Air pollution

[Nym90]

Ronald Reagan, of course, famously said that trees cause more pollution than cars do. Was he right?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Reagan also said that facts are inconvient things.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Cars make more pollution, was he drunk when he said that?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Cars make more pollution, was he drunk when he said that?

He really said a lot of dumb comments. When he was governor, shortly before an innocent bystander was killed, he said "if there's going to be a bloodbath, let's get this over with".

[Nym90]

This was another classic--

"I have flown twice over Mt St. Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about."

1980. (Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.)

So let's see, Reagan said that Mt. St. Helens produced more sulfur dioxide than 10 years worth of driving, when actually cars produce more than 40 times as much each day.

So if you do the math, he was only off by a magnitude of 146,000 in his estimate.

[WalterMitty]

reagan was a pretty awful president.  nym, us sane ones already know that.

[Nym90]

reagan was a pretty awful president.  nym, us sane ones already know that.

True, but I thought of this statement of his today and figured I just had to make a poll about it. Bush may get ribbed for his malapropisms, but Reagan said a lot of things that were just flat out ridiculous.

[adam]

Reagan also had problems remembering how to tie his shoes.

[MaC]

I voted 'Trees' out of spite.

[MasterJedi]

Cars

[Bdub]

Cars.  Cars however release many less pollutants than they did back in the 1970s.

[Nym90]

Cars.  Cars however release many less pollutants than they did back in the 1970s.

True, which is why Reagan's comment in 1981 made even less sense than it would today.

[Platypus]

Well, how long have cars been around-100 years, 150 if you go back to primitive models. How long has Mt. St. Helens been around?

Cars may have been ahead by 1981, may be ahead now, will probably be ahead at some time, but who can say?

[David S]

This was another classic--

"I have flown twice over Mt St. Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about."

1980. (Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.)

So let's see, Reagan said that Mt. St. Helens produced more sulfur dioxide than 10 years worth of driving, when actually cars produce more than 40 times as much each day.

So if you do the math, he was only off by a magnitude of 146,000 in his estimate.

He reduced the top tax rate from 70% to mid 30%. He managed to keep us out of any serious wars for 8 years. The economy pulled out of the doldrums of the Carter years. Interest rates dropped dramatically, so mortgages became affordable again.
Whats so bad about that?

Also I question your numbers for the amount of SO2 produced by cars. What's your source?

[Nym90]

This was another classic--

"I have flown twice over Mt St. Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about."

1980. (Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.)

So let's see, Reagan said that Mt. St. Helens produced more sulfur dioxide than 10 years worth of driving, when actually cars produce more than 40 times as much each day.

So if you do the math, he was only off by a magnitude of 146,000 in his estimate.

He reduced the top tax rate from 70% to mid 30%. He managed to keep us out of any serious wars for 8 years. The economy pulled out of the doldrums of the Carter years. Interest rates dropped dramatically, so mortgages became affordable again.
Whats so bad about that?

Also I question your numbers for the amount of SO2 produced by cars. What's your source?

Wikipedia. The amount of pollution produced by cars today is obviously a lot lower than it was 25 years ago, so that may help explain why the numbers look high.

As for the tax cuts, I agree that taxes were too high under Carter, though the budget deficits run up under Reagan were very damaging long term (yeah I know people like to blame these on the Dems in Congress, and obviously they can't be held completely blameless, but the President is ultimately the one with the most responsibility in this area). Cutting the top rate less drastically would have been a much better solution.

The oil embargo obviously hurt the economy a lot under Carter; I don't think this rebound is really the result of anything Reagan did, and jobs were actually being created faster under Carter, which helps to balance out the negative effects of inflation. It's two sides of the same coin. Overall supply-side economics is great for big business in the short term but hurts the average worker at all times as well as the entire economy in the long run.

Deregulation of the banking industry led to the savings and loan crisis and subsequent government bailout.

And of course there is the selling of arms to Iran, and funding an insurgency against a democratically elected government.

[GMantis]

You know, if you are determined to blindly promote the interests of industry over those of the environment, you will have to ignore facts and make absurd statements like this - especially if you weren't very intelligent in the first place.