Global Warming is happening...on Mars

[daveman]

What also floats?

A polar bear!

You can't build a bridge out of polar bears!

 

[daveman]

Pardon the interruption. (I'm a newbie here, and likely will get flamed with no mercy.) Here goes anyway.

The global warming argument kind of reminds me of religion. Now, I'm not a big believer in religion (sort of a deist, if you will), but I'm also inclined not to take too many chances. So, I act as morally as I can, in case I run into Him (or Her) some day.

With global warming, on the other hand, I am much more of a believer. (It's the engineer in me, I guess.) Regardless, shouldn't we all act as if GW might be true? After all, there are side benefits to conservation, like preserving reasonably-priced oil for a bit longer--at least long enough to let our children reap some of the benefit.

I can just imagine our great-great-great grandchildren asking their teacher, "What DID our ancestors DO with all that petroleum?" Answer: "They burned it..."

[Deflector shields engaged]

Welcome to the board.

I don't think anyone is claiming we should dig up piles of coal just to burn them. I don 't know anyone who has a problem with conservation, despite the hyperbole of the left.

However, as an engineer, you should know that there are no alternative energy sources that can economically replace hydrocarbons at this time. And to regulate hydrocarbon use out of existence before their replacements are available is simply stupid and suicidal.

 

[Slapshot28]

However, as an engineer, you should know that there are no alternative energy sources that can economically replace hydrocarbons at this time. And to regulate hydrocarbon use out of existence before their replacements are available is simply stupid and suicidal.

Yes, that's an excellent point. I totally agree: regulation is not a good solution.

I am a bit concerned that private enterprise, entirely on its own, may not be able to solve the energy riddle. Private enterprise is efficient, no doubt, and always looking for new ways to make a buck. (I know, because I've started several companies, and I'm always looking for the next big thing.)

Yet some problems/opportunities may be just too big for private enterprise entirely on its own. The risks are too large and the needed investment is too huge.

Government can have a positive impact (occasionally... no, rarely). For example, some would argue that NASA--in its heyday--had a positive economic impact, with many beneficial spin-off technologies.

So here are two questions for this group: Can we leave the energy problem to private enterprise, entirely on its own? If not, then what is/are the best solution(s) for rational and effective government involvement? (OMG what an oxymoron!!!)

Happy Memorial Day!

Chris

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Pardon the interruption. (I'm a newbie here, and likely will get flamed with no mercy.) Here goes anyway.

The global warming argument kind of reminds me of religion. Now, I'm not a big believer in religion (sort of a deist, if you will), but I'm also inclined not to take too many chances. So, I act as morally as I can, in case I run into Him (or Her) some day.

With global warming, on the other hand, I am much more of a believer. (It's the engineer in me, I guess.) Regardless, shouldn't we all act as if GW might be true? After all, there are side benefits to conservation, like preserving reasonably-priced oil for a bit longer--at least long enough to let our children reap some of the benefit.

I can just imagine our great-great-great grandchildren asking their teacher, "What DID our ancestors DO with all that petroleum?" Answer: "They burned it..."

[Deflector shields engaged]

Part of what you said it true, Warmers are a religious cult.

 

[Trakar]

Really? Didn't you just have this conversation with Big Fitz? Every "voluntary" measure you presented was not, in fact, voluntary, but forced on the public by government.

No that was Fitz's assertion made, obviously without reading the supporting references I gave, not an accurate evaluation of the exchange and offerings.

Riiiight. So what happens when not enough people voluntarily alter their lifestyles to suit the solution?

Hint: You will clamor for the government to force them to.

Guaranteed.

If you want a purely private response its up to you to find a functional and viable response that addresses the issue.

I believe that individual and private responses are essential elements of any effective overall response to this problem, just as they have always been an essential part of the problem. But I also acknowledge that the public response is a necessary part of the resolution just as it was a major element of the problem.

I see no reason for the government to compel any action, but there are many private actions that are harming the public good without adequately compensating for the damages and degradations they are causing. There are 2 primary public option choices the banning of such actions (which is not a compulsion to behavior, but rather a restriction from harmful behavior), or a taxation of bad behavior to discourage its occurence and recompense of the public commons for the damages and destructions of the behavior. If you have other considerations or preferred means of effectively and viably addressing the issues at hand, please present them.

