"Tom S." wrote in message
...
So you both consider the only alternatives to be A) $300 billion worth of
often contradictory regulations, or B) massive pollution?? Hmmmm...!!??

You are mixing your complaints. The amount is only 3% of the GDP which,
frankly, seems like a perfectly reasonable cost to avoid long-term pollution
problems.

As for the accusation of the regulations being "contradictory", are you or
are you not familiar with the FARs? Governments have a problem making 100%
sensible regulations, and yet things work pretty well anyway. The fact that
the regulations aren't perfect doesn't mean that they should simply be
abandoned.

I choose A). Thanks for asking.

Pete