In article , Mike Coslo writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Exactly, he saw that by looking at the longterm, his overall total
profits
would be enhanced. He wanted a longterm, stable income than a quick
buck.

And the most amazing thing is that with just that outlook, we not only
stabilize the situation, but we preserve the best part of how our
econmmic system works.

Henry Ford wasn't a paragon of virtue by any means but he did take the
long
view. That's considered old-fashioned today.

It's a debatable case for invoking Godwin, maybe?

My point was simply that I'm not glorifying him.

Despite his reprehensible support for the N***s, he did know how to
sell cars and keep his people pretty well satisfied.

And all those Willow Run B-24s....

I always thought that the best way was to let the businesses do their
thing as much as possible, with a light touch. The time for intervention
is when the business threatens the environment, employee rights (such as
there are any) or of course engaging in illegal activities, which there
will always be some companies willing to do that. And of course the
monopoly problems.

Of course - the devil is in the details, though. How much environmental
threat is OK? What rights do employees really have?

Sure. We have a local case in which a massive amount of known Iron
Pyrite rock was dumped in a small valley with a stream running along the
bottom of the valley. The valley is all filled in now. The predictable
happened, and we now have a massive acid drainage problem that will kill
many tourist frequented streams and will probably sterilize the creeks
it runs into and construction on the highway has been stopped, and we
have a real mess on our hands.

Who dumped the bad rock?

The company making the road. My fault, I reread my post and didn't made

that clear at all. It was part of a large road building project. One
portion of it included basically lopping of the top of a mountain, and
filling in a small valley next to it to even out the terrain.

Sounds like lawsuit time and serious trouble for whoever did the signing-off.
Particularly the PEs involved.

Not much of a gray area there I think. And we can keep busy enough with
the blatant cases that we don't have to go after Joe six-pack and his
Sunday BBQ or his lawnmower.

Of course! That's the kind of details I'm talking about.

OTOH, one of the excuses given by industry is that environmental concerns
cost
too much.

Oh, they do cost! But we have this warped mentality that some groups
are exempt from responsibility. If we wreck a large part of say the
tourist and vacation and vacation product industry in our area, we lose
all that money. And it's so much more money than would have been spent
by doing the job correctly in the first place. The little stream
connects into prime *native* fishing stream, a prime bass fishing stream
and a large lake heavily used for recreation.

My folks taught me that if it costs too much - don't do it.

Again, the problem consists of getting the big picture and taking the long
view. One can imagine that the reason for the road in the first place was so
the tourist/vacation set could have easier access to the fishing and lake....

Martha and her bookie...I mean broker...got convicted, didn't they?

Here's a datapoint for ya: The USA imported 57% of the petroleum used here
last
year, up from 56% in the previous year. Domestic production is down
slightly.
Even if the Alaskan refuge is drilled, it will be 10 years before full
production is reached there. Gasoline prices are already about $1.75 and
it's only March.

Some people are making a good profit.

Yup.

Meanwhile, SUV sales are at record levels and a process called TDP
(Thermal
Depolymerization) is almost unheard of.

Wellll, you are partially correct. You lump SUV's as if they are all of
the Excursion/Suburban/Escalade type.

Many of them are.

And that is wrong. I just bought
an SUV that gets in the 20's in town, and low 30's on the highway. It's
downright tiny by comparison, and is a very responsible vehicle as far
as resources go.

Sure - but how many of the big ones are sold for every responsible one? And
how
many are driven as commuting vehicles and status symbols rather than
because
their capabilities are really needed?

The Excursion has been canceled you know. The monsters really aren't
selling that well anymore

That's good.

And I don't think that any of the Bio fuel options are viable or even
desirable. To see what I mean, replacement of even a tiny fraction of
what we use now in fossil fuel will take a lot of biofuel, and how much
can we make?

TDP isn't biofuel.

Is that a definition thing Jim? The feed stock is certainly
biologically based. And it's a good process, that simply uses offal to
make it's goop.

It's a big thing if what is now a disposal problem can be turned into a usable
product.

On a small scale, it can be helpful, but I still believe that it is
insufficient on a large scale. Although maybe...... Soylent oil? 8^)

bwaahaahaa!

But I agree that even if TDP works (both technically *and* economically), it's
only a piece of the puzzle and not a complete solution.

73 de Jim, N2EY