Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (62601)	4/30/2008 2:05:29 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 544356

Karen - You explained that well, and I do agree with you. One thing that is unfortunate is that the balance we seek in setting policy is difficult to achieve, due to the fact that large business interests have vastly greater resources than other constituencies have. I do believe that the needs of businesses must be considered in making decisions about environmental policy. It seems to me, though, that the needs of businesses are considered first and foremost by many of the most influential players in the debate, and that there is a tendency among these people to view environmentalists as tree-hugging nutjobs. While environmentalists too often make the mistake of going to far in trying to protect, for example, a species of flower, businesses too often overreact to any proposed environmental regulation. For example, a few years ago, just before the recall of Gov. Gray Davis in California, he had signed a law requiring all two stroke engines sold in the State to have catalytic convertors. This was a good law, since it was known that two stroke engines, of the type found in lawnmowers, leaf blowers and the like, accounted for an amazingly large proportion of the air pollution in the state. The people at Briggs and Stratton, a company in Idaho which makes such engines, claimed that the requirement would put them out of business. One of the Senators from Idaho introduced a bill to make it a violation of Federal law for any state to pass a law requiring that such engines meet higher standards than the Federal government required. The Senator said that allowing California to keep such a law on its books would cost his state 75,000 jobs. The bill stood a very good chance of passing in a Republican Congress. With me so far? Companies like Honda, which also make such engines, said that the converters would cost about $4 per engine to install, and that they'd be glad to do it to keep selling them in California. What ended up happening is that pretty much the first thing Arnold did after getting elected was to call the Senator from Idaho and say, "Hey, one Republican to another, we both know our law isn't going to put Briggs and Stratton out of business, and these engines are really dirty, and they're really polluting our air. Would you mind backing off on this?" (I'm not quoting exactly of course.) The Senator agreed, and we now have cleaner air in California as a result. But if it hadn't been for a dedicated environmentalist, the overwrought concerns of business would have prevailed. Schwarzenegger has a great record as Governor on environmental issues, and in that respect California lucked out. - Allen