 

[daveman]

However, as an engineer, you should know that there are no alternative energy sources that can economically replace hydrocarbons at this time. And to regulate hydrocarbon use out of existence before their replacements are available is simply stupid and suicidal.

Yes, that's an excellent point. I totally agree: regulation is not a good solution.

I am a bit concerned that private enterprise, entirely on its own, may not be able to solve the energy riddle. Private enterprise is efficient, no doubt, and always looking for new ways to make a buck. (I know, because I've started several companies, and I'm always looking for the next big thing.)

Yet some problems/opportunities may be just too big for private enterprise entirely on its own. The risks are too large and the needed investment is too huge.

Government can have a positive impact (occasionally... no, rarely). For example, some would argue that NASA--in its heyday--had a positive economic impact, with many beneficial spin-off technologies.

So here are two questions for this group: Can we leave the energy problem to private enterprise, entirely on its own? If not, then what is/are the best solution(s) for rational and effective government involvement? (OMG what an oxymoron!!!)

Happy Memorial Day!

Chris

And to you too.

Do we need a Manhattan Project type of enterprise to develop alternative energy sources? It's hard to say. Look at private spaceflight: It's progressing rapidly, with minimal or no government funding.

I don't foresee any major breakthroughs in alternative sources that would justify government funding. There's only so much power to be culled from a square meter of sunshine or a knot of windspeed.

And electricity is only a part of what we use hydrocarbons for. Plastics, fertilizers, pesticides all rely on oil and natural gas.

The people who think we can eliminate hydrocarbon use are simply dreaming.

 

[Trakar]

However, as an engineer, you should know that there are no alternative energy sources that can economically replace hydrocarbons at this time. And to regulate hydrocarbon use out of existence before their replacements are available is simply stupid and suicidal.

Yes, that's an excellent point. I totally agree: regulation is not a good solution.

I am a bit concerned that private enterprise, entirely on its own, may not be able to solve the energy riddle. Private enterprise is efficient, no doubt, and always looking for new ways to make a buck. (I know, because I've started several companies, and I'm always looking for the next big thing.)

Yet some problems/opportunities may be just too big for private enterprise entirely on its own. The risks are too large and the needed investment is too huge.

Government can have a positive impact (occasionally... no, rarely). For example, some would argue that NASA--in its heyday--had a positive economic impact, with many beneficial spin-off technologies.

So here are two questions for this group: Can we leave the energy problem to private enterprise, entirely on its own? If not, then what is/are the best solution(s) for rational and effective government involvement? (OMG what an oxymoron!!!)

Happy Memorial Day!

Chris

Regulation is not a "dirty word." It is a common and effective means of monitoring and insuring the public commons. Which is one of the primary responsibilities and reasons for governments to exist. Anything can be excessively overdone, and there are certainly examples of ilconsidered and generally improper regulations whose mistakes and errors should be learned from, but these don't argue against regulation, they argue against poorly considered regulation.

What exactly is your understanding of climate change and the science indicating and supporting such?

 

[daveman]

No that was Fitz's assertion made, obviously without reading the supporting references I gave, not an accurate evaluation of the exchange and offerings.

Riiiight. So what happens when not enough people voluntarily alter their lifestyles to suit the solution?

Hint: You will clamor for the government to force them to.

Guaranteed.

If you want a purely private response its up to you to find a functional and viable response that addresses the issue.

No. It's up to you to prove there's a problem that needs to be addressed to begin with.

I believe that individual and private responses are essential elements of any effective overall response to this problem, just as they have always been an essential part of the problem. But I also acknowledge that the public response is a necessary part of the resolution just as it was a major element of the problem.

I see no reason for the government to compel any action, but there are many private actions that are harming the public good without adequately compensating for the damages and degradations they are causing. There are 2 primary public option choices the banning of such actions (which is not a compulsion to behavior, but rather a restriction from harmful behavior), or a taxation of bad behavior to discourage its occurence and recompense of the public commons for the damages and destructions of the behavior. If you have other considerations or preferred means of effectively and viably addressing the issues at hand, please present them.

Once again, you advocate threat of government force to modify behavior.

That's all you've got.

