"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:ebl2f.415582$x96.310523@attbi_s72...
It doesn't take much science to compare before and after. I'll take
"after".

While I tend to agree with you, I suspect there are millions of un- and
under-employed blue-collar workers in America who would beg to differ.

That's the third time you've claimed that saving jobs is justification for
destroying the environment.

It's a silly claim. The whole point of environmental protection is to
protect our future. What's worse? Losing 1000 jobs now? Or losing
millions of lives in the future, never mind all the non-human life affected?
It's unfortunate whenever person loses their livelihood, but humans are
adaptable, and the long-term health of the planet takes precedence.

If you think that the loss of jobs needs addressing, then argue to address
it by compensating the families affected through government assistance, long
enough for them to adapt. That cost is inconsequential compared to the
long-term costs of environmental pollution.

Pete