Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find this decision appalling. I really don't care what it costs, but the environment and the health of our population is too important to just abandon because somebody cries about the expense. While it may seem that doing so is great for business and is a necessary step in kick starting business into creating jobs, it's a bad move. What it means is that business can now threaten the country with no jobs or spending until it gets what it wants. Isn't that behavior typical of corporations: "We're going to make your life miserable until we get what we want"? Who's the boss here, people or business? Who runs the country, people or business? If we bend over, way over, and let business do it's, um, business to us, we forfeit our souls and our planet.
Why is the comfort of profit more desirable than clean air and deep breaths? I'd rather be unemployed (like I am now, just so you know) in Eden's garden of paradise, than be surrounded by piles of cash and a picture of a tree.
Basically I don't give an ef about what it costs to run your business. Follow the laws, respect the people and the environment, or don't do business at all. You don't have a right to run a business just as you don't have a right to be careless. The environment, the design of our lungs, these things are not adaptable, certainly not as adaptable as business. Why does anyone have to argue something so inherently logical?
This is the problem we have, people like you blindly accepting any law or regulation that the EPA and the climate lobby dream up.
We can thank our lucky stars not many of us have this attitude.......
I find this decision appalling. I really don't care what it costs, but the environment and the health of our population is too important to just abandon because somebody cries about the expense. While it may seem that doing so is great for business and is a necessary step in kick starting business into creating jobs, it's a bad move. What it means is that business can now threaten the country with no jobs or spending until it gets what it wants. Isn't that behavior typical of corporations: "We're going to make your life miserable until we get what we want"? Who's the boss here, people or business? Who runs the country, people or business? If we bend over, way over, and let business do it's, um, business to us, we forfeit our souls and our planet.
Why is the comfort of profit more desirable than clean air and deep breaths? I'd rather be unemployed (like I am now, just so you know) in Eden's garden of paradise, than be surrounded by piles of cash and a picture of a tree.
Basically I don't give an ef about what it costs to run your business. Follow the laws, respect the people and the environment, or don't do business at all. You don't have a right to run a business just as you don't have a right to be careless. The environment, the design of our lungs, these things are not adaptable, certainly not as adaptable as business. Why does anyone have to argue something so inherently logical?
As do I. As the parent of a severly asthmatic child, I find this absolutely unconscionable.
I've already voiced my disappointment to the WH.
We can only "respect the environment" so much before we cut our own throats. Just the fact that humans exist is enough to mess it up, nevermind the progress we've made. We have to balance things, we can't be all-in on one side or the other, that's for idiots.
The proposed smog standard was estimated to cost anywhere between $19 billion and $90 billion, depending on how strict it would be.
Quote:
The EPA under Obama proposed in January 2010 a range for the concentration of ground-level ozone allowed in the air — from 60 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion. That's about equal to a single tennis ball in an Olympic-size swimming pool full of tennis balls.
At a cost of potentially $90 BILLION, is it worth it to destroy jobs?
The E.P.A. following the recommendation of its scientific advisers, had proposed lowering the so-called ozone standard from that set by the Bush administration to a new stricter standard that would have thrown hundreds of American counties out of compliance with the Clean Air Act. It would have required a major effort by state and local officials, as well as new emissions controls by industries and across the country.
Get this people? In a time of severe recession, you want BILLIONS more cost for business and ultimately for the consumer?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