 

[Meister]

No that was Fitz's assertion made, obviously without reading the supporting references I gave, not an accurate evaluation of the exchange and offerings.

Riiiight. So what happens when not enough people voluntarily alter their lifestyles to suit the solution?

Hint: You will clamor for the government to force them to.

Guaranteed.

If you want a purely private response its up to you to find a functional and viable response that addresses the issue.

I believe that individual and private responses are essential elements of any effective overall response to this problem, just as they have always been an essential part of the problem. But I also acknowledge that the public response is a necessary part of the resolution just as it was a major element of the problem.

I see no reason for the government to compel any action, but there are many private actions that are harming the public good without adequately compensating for the damages and degradations they are causing. There are 2 primary public option choices the banning of such actions (which is not a compulsion to behavior, but rather a restriction from harmful behavior), or a taxation of bad behavior to discourage its occurence and recompense of the public commons for the damages and destructions of the behavior. If you have other considerations or preferred means of effectively and viably addressing the issues at hand, please present them.

And there we have it, taxation is the cure. This would be on a global scale, a redistribution of wealth that the UN wants. The use of manipulated science to obtain a desired outcome.
THIS IS the issue at hand. A tip of the hat to you, Trakar.

 

[daveman]

Riiiight. So what happens when not enough people voluntarily alter their lifestyles to suit the solution?

Hint: You will clamor for the government to force them to.

Guaranteed.

If you want a purely private response its up to you to find a functional and viable response that addresses the issue.

I believe that individual and private responses are essential elements of any effective overall response to this problem, just as they have always been an essential part of the problem. But I also acknowledge that the public response is a necessary part of the resolution just as it was a major element of the problem.

I see no reason for the government to compel any action, but there are many private actions that are harming the public good without adequately compensating for the damages and degradations they are causing. There are 2 primary public option choices the banning of such actions (which is not a compulsion to behavior, but rather a restriction from harmful behavior), or a taxation of bad behavior to discourage its occurence and recompense of the public commons for the damages and destructions of the behavior. If you have other considerations or preferred means of effectively and viably addressing the issues at hand, please present them.

And there we have it, taxation is the cure. This would be on a global scale, a redistribution of wealth that the UN wants. The use of manipulated science to obtain a desired outcome.
THIS IS the issue at hand. A tip of the hat to you, Trakar.

He'll be along later to claim that's not what he meant, and you need to provide valid peer-reviewed research that proves you're not stu-pid.

 

[Meister]

If you want a purely private response its up to you to find a functional and viable response that addresses the issue.

I believe that individual and private responses are essential elements of any effective overall response to this problem, just as they have always been an essential part of the problem. But I also acknowledge that the public response is a necessary part of the resolution just as it was a major element of the problem.

I see no reason for the government to compel any action, but there are many private actions that are harming the public good without adequately compensating for the damages and degradations they are causing. There are 2 primary public option choices the banning of such actions (which is not a compulsion to behavior, but rather a restriction from harmful behavior), or a taxation of bad behavior to discourage its occurence and recompense of the public commons for the damages and destructions of the behavior. If you have other considerations or preferred means of effectively and viably addressing the issues at hand, please present them.

And there we have it, taxation is the cure. This would be on a global scale, a redistribution of wealth that the UN wants. The use of manipulated science to obtain a desired outcome.
THIS IS the issue at hand. A tip of the hat to you, Trakar.

He'll be along later to claim that's not what he meant, and you need to provide valid peer-reviewed research that proves you're not stu-pid.

Yeah, he is a condenscending twit.

 

[Slapshot28]

What exactly is your understanding of climate change and the science indicating and supporting such?

I'm far, far from an expert (or even mildly educated). I am a chemical engineer, so at least I understand some of the words.

I'm pretty close to Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth (an overseer), and I respect many people there. I don't know of one Thayer person who denies Global Warming. In fact, it's pretty much assumed, worrisome, and deserving substantial effort. It's one of our three strategic priorities at the school. (They have data and knowledge. I don't.)

While certainly I would not stake my life on Wikipedia, the GW articles there are quite convincing. One of the most interesting facts is that whereas GW largely is acknowledged in most countries, the American public has become surprisingly skeptical (a little over half the population no longer views it as a serious concern). This is a bit dismaying, since apparently scientists by-and-large have a completely different view:

Wikipedia: "The scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring and is mostly the result of human activity. This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not rejected by any scientific body of national or international standing."

