Heckuva job, Blakey
May 27, 2007 2:09 PM Subscribe
Federal Aviation Administrator Marion Blakey is valiantly fighting European attempts to extend the EU's emission trading scheme to aviation.
Those silly Europeans, Ms. Blakey has argued, are so overexcited about global warming that they are even using helicopters with thermal imaging systems to enforce a green tax on outdoor BBQs!
Unfortunately for her argument, it turns out that the story she quoted is a complete hoax. Now, unlike Brownie, nobody would ever accuse Ms. Blakey of being a novice. Apart from previous tenures at, among others, the Department of Transportation and the NTSB, Ms. Blakey also founded Blakey & Agnew, a "public affairs" firm with a special focus on transportation issues.
Uhmm, apparently Ms. Blakey got her story from none other than Rush Limbaugh. (Although it had been hovering round the right-wing blogosphere too).
Apparently the FAA prefers gas-filled blimps to helicopters, then...
posted by Skeptic at 3:35 PM on May 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
Apparently the FAA prefers gas-filled blimps to helicopters, then...
posted by Skeptic at 3:35 PM on May 27, 2007 [1 favorite]
Now, unlike Brownie
In the (possibly/unlikely) event that some one does not get the reference ...
It is Michael Brown to whom you make reference (aka, "Brownie, you are doing a heckuva job").
posted by ericb at 4:21 PM on May 27, 2007
In the (possibly/unlikely) event that some one does not get the reference ...
It is Michael Brown to whom you make reference (aka, "Brownie, you are doing a heckuva job").
posted by ericb at 4:21 PM on May 27, 2007
Reducing consumption would reduce demand, therefore price should reduce (assuming offer constant).
But this isn't the problem : to obtain the same amount of profit with a reduced absolute value of gallons sold , the price should rise. Yet after a certain price, people start actively reducing the consumption (or stop consuming !) thus further reducing the consumption and therefore requiring an increase in price that would, in practice, stop consumption.
Who would NOT GAIN trillions ? It's not a matter of losing, it's a matter of moving money toward certain pockets.
posted by elpapacito at 4:23 PM on May 27, 2007
But this isn't the problem : to obtain the same amount of profit with a reduced absolute value of gallons sold , the price should rise. Yet after a certain price, people start actively reducing the consumption (or stop consuming !) thus further reducing the consumption and therefore requiring an increase in price that would, in practice, stop consumption.
Who would NOT GAIN trillions ? It's not a matter of losing, it's a matter of moving money toward certain pockets.
posted by elpapacito at 4:23 PM on May 27, 2007
Ah, I thought I'd heard that EPA cookout bullshit from the bloated oxy-addict. Nice to know his gullible dupes can rise to such heights in this administration.
posted by trondant at 6:39 PM on May 27, 2007
posted by trondant at 6:39 PM on May 27, 2007
Let's bake some brownies. I gots me some munchies going on.
posted by taosbat at 9:35 PM on May 27, 2007
posted by taosbat at 9:35 PM on May 27, 2007
Lies are too-often front page. Retractions, behind the classifieds.
posted by dreamsign at 1:38 AM on May 28, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by dreamsign at 1:38 AM on May 28, 2007 [1 favorite]
The EU should just go ahead and start taxing aviation fuel.
posted by mr. strange at 1:55 AM on May 28, 2007
posted by mr. strange at 1:55 AM on May 28, 2007
I work for the sister firm of Blakey and Agnew, good times.
posted by BobbyDigital at 8:22 AM on May 29, 2007
posted by BobbyDigital at 8:22 AM on May 29, 2007
« Older Chernobyl, 20 Years Later | L & P advertisements Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by bhouston at 2:25 PM on May 27, 2007