"Josh Hill"  wrote in message
news:o7vss21asqj70jkc3saeimd3odv9nldmrg{at}4ax.com...
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 19:54:13 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>  wrote:
>
>
> >> >> >> Similarly, I've long thought that nuclear
plants should be
located
> >in
> >> >> >> remote, easily-evacuated areas, where there
will be little
economic
> >> >> >> damage in the event of a meltdown or
terrorist attack.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Remote areas, once a key industry starts up,
tend to not remain
> >remote.
> >> >>
> >> >> They would be remote by statute -- a place where nature could
thrive.
> >> >
> >> >Which means that folks would most likely object to building a Nuke
plant
> >> >with its associated infrastructure at that locale.
> >>
> >> More than would object to building it near a city?
> >
> >Ask the Sierra Club about building a nuke plant in remote areas.
> >The remote area would likely be undeveloped, which means folks may want
to
> >keep it that way.
>
> Same "Mona Lisa" reasoning applies, I think, though I fear that
> neither side will be that reasonable (not necessarily the Sierra Club,
> which is a most reasonable organization), meaning that we'll be stuck
> with the current gridlock -- none of the nuclear plants we will
> probably need on one hand, irresponsible siting and shoddy safeguards
> on the other.

The "Mona Lisa" reasoning applies only if everyone (ok, large majority) of
folks holds the painting at approximately the same value. Same with siting
nuke plants, wind farms, etc. :-)

While government should base decisions on the larger needs, gving due
consideration to wishes of the smaller groups, coming up with ways to try to
make their decisions at least palatable to all, oftentimes that won't
happen.

Organized smaller groups, particularly with good lobbyists, can have a
disproportionate voice. Particularly if most folks are apthatetic enough to
not make their views heard. Like the anti-wind farms groups I cited
earlier - for all I know, each one could be 2-3 folks with a computer,
representing no one else. Unless there's a pro-wind farm groups that can
counteract their claims, the politicias will likely listen to them.

After all, the politicians would like to get re-elected.

And that's pretty much the reasons why I think wanting the government to
take action won't work - not until most of the voters are convinced that
such action is necessary, or we get a new breed of politician.

You've said that businesses could undertake action on global warming fairly
inexpeseively. Convincing 'em that this is so, and getting 'em to take the
action now, may be a more effective approach.

Dennis


.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32