FreedomPhilosophy Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 What do you think? Obviously socialising road construction and maintenance and subsidising car manufacture wasn't good for the environment.
corpus mentium Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 40 year old photo on acidified paper taken on a humid day vs. digital photo on a clear day... That's my first thought.
nathanm Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 It's far too stupid to deserve a reply. Mute Post, Block User, done. Or just keep scrolling.
FreedomPhilosophy Posted June 6, 2014 Author Posted June 6, 2014 Yes, I think some dubious imagery is at work because I also found these shots of Manhatten in the 70s here http://thewallbreakers.com/rare-skyline-and-street-shots-of-new-york-city-in-the-1970s and they all look much clearer. One or 2 shots from skyscrapers do seem to show a slight darkness lower down in the atmosphere though.It would be interesting to see some real numbers and not images picked to be misleading.
st434u Posted June 9, 2014 Posted June 9, 2014 The effects are clearly overstated, but in general, yes, some regulations made the air cleaner. That doesn't mean that that's the only way to go about it, though. Or the best. It also doesn't consider that the State had a lot to do with maximizing the problems of pollution in the first place, and it still does. Whenever socialists say "regulations solved this problem", you have to ask, compared to what? Since the State often trumps market regulations or makes them outright illegal; and in many cases it was State regulations that caused the problem to begin with. Also, it doesn't follow that just because some environmental regulations may have been helpful, others will be as well. Such as those restricting the release of CO2 into the atmosphere as if it was a contaminant, when really it's what all plants feed on, and without it there would be no life on Earth at all, or at least no complex life.
Recommended Posts