I'm from New York. We have acid rain. It's killing our lakes.
Why does requiring energy companies to produce less pollution mean a reduction in the work force?!? The arguement of "job reduction" is a scare tactic! Big Business is going to lay off people no matter what. . . . . But that's another topic for another thread for another time.
Honestly, I don't claim to be "all knowledgable" about this particular subject. This debate over the problems of air pollution has been going on for decades now. It's my understanding that the world's scientists. . . for the most part. . . . think that continuing the pollution of our air isn't good for us. Smog just isn't a good thing. This administration's decision to allow more pollution just seems like a major step backward. Definately not forward thinking. Definately not thoughtful to the people and animals who need to breath air.
Aren't we a country rich in technology? Why can't we invest our financial and time in producing the technology that produces environmental-friendly energy? High financial cost? Probably in the short run. But not in the long run, I wouldn't think, as mass production of the environmental-friendly energy takes hold.
The quick and easy fix: Lower Pollution Standard. Sickens me!
Did I tell you that acid rain is killing our states lakes and streams? Our Republican governor doesn't like this particular relaxation in pollution standards as this article points out.
I only put this thread in the War/Terrorism forum just so heated debates won't disturb the peace and tranquility of the "Off Topic" forum. . . . :chuckle :roll :chuckle
(I hope we're still friends!