"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:44:19 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


But they do employ people, they do have budgets and they do charge
rates, any of which will be affected by mandated changes. The electric
industry is only one example. I'll wait for some more.

OK. You think electric companies shouldn't have to be forced to make
changes
because it would cost money. Right? Gee...ya think? Now we're getting
somewhere. Here's a question: What level of environmental damage would
have
to occur before YOU would say "Uh oh. I think it's time for someone to
slap
those boys and get things fixed"? Or, is there NO level of such damage
that
would change your thinking?


I would say that when the level of pollution becomes a direct health
threat, then steps need to be taken. But bear in mind that passing the
costs on to the rate payers, will hurt those on the low end of the
economic scale.

Dave


The level of pollution has ALREADY become a direct health threat. It's
universally accepted science. No more questions about it. This is why 5
states are suing a bunch of utilities and will very likely win.

As far as the cost, we're talking primarily about private companies here.
Everything you buy has the cost of doing business built into it. Who do YOU
think should pay for the improvements utilities must install? The man in the
moon? When your local utility finally has to dismantle a nuclear reactor
whose lifespan has been reached, don't YOU expect the cost to be part of
your bill?