I'm sure there are quotable scientists who take the opposite view; although I worry that they may not represent the majority. (I hope that Rush Limbaugh knows what he is talking about, because he is influential.) And again, I do not swear by Wikipedia, although it's usually pretty good in my experience.

One sound-bite that really resonates with me is the story of the Norwest Passage. It's a compelling anecdote:

Wikipedia: "Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but climate change has reduced the pack ice, and this Arctic shrinkage made the waterways more navigable."

The opening of the Northwest Passage (stuff of fables, literally) is pretty scary.

Finally, my friends who live in Alaska (and/or have visited Alaska) are totally convinced about GW, without exception. Admittedly, it's hearsay, but these are by no means dyed-in-the-wool, liberal, tree-hugging idiots. In fact, most of them are ardent republicans!

Sorry, none of this is hard data, but it's the best I've got...

Again, my position is to act as though Global Warming might be true.

Thank you very much for asking!

Chris

 

[daveman]

And there we have it, taxation is the cure. This would be on a global scale, a redistribution of wealth that the UN wants. The use of manipulated science to obtain a desired outcome.
THIS IS the issue at hand. A tip of the hat to you, Trakar.

He'll be along later to claim that's not what he meant, and you need to provide valid peer-reviewed research that proves you're not stu-pid.

Yeah, he is a condenscending twit.

I don't know what it is about leftists, but there sure are an awful lot of them who are arrogant with no reason to be.

I guess they think that believing the way they do is sufficiently praiseworthy.

 

[Meister]

What exactly is your understanding of climate change and the science indicating and supporting such?

I'm far, far from an expert (or even mildly educated). I am a chemical engineer, so at least I understand some of the words.

I'm pretty close to Thayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth (an overseer), and I respect many people there. I don't know of one Thayer person who denies Global Warming. In fact, it's pretty much assumed, worrisome, and deserving substantial effort. It's one of our three strategic priorities at the school. (They have data and knowledge. I don't.)

While certainly I would not stake my life on Wikipedia, the GW articles there are quite convincing. One of the most interesting facts is that whereas GW largely is acknowledged in most countries, the American public has become surprisingly skeptical (a little over half the population no longer views it as a serious concern). This is a bit dismaying, since apparently scientists by-and-large have a completely different view:

Wikipedia: "The scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring and is mostly the result of human activity. This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not rejected by any scientific body of national or international standing."

I'm sure there are quotable scientists who take the opposite view; although I worry that they may not represent the majority. (I hope that Rush Limbaugh knows what he is talking about, because he is influential.) And again, I do not swear by Wikipedia, although it's usually pretty good in my experience.

One sound-bite that really resonates with me is the story of the Norwest Passage. It's a compelling anecdote:

Wikipedia: "Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but climate change has reduced the pack ice, and this Arctic shrinkage made the waterways more navigable."

The opening of the Northwest Passage (stuff of fables, literally) is pretty scary.

Finally, my friends who live in Alaska (and/or have visited Alaska) are totally convinced about GW, without exception. Admittedly, it's hearsay, but these are by no means dyed-in-the-wool, liberal, tree-hugging idiots. In fact, most of them are ardent republicans!

Sorry, none of this is hard data, but it's the best I've got...

Again, my position is to act as though Global Warming might be true.

Thank you very much for asking!

Chris

I agree that there is global warming, also. But, I think that's it's been happening all along since the peak of the last iceage. Global warming isn't an inherent issue with just our planet, like some on the left would want us to believe.

 

[Trakar]

Riiiight. So what happens when not enough people voluntarily alter their lifestyles to suit the solution?

Hint: You will clamor for the government to force them to.

Guaranteed.

If you want a purely private response its up to you to find a functional and viable response that addresses the issue.

No. It's up to you to prove there's a problem that needs to be addressed to begin with.

The problem is apparent and well evidenced to the professional community and the quasi-scientific/political international investigative body that President Reagan instituted to survey the professional community and study the science of climate change and regularly report upon their current findings and understandings. That you seem to dislike the current political implications of these findings and understandings, does nothing to impact their veracity. I care little about your personal misperceptions or unsupported denialisms.

