Global Warming

Patrick Foley patfoley at
Mon Jul 14 00:55:42 EDT 2003


Apparently you are in favor of better regulation,  smarter regulation. 
Who can argue with that? So what are you going to do to get it?

Patrick Foley
patfoley at

Paul Cherubini wrote:

>Patrick Foley wrote:
>>But I will vote for
>>higher energy taxes, family planning, international cooperation and
>>environmental protection. Will you?
>Not likely. I feel there is already too much waste and inefficiency
>in government programs to justify even more taxes.  Take the issue
>of food labeling. Countless millions of dollars have been spent by 
>food companies over the years to meet the government requirement
>to provide labels that provide standardized health and nutrition information.
>But did this government requirement really benefit public health?  Not really, 
>because the labels misled the public into thinking low fat diet 
>foods were healthy when in reality they were loaded with trans fats that 
>aggravated blood cholesterol levels the same or more than saturated animal
>fat. And despite all  the money spent on labeling, people are fatter than ever.
>Or take the issue of automotive air pollution.  Taxpayer dollars support
>big government bureacracies like the California Air Resources Board
>which has always focused its efforts on new car emission standards while
>largely ignoring the real underlying cause of serious air pollution: improperly
>tuned and maintained existing cars with about 75,000 miles or more.
>The auto emission standards in place 28 years ago would be adequate to 
>eliminate serious air pollution, because a properly tuned 1975 automobile 
>with a fresh catalytic converter puts out near zero hydrocarbon and carbon 
>monoxide emissions*. So instead of creating a bureacracy staffed with 
>6 figure administrators, taxpayers dollars could have been more directly 
>spent on air pollution solutions like a subsidy to car makers who could offer 
>car owners free tune ups after the first 75,000 miles plus a new catalytic 
>converter if needed to maintain near zero emissions.
>*In case you don't believe this claim, here is a photo of a smog test
>I had done on a 1976 Toyota pickup with 148,000 miles and 
>a fairly new catalytic converter -
>zero detectable HC and CO emissions in the 2500 rpm test!
> ------------------------------------------------------------ 
>   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Leps-l mailing list