🚀 go-pugleaf

Bob wrote:
> Jeff said:
> |            It makes no sense to require the same degree 
> |(and cost) of regulation out in some rural county in Wyoming 
> |with no industry and 53 cars than it does in LA.
> 
> But San Francisco isn't some grassland in Wyoming, it is
> the 13th largest city in the USA in the most populated state
> in the Union, a state with very strict smog laws that for
> some reason don't apply to the most liberal city in the
> state.

I didn't claim it was a grassland. I gave the Wyoming example to explain 
why the Claim Air Act was written the way it was, and why it makes good 
sense.

And the air quality requirements of the law are based on regions, not 
states, so whether SF or the SF Bay Area is in the most populated state 
makes no difference.  The region would be treated more or less the same 
if the rest of California were to drop off into the ocean.

Nor does the politics of the city make any difference.  The requirements 
are based on the quality of the air, not the quality or quantity of the 
hot air coming from local politicians and activists.

Finally, you mention that SF is the 13th largest city in the USA.  Where 
does LA rank on that list?  What is the ratio between the population of 
SF and the population of LA?

> population info for those that thing SF is like Wyoming,
> (second chart - middle of page):
> http://www.citypopulation.de/USA_j.html?E#Stadt_gross
> 
> San Francisco boasts of being such a progressive place, but
> will not follow the environmental rules that others in the
> state have to follow. Not fair!

SF follows exactly the same rules that others in the state have to 
follow.  If LA can arrage for its air quality to match SF's, it will be 
subject to the same mitigation measures as SF.