>
>---Jim Lewis wrote:
>
>On the other hand, if we elect to "protect" nature, we get into the
>discussion of by "how much" do we protect it. And then, of course, the
>folks who realy have no interest in preserving or protecting bring up
>costs -- and cost-benefit analysis, and "balancing."
>_______________
>
>So.....costs are irrelevant? I find this to be an almost vacuous stance
>to take. Why? Becuase the common walk-aday-Joe cares about the cost.
>What is it going to cost him if we really do drive CO2 emmissions back
>down to the 1990 levels? I can tell you for a fact, that if it were to
>double electric rates such a proposal would get absolutely nowhere really
>damn fast! Doubt me...hop on over to any news site that covers San Diego.
>
>
Sure costs mean something. I didn't say they didn't. I said they would be
brought up (probably first) by the folks who have no interest in preserving
or protecting the environment -- most likely by PG&E as soon as the EPA or
the California Air Board (or whatever it's called this week) say they've got
to cut CO2 emissions by (whatever). Other companies will claim that costs
of compliance will put them out of business -- which it seldom ever does.
[log in to unmask] - Tallahassee, FL
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|