil fuels, looks like a pretty puny argument.

Moreover, proper management need not lead to lines at the pump.  I do 
believe that management is necessary.  I do not believe that, left to
its own resources, the market and the public at large will 'do the right
thing'. 

Commercial concerns, with no external guidelines, have consistently depleated
a resource with little or no regard for the consequences of their actions. 
In a Free Market (dare I utter the *sacred phrase* in such a negative way?) 
we watched timber concerns wipe out the east coast, move on to the Great Gakes and
settle on the west coast.  The result is deforestation on a scale that dwarfs
the current South American Rain Forests.  Coal concerns have left many of the 
streams and soil of the Appalachians in ruins -- their work is not yet finished, 
but the destruction, social, economic, and ecological is enormous.  Steel Mills
operating where I grew up in Ohio were happy to fill rivers with effluent until
they would ignite and burn out of control.  The air was filled with noxious gasses.
The Mississippi is progressively more polluted as you move to the mouth of the
river -- agricultural and chemical company effluent is killing the river and
polluting the continental shelf.  The consuming public has shown little collective
consience over consumption that leads to human/economic/ecological degradation.
Shall I continue?  I can.  I've only scratched the surface.

The Free Market and the appetite to consume are boundless.  Resources are not.

The cost of wasting energy is great.  Conservation, properly implemented, is 
cash in our pockets and a step toward clean air and water.  Conservation does
NOT happen by consensus in a Free Market.

The Democratic Party may not inspire complete confidence in me, but the 
current administration's current energy policy seems to me to be self-
serving and political.  The Bush Campaign has received well over $1 million
in automotive and petrochemical donations.  Oil (not democracy or jobs) was
the key political element in the popular Gulf War.  Dan (PotatoE-Head) Quayle
appears to be running amok with his Council for Competitiveness. They seem to
have knocked the stuffing out our (NO NET LOSS) wetlands, to the extent that
Scientific American reported a loss of 50% in protected lands.  They have
circumvented the Clean Air Act.  They are working on CAFE standards (fuel 
efficiency guidlines).  They have their sights on the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge for oil drilling... there is more, but I think I'm demonstrating a trend.
The current administration is politically motivated in its pursuit of its
(unstated) energy policy - more is better - waste it while we have it - let
our children and grandchildren worry about the mess.

I, for one, don't buy that shit.

If anything, I see the Democratic Energy Policy Plank as altruistic to a fault.
It does not appeal to the selfish nature in all of us, thus making it a hard 
sell to those without vision or limited intelligence.  I don't know if I trust
them to implement it, but I'm damn glad somebody is acknowledging the problem.

I think it would be nice if we learned to live within the limitations our 
environment.  It is not asking too much.

Frankly, I don't care if there are lines at the pumps.  My car gets 60 mpg.
My bicycles do even better.

I'm sorry if this has gotten a bit hostile... your message just pressed one
of my buttons.

--B