I believe that individual and private responses are essential elements of any effective overall response to this problem, just as they have always been an essential part of the problem. But I also acknowledge that the public response is a necessary part of the resolution just as it was a major element of the problem.

I see no reason for the government to compel any action, but there are many private actions that are harming the public good without adequately compensating for the damages and degradations they are causing. There are 2 primary public option choices the banning of such actions (which is not a compulsion to behavior, but rather a restriction from harmful behavior), or a taxation of bad behavior to discourage its occurence and recompense of the public commons for the damages and destructions of the behavior. If you have other considerations or preferred means of effectively and viably addressing the issues at hand, please present them.

Once again, you advocate threat of government force to modify behavior.

That's all you've got.[/QUOTE]

Twist as you like, its all in the wind and without any apparent support.

 

[daveman]

If you want a purely private response its up to you to find a functional and viable response that addresses the issue.

No. It's up to you to prove there's a problem that needs to be addressed to begin with.

The problem is apparent and well evidenced to the professional community and the quasi-scientific/political international investigative body that President Reagan instituted to survey the professional community and study the science of climate change and regularly report upon their current findings and understandings. That you seem to dislike the current political implications of these findings and understandings, does nothing to impact their veracity. I care little about your personal misperceptions or unsupported denialisms.

i'm sure you don't. And your "findings" have proven nothing except the climate is changing -- something it's always done.

I believe that individual and private responses are essential elements of any effective overall response to this problem, just as they have always been an essential part of the problem. But I also acknowledge that the public response is a necessary part of the resolution just as it was a major element of the problem.

I see no reason for the government to compel any action, but there are many private actions that are harming the public good without adequately compensating for the damages and degradations they are causing. There are 2 primary public option choices the banning of such actions (which is not a compulsion to behavior, but rather a restriction from harmful behavior), or a taxation of bad behavior to discourage its occurence and recompense of the public commons for the damages and destructions of the behavior. If you have other considerations or preferred means of effectively and viably addressing the issues at hand, please present them.

Once again, you advocate threat of government force to modify behavior.

That's all you've got.

Twist as you like, its all in the wind and without any apparent support.

What's to twist? You want to use government to force people to modify their behavior. You admitted it yourself.

AGW is a scam designed to bring about greater government control over individual lives.

Screw that.

 

[Trakar]

Riiiight. So what happens when not enough people voluntarily alter their lifestyles to suit the solution?

Hint: You will clamor for the government to force them to.

Guaranteed.

If you want a purely private response its up to you to find a functional and viable response that addresses the issue.

I believe that individual and private responses are essential elements of any effective overall response to this problem, just as they have always been an essential part of the problem. But I also acknowledge that the public response is a necessary part of the resolution just as it was a major element of the problem.

I see no reason for the government to compel any action, but there are many private actions that are harming the public good without adequately compensating for the damages and degradations they are causing. There are 2 primary public option choices the banning of such actions (which is not a compulsion to behavior, but rather a restriction from harmful behavior), or a taxation of bad behavior to discourage its occurence and recompense of the public commons for the damages and destructions of the behavior. If you have other considerations or preferred means of effectively and viably addressing the issues at hand, please present them.

And there we have it, taxation is the cure. This would be on a global scale, a redistribution of wealth that the UN wants. The use of manipulated science to obtain a desired outcome.
THIS IS the issue at hand. A tip of the hat to you, Trakar.

A cure? not even close!

But a carbon tax is one of the most appropriate means of recompensing the public commons for the true societal costs of open cycle fossil fuel combustion. Truth be told I would prefer an outright ban on the open-cycle combustion of fuels made from previously sequestered carbon products. Perhaps incrementally engaged, but firm bans with strictly enforced penalties would be my preference. As it is direct and directly attacks the source of the problem. "Taxes" are a concession to those who prefer to push for market pressure solutions.

 

[Trakar]

If you want a purely private response its up to you to find a functional and viable response that addresses the issue.

I believe that individual and private responses are essential elements of any effective overall response to this problem, just as they have always been an essential part of the problem. But I also acknowledge that the public response is a necessary part of the resolution just as it was a major element of the problem.

