The thing that makes me the maddest about him is whenever you start proving him wrong, he accuses you of being a money hungry, right wing capitalist and the spawn of all evil in the world. Real constructive. We were having a debate about emissions, and he could not comprehend my trying to put a cost/benefit analysis on reducing air pollution. He consistently argued that there should not be a price limit for reducing pollution. I kept saying that isn't my point.
The point was, if you can spend 25 million here and get a 5% decrease in pollution, or you can take the 25 million and spend it on another pollution source and get a 30% decrease in pollution, you should go fix the one where your benefit is greater.
He kept accusing me of being pro-pollution, which is not what I was saying. In fact, I was saying just the opposite, and that if anything, HE was the one who was pro-pollution because he would waste air quality money on something with less return.
Just so you know, we were debating the 2007 emissions regs, which will cost a lot of money and accomplish very little proven benefit. The same amount of money could be spent on clean coal technology and see huge potential benefit. He told me that because I was against the 2007 regs, i was pro pollution. I kept saying that I wasn't against pollution control if it made sense, and we actually got something tangible for the money spent, but he just couldn't understand. He even went so far as to accuse me of being part of a biodiesel co-op, since I was so concerned with the loss of diesel availability due to the 2007 regs. The guy is really out on planet X somewhere. i hope to heck he stays the heck away from here.
He even came up with some goofy data that said that the 2007 regs would save 25,000 lives per year. Give me a friggin break.... Talk about out in left field....
