In article . net, "Mike
Rapoport" writes:

Not enviornmental regulation, that's for sure.

You sure about that?

What is the cost to society of not having the regs? If we don't dontrol
emissions then we have either health problems or a cleanup done by the
government either of which is more expensive than controlling the source
pollution source.

I don't believe the issue is the existence of the "regs". What is at issue is
policy being driven by enviro-facists with no concern for the costs of
achieving the next level of "cleanness". As the cost of achieving the next
level of "cleanness" increases disproportionately to the returns, business will
eventually become unprofitable. At that point, the jobs start disappearing.

And I assure you, if you think that economic prosperity is bad for the
environment, try poverty for complete environmental tragedy. (Look at eastern
Europe; practically the whole place is a toxic waste dump) When people start
wondering where their next mortgage payment or meal is coming from, they stop
caring about the environment. A visit to any "poor" country should make that
clear to you.

Which, I might add, is a cost to society.

Which is why Mexico City has awful air. Their squalid economy cannot afford to
mandate pollution controls that we take for granted here. Heck, even
supposedly "green" western Europe doesn't have the requirements or air quality
we have here.

John