Liberals are Insane No, I Mean it! They're Insane

I voted for Obamamamama, twice.


When was the last time you got 98% of what you wanted?  When was the last time the end result of what you did was 98% of the best case scenario you envisioned?  Never?  Probably.  There’s two reasons for this.  The first is that the world is not a perfect place, so 100% success or satisfaction rarely occurs.  The second is because even though you may not be aware of it, you fully understand the concept of diminishing marginal returns.  “What?”  Diminishing marginal returns.  It’s the almost universal condition where increasing output requires an ever increasing amount of input.

It’s best described using the example of wringing water out of a wet rag.  It’s very easy to remove the first 75% of water from a saturated rag.  A simple twist will do.  Removing the next 15% if fairly difficult, in fact it will take all the strength you have.  Removing the next 5% is impossible to do with your hands alone.  That would require some type of wringer, or centrifugal force, like the spin cycle on a washing machine.  Even after that, that last 5% cannot be removed by mechanical means.  Unless you want to wait for the rag to air dry, you are going to have to use some source of heat.   

The thing you should notice is that each level of additional dryness requires an exponential amount more effort or energy to attain than the level before. Even your dryer would leave the rag with one or two percent moisture, but that’s good enough, additional dryness is not required, so no one in their right mind would attempt to attain a higher level.

Understanding the concept of diminishing marginal returns is what makes you able to make the call on if you are done with something, like raking the leaves in your yard, cleaning your house, washing your car, etc.  If you did not understand the concept, you would never be able to finish anything, or start anything else.  There’s something wrong with people who are unable to make this type of call.  We often refer to them as having an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.  In other words, understanding the concept of diminishing marginal returns is just part of being sane.

Us conservatives often speak of liberal insanity, and many people who don’t think they have a dog in the fight, may think that we are just resorting to using hyperbole, but I’m here to tell you that we are not.  Your typical liberals are not only stupid, they are insane.  Insane to the point where they damage their own causes.  The article below is a perfect example.


source: Treehugger No really, that’s the name of the site.

LA's Pollution from Car Exhaust is Down 98% from the 1960s

My earliest memories of L.A. are colored with a grey, dystopian palette—I remember staring out at a hazed-over full moon, actually impressed by the way the smog smeared the city lights and hung thick in the air even at night. It was surreal and noirish and pretty repulsive. And that was just over ten years ago.
It never really occurred to me to again be impressed by how quickly that industrial fog has lifted. But I think back to more recent visits to California's sprawling metropolis, and it's striking: I'd never again seen it so choked by pollution. The smoky city derided by we northern Californians has given way to more vibrant hues and blue skies. Or at least bluer skies.
In fact, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has just released a new study of the air quality in Los Angeles, and the findings are stunning. They corroborate my almost fantastical impressions of the gridlocked city: Since the 1960s, the amount volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in L.A.'s air has declined by an astonishing 98%. VOCs are primarily the products of car exhaust, and are among the biggest contributors to the city's air pollution problem. They're "a key ingredient in the formation of ground-level ozone, which, at high levels, can harm people’s lungs and damage crops and other plants," NOAA says.
And they're disappearing. During the period between 2002 and 2010 alone (coincidentally, that's precisely the period described above), the concentration of VOCs dropped by half. And yet there are way more cars on the road now than there ever have been before.
NOAA/Public Domain
So, anyone want to venture a guess as to what drove the truly massive improvement in air quality in what is still the most congested city in the nation? Air pollution regulations and vehicle efficiency standards, of course!
NOAA explains that "Requirements for catalytic converters, use of reformulated fuels less prone to evaporate, and improved engine efficiency of new vehicles have all likely contributed to overall declines in vehicle-related pollution, including VOCs."
Catalytic converters were invented in 1975 to meet federal emissions standards; the national Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard was introduced that same year.
The EPA also amended the Clean Air Act in 1970 and 1977 to cover "mobile" emitters like cars. And California's Air and Resources Board (established in 1967 by then-governor Ronald Reagan) has also pushed for more stringent vehicle emissions standards with a series of progressive Low Emissions Vehicle (LEV) regulations.
In essence, these tough regulations—which were loudly protested by automakers—directly and rapidly led to cleaner cars and cleaner cities. And a dangerous pollutant has almost been eradicated altogether. Note that VOCs are just one air pollutant contributing to L.A.'s haze, but it's an important one.
The turnaround is a great example of regulation driving innovation, too. Stories like this are always striking, especially during a moment where we're constantly hearing complaints about government intervention, how tougher air pollution or greenhouse gas emission rules would derail the economy.
And yet, the government enacts a law ratcheting up emissions standards, and boom—out goes the carburator and in come the fuel injection systems and the catalytic converter.
Cases like this should underscore every argument in favor of climate and clean energy policy. If we enact tough restrictions on carbon emissions, believe you me—industry will innovate its ass off. Don't think it can't either—if Exxon devoted 1/100th of the resources it devotes to developing technologies to leech every last drop of oil from its deepwater wells, we'd probably have solar farms hitting grid parity already.
So tax carbon emissions. Regulate them. Price them. Whatever. We'll get more efficient buildings, still-cleaner cars, breakthroughs in renewable energy sources, and new pollution-scrubbing technologies. And if we do it right, the next generation could have a comparable experience to our evolving impressions of LA. They might think—isn't it wild that just a decade ago all of our cars and power plants pumped out so much carbon?



The first thing you might notice from reading this article is how little time the author devotes to feeling good about 98% reduction in auto pollution.  You’d think he’d be doing cartwheels.  Who back in the ‘60’s would have ever dreamed that we could reduce auto pollution by 98%. let alone reduce it by 98% while increasing the number of cars on the streets by a factor of three or four, or whatever it is, at the same time?  If any of the environmentalists could have locked in a deal back then, to reduce car pollution by even 75% by today, they would taken that deal in a heartbeat.  We were not only 98% successful at eliminating auto pollution altogether, we blew away even the wildest of expectations, but still, the liberals can’t be happy.  They’re like the person with OCD being unhappy that the million dollars you just gave him, did not have the bills sorted out by denomination and serial number.

It is quite easy to see by reading this article that the author is a liberal, does not understand the concept of diminishing marginal returns, and is insane.  In the last paragraph, he mentions that we should tax and regulate carbon emissions.  If he had any understanding of chemistry, he would know that reducing carbon emissions is a totally different game than reducing VOC’s.  That was relatively easy.  All you needed to do was to make combustion in car engines more complete.  Reducing the amount of carbon produced is all but impossible, and forget about electric cars.  I’ve already written posts about them.  They suck.

Our liberal friends at Treehugger.com need to understand that it takes money to acheive their desired environemntal goals and increasing the price of everything with a carbon tax and more regulation will only mean less money to save the whales or whatever it is that they are trying to save today.



No comments:

Post a Comment