Re: electric power surplus

[Bob LaMontagne <rlamont@POSTOFFICE.PROVIDENCE.EDU>]

Having a daughter with asthma, I've followed the literature with special
interest. There are lots of theories and correlation related to the
increase in childhood asthma. Probably the most fascinating is the
positive correlation between wealth and asthma. It happens in fairly
homogeneous regions, like the US northeast, where asthma is more
prevalent in the richer suburbs than the poorer inner city areas. It
also happens on the international scale. In the affluent West, such as
the US and Europe, which tend to have lower pollution than developing
nations, 40% of kids may have asthma, whereas heavily polluted regions
like China show remarkably less.

Please don't take this as a cry for more pollution. It simply seems to
indicate that as we take pathogens and pollutants out of our
environments, we lose the antibodies to defend ourselves against many
allergies and breathing disorders. I'd still prefer to raise a child in
New England than Beijing. I still feel our gradualist approach to
managing the environment here in the US is the sensible one - and I
totally agree with you that the _all or nothing_ straw man approach is
one that leads to meaningless rhetoric and no real solutions. No one
likes to live in their own filth - as people become affluent and can do
more with their money than simply stay alive they become more and more
conscious of their environment.

John Barrer wrote:

> NOBODY is saying "absolutely no man-made pollutants"!
> Let's stop with the artificial cataclysmic strawmen,
> OK? Have you paid ANY attention to the enormous rise
> in the rate of childhood asthma in the US? It's
> wonderful that you can breath without dropping dead,
> but what about those whose health HAS been affected?
> Childhood asthma has been directly linked to air
> pollution! Ground level ozone levels continue to rise
> in many areas of the US (including here in central
> NC).

Ford motors just got killed in an attempt to market a low poluting
vehicle. Nobody wanted to buy it. People will not buy a car that doesn't
offer something more than low polution. Honda, on the other hand, has
produced a stylish hybrid car that can actually accelerate - as a long
time Honda owner who drives long distances a couple of times a week, I'm
seriously considering purchasing one. I'd encourage anyone who is
considering a new car to test drive one - they're a real surprise. And
yes, I agree that the CAFE standards have contributed to these kind of
cars being available. On the other hand, these evolving standards have
come about by long argument from many different interests and have
become possible because of improved ability to manufacture cars and
other items to increasing tighter tolerances. There is no way to
retrofit a 1954 Buick to be a non-polluting car. If there is a true
demand for something, businesses are remarkably adept at providing the
desired product. I think we're more or less on the same page with this
one - we just have somewhat different time-tables.


> Your arguments sound exactly like those of our
> domestic auto producers in the 60s and early 70s. Seat
> belts? Clean air standards? Oh my God, you're going to
> put us out of business!! In fact, the Federal clean
> air and mileage standards very probably saved Detroit
> from itself. It forced them to (eventually) make
> better cars. The current situation with hybrids is
> very similar. Honda and Toyota are getting lots of
> design and mfg experience while Detroit lobbies
> against higher CAFE standards. And when the next oil
> shock comes and people want fuel-sipping cars, Detroit
> will get Federal help, either import restrictions,
> subsidies, or both because they will not have
> competitive products. Barrere---