East Coast Visibility

JohnH wrote:


****ing environmentalists. They even took away our free wing lubes.


LOL!

Here in Iowa, weather professionals confirm the abundance of corn is to
blame for the hazy quality of summer air. Tons of water undergoing
transpiration during that season when you can hear the crop growing if
you're on the ground instead of in the air wondering where the horizon is.

Skylune wrote:
by "Kingfish" Jun 22, 2006 at 11:02 AM

I'm confused. You say (he said) vis is better now than in the late
60's/early 70's due to airborne pollution then say vis was far better
in the 50's than it is today.

scratching head

Proof that any fool can get a PPL.

Jeez.

So what was your excuse for not finishing yours?

In article ,
Maule Driver wrote:
Air and water quality was going downhill thru the 60s and early 70s. I
remember the smell walking to school in Pgh and the water quality of the
3 rivers thru the 60s and 70s. I played on the strip mined landscape.
Things were the same from Cleveland to NJ.

And things in Pittsburgh are still pretty much the same. The smog is
pretty much gone because so are the steel mills. The rivers are still
dirty and active strip mines are still very prevalent.

The reality is that corporate greed is a very good thing when it's
tempered with responsibility. The net effect of environmental laws is
that cost rise for the business, workers lose their jobs, cost of goods
increases (people can afford less), and when coupled with mismanagement,
all of this often results in corporate bankruptcy. Unfortunately, many
environmental laws are based on junk science or data that has not be
proven as fact. There are many laws which are based on fear and,
unfortunately, those laws have the same negative effect on business and
personal wealth as any laws or regulations based on valid proven data.


JKG

The reality is that corporate greed is a very good thing when it's
tempered with responsibility.

How does one instill "responsibility" in a corporation? How many
corporations are innately "responsible"? (that is, would Do The Right
Thing absent any rules, and in the presence of competitors who do not)?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:59:13 +0000, Jose wrote:

How many
corporations are innately "responsible"? (that is, would Do The Right
Thing absent any rules, and in the presence of competitors who do not)?

You're not quite asking the right question. Let's assume that there were
some companies that were to behave "responsibly". The real question is:
would they survive in the face of competition from other companies
behaving "irresponsibly"?

- Andrew

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:12:24 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:59:13 +0000, Jose wrote:

How many
corporations are innately "responsible"? (that is, would Do The Right
Thing absent any rules, and in the presence of competitors who do not)?

You're not quite asking the right question. Let's assume that there were
some companies that were to behave "responsibly". The real question is:
would they survive in the face of competition from other companies
behaving "irresponsibly"?

Responsibility is a lot to ask of a dumb animal. You use carrots and
sticks. The argument I'm hearing here is: too many sticks, not enough
carrots." There may be some bad carrots, too. My bugbear is tax laws
that force investors to focus too much on quarterly numbers.

Don

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:39:42 +0000, Don Tuite wrote:

The argument I'm hearing here is: too many sticks, not enough
carrots." There may be some bad carrots, too.

Of course.

However, I didn't argue that. I merely pointed out that it would be
suicidal for a company to expend extra effort/money on "responsibility" if
some or all of its competition didn't do likewise unless there's some
benefit to doing so.

Whether a carrot provides that benefit or a stick forces all companies to
act this way isn't really by itself interesting. *Which* carrot or
*which* stick is more interesting.

Philosophically, I prefer carrots. But I expect these are actually harder
to get right.

- Andrew

I'd challenge both thoughts...
Jonathan Goodish wrote:
And things in Pittsburgh are still pretty much the same. The smog is
pretty much gone because so are the steel mills. The rivers are still
dirty and active strip mines are still very prevalent.
Well, the rivers are cleaner. A lot cleaner. Which is not to say they
are clean. I have no objective quantitative data. But *no* one
did any visible pleasure boating near the point in the 60s or 70s.
Industrial pollutants were as obvious as human waste is in "straight
pipe" sewage systems in the hollows of KY. Heck, I dumped some of it
myself, industrial pollutants that is.
The reality is that corporate greed is a very good thing when it's
tempered with responsibility. The net effect of environmental laws is
that cost rise for the business, workers lose their jobs, cost of goods
increases (people can afford less), and when coupled with mismanagement,
all of this often results in corporate bankruptcy. Unfortunately, many
environmental laws are based on junk science or data that has not be
proven as fact. There are many laws which are based on fear and,
unfortunately, those laws have the same negative effect on business and
personal wealth as any laws or regulations based on valid proven data.
Well run public corporations don't act 'responsibly' beyond those acts
that contribute to the 'bottom line'. I've worked for a corporation
that was widely considered a very 'responsible' corporate citizen,
particularly in terms of human resource policies. Those policies
serviced the interests of greed very well in terms of attracting and
keeping the best and brightest. Those policies are gone now because
greed's needs have changed. And I genuinely mean 'greed' as in, 'greed
is good'. I respect greed...

.... but don't be fooled. Greed is an effective and efficient agent
in our society but it will cause workers to lose their jobs even more
effectively than environmental laws. When coupled with mismanagement,
it can and does result in bankruptcy. Business strategies and tactics
are too often based on junk research and data that is far from being
proven as fact. Why not environmental regulation too? :-)

I'm happy to let corporations chase the dollar and drive the economy for
me, but I know that I need government regulation to represent my other
interests and otherwise balance the forces of greed.

Sometimes it seems like it's all about self interest... but perhaps we
humans have more righteous motivations in our souls, but they surely
aren't expressed in corporate institutions.

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:21:30 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote:

He said that it is much better now than in the late 60's/early 70's. He
said the airborne pollution in those days was so bad that if you went on a
long X/C you often came back with an oily film covering the leading edges of
the wings. He also added that when he started flying, in the 50's,
visibility was usually far better than it is today.


FWIW - I know 2 old timers who say the exact same thing! Even though
I respect them completely with regard to aviation, I always thought
they were full of it when citing this "fact." Now that I see someone
else completely unrelated say the same thing, it makes me pause and
think they're right!

Thanks for this post.
z

Kyle Boatright wrote:

I was having lunch with a buddy of mine the other day who has been a pilot
for almost 50 years. We discussed the bad visibility we have in the South
and up the Eastern seaboard in the summer. Haze to 10,000', lateral
visibility frequently under 5 miles, etc.

He said that it is much better now than in the late 60's/early 70's. He
said the airborne pollution in those days was so bad that if you went on a
long X/C you often came back with an oily film covering the leading edges of
the wings. He also added that when he started flying, in the 50's,
visibility was usually far better than it is today.

Any comments?

I don't believe the oily film part and I don't believe things were
better in the 50s than in the 60s or 70s. I do believe things are
better now than anytime during the 50s-70s.


Matt