The world is not as simply as you and Barrow want to think it is there are
two issues with changing the rules (any rules) or suspending them.
Everytime you change the rules you advantage or disadvantage those one side
of the time when the rules were changed. If you relax emmissions standards
on Jan 1, you disadvantage the refiner who invested prior to Jan1 and give
his competitors who invest after Jan 1 an advantage. However the real
problem is that pollution is a *real* cost, it isn't something made up by
Democrats. As an example, when coal fired powerplants emit sulpher it forms
sulphuric acit which forms acid rain and this damages everything down wind
both natural and man made. If the powerplant emits more sulpher, then all
metal downwind corrodes faster. It drives up medical costs as more people
have respiratory problems. This is over a huge area, affecting many
thousands or millions of people. Basically allowing that powerplant to
emit more sulpher just transfers cost from the owner of the powerplant to
others downwind. This understates the cost of power and distorts the
market.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:Bpv3f.435576$_o.30020@attbi_s71...
When you take all the facts together, it seems that refining capacity
over the past 25yrs has been driven by economics not regulation. The
"lack of refining capacity" hysteria is simply the latest thing for
pundits to talk about. The conservatives want to blame the
enviornmentalists and the liberals want to blame the greedy oil
companies. Hopefully the rules will remain unchanged and economics will
continue to drive decision making. Refiners are flush with cash and don't
need taxpayer handouts either directly or indirectly through relaxed
regulation.

I never thought I'd live long enough to hear a free-marketer like Mike
refer to "relaxed regulations" as a "taxpayer handout."

What a bizarre world this has become.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"