......coming straight from the EPA. How so?
Well, the attached testimony makes it clear that the EPA is trying to shove its regulations through, contrary to law I believe, without a good appraisal of the economic costs of their decision.
Now if economic costs were independent of ecological costs--and anyone who knows the economics of hybrid cars (talk to people in Brantford, Ontario, for example, about nickel mining for NiMetal hydride batteries) knows this isn't true--it would be one thing. Reality is, however, that when people are impoverished, they simply cannot afford to take the steps to make their own personal environments better. Just ask anyone who has ever traveled to a developing country--when you're worried about your next meal, little things like "insulating your house" and "sanitary sewers" go right out the window. For that matter, they're very happy to have a motorbike with visible emissions--just like, quite frankly, I'm seeing a lot more rusted out cars with blue smoke coming out the tailpipe in our country these days.
In other words, what we have is not only a government agency without respect for the law and the citizens, but we also have a government agency which really doesn't understand how to do its job. Their decision making process would likely make the environment dirtier due to the ways people would cope with its decisions.
A Tier-by-Tier Guide to Backup Power: How to Keep Your Home Running When
the Grid Goes Down
-
Over the weekend, much of the United States was hit with a huge winter
storm that affected over 200 million people. Some of those folks lost power
on acc...
2 hours ago
No comments:
Post a Comment