I see no reason for the government to compel any action, but there are many private actions that are harming the public good without adequately compensating for the damages and degradations they are causing. There are 2 primary public option choices the banning of such actions (which is not a compulsion to behavior, but rather a restriction from harmful behavior), or a taxation of bad behavior to discourage its occurence and recompense of the public commons for the damages and destructions of the behavior. If you have other considerations or preferred means of effectively and viably addressing the issues at hand, please present them.

And there we have it, taxation is the cure. This would be on a global scale, a redistribution of wealth that the UN wants. The use of manipulated science to obtain a desired outcome.
THIS IS the issue at hand. A tip of the hat to you, Trakar.

He'll be along later to claim that's not what he meant, and you need to provide valid peer-reviewed research that proves you're not stu-pid.

No wonder you think so little of projections made from scientific understandings, as your own projections are so often so badly wrong!

 

[daveman]

If you want a purely private response its up to you to find a functional and viable response that addresses the issue.

I believe that individual and private responses are essential elements of any effective overall response to this problem, just as they have always been an essential part of the problem. But I also acknowledge that the public response is a necessary part of the resolution just as it was a major element of the problem.

I see no reason for the government to compel any action, but there are many private actions that are harming the public good without adequately compensating for the damages and degradations they are causing. There are 2 primary public option choices the banning of such actions (which is not a compulsion to behavior, but rather a restriction from harmful behavior), or a taxation of bad behavior to discourage its occurence and recompense of the public commons for the damages and destructions of the behavior. If you have other considerations or preferred means of effectively and viably addressing the issues at hand, please present them.

And there we have it, taxation is the cure. This would be on a global scale, a redistribution of wealth that the UN wants. The use of manipulated science to obtain a desired outcome.
THIS IS the issue at hand. A tip of the hat to you, Trakar.

A cure? not even close!

But a carbon tax is one of the most appropriate means of recompensing the public commons for the true societal costs of open cycle fossil fuel combustion. Truth be told I would prefer an outright ban on the open-cycle combustion of fuels made from previously sequestered carbon products. Perhaps incrementally engaged, but firm bans with strictly enforced penalties would be my preference. As it is direct and directly attacks the source of the problem. "Taxes" are a concession to those who prefer to push for market pressure solutions.

Scratch a leftist, find a totalitarian.

Okay, so you want an outright ban on the open-cycle combustion of fuels. Do you use electricity? Drive a car? Fly somewhere on vacation? Mow your lawn? Grill a steak?

Then you need to give all that up. Right now.

But you won't, because you're a flaming hypocrite.

 

[Meister]

If you want a purely private response its up to you to find a functional and viable response that addresses the issue.

I believe that individual and private responses are essential elements of any effective overall response to this problem, just as they have always been an essential part of the problem. But I also acknowledge that the public response is a necessary part of the resolution just as it was a major element of the problem.

I see no reason for the government to compel any action, but there are many private actions that are harming the public good without adequately compensating for the damages and degradations they are causing. There are 2 primary public option choices the banning of such actions (which is not a compulsion to behavior, but rather a restriction from harmful behavior), or a taxation of bad behavior to discourage its occurence and recompense of the public commons for the damages and destructions of the behavior. If you have other considerations or preferred means of effectively and viably addressing the issues at hand, please present them.

And there we have it, taxation is the cure. This would be on a global scale, a redistribution of wealth that the UN wants. The use of manipulated science to obtain a desired outcome.
THIS IS the issue at hand. A tip of the hat to you, Trakar.

A cure? not even close!

But a carbon tax is one of the most appropriate means of recompensing the public commons for the true societal costs of open cycle fossil fuel combustion. Truth be told I would prefer an outright ban on the open-cycle combustion of fuels made from previously sequestered carbon products. Perhaps incrementally engaged, but firm bans with strictly enforced penalties would be my preference. As it is direct and directly attacks the source of the problem. "Taxes" are a concession to those who prefer to push for market pressure solutions.

Of course it is, this is the desired outcome from the global left, Trakar.
Just remember...in the end, it will be the consumer that pays those taxes....not the polluter. The poor will be the least able to afford, but I'm sure they will be thought of as collateral damage.