Should they? just another thought question.?
Should the costs of EPA regulations be weighed against their prospective benefits?
Answers:
In anything the government does we should weigh the cost against the potential benefit. The United States government is notorious for squandering the funds of the public purse. We should never create legislation just to create it. If it will be ineffectual then we are just wasting time and money. Always remember that government is looking for ways to spend our money. They don't really care whether we like it or not. What you find in all agencies is that they must expend their funds and will do so by any means necessary. The reason being that if they don't then their allotments in the next budget cycle are cut.
If you can put a price on saving the Earth...
Absolutely.
There is always a price for everything (including saving the earth).
The case can be made that there are too many people in certain areas of the planet.
What is the remedy? Kill half of them? (Cheap and effective, but most would think the price too high.)
Force them to move hundreds of miles away? (More expensive, less effective, and causes untold disruption of employment, family life, etc -- again, too expensive.)
Add additional taxes to pay for remedial solutions? (Very expensive, will serve to force poor people to move anyway.)
If any of these remedies sound too extreme, then you agree that some prices can be too high. If this is the case, the only solution is to perform some sort of Cost / Benefit analysis and determine what price you can live with.
Of course, those most effected in the short term will want the most influence in the decision, but they will want the cheapest (least disruptive) option.
I sure as Hell think so. Half of what they and their supporters preach seems downright ill-researched with no proof, and with no obvious benefits as compared to how much everyone has to pay.
Yes you must. You can't spend money you don't have. We laready see companies going overseas with EPA costs a part of the decision.
Start by asking yourself some questions to illustrate the point of cost/benefit.
If all mercury could be removed from drinking water would you pay for it (ask you parents if needed):
1. If it cost $0.01 per gallon (about $20 per month)
2. If it cost $0.10 per gallon (about $200 per month)
3. If it cost $10.00 per gallon (about $20,000 per month)
You can apply similar reasoning to all results and all pollutants.
1. Would you walk everywhere if cars had to be removed to meet pollution goals?
2. If swimming at the beach was banned to meet limits, would you agree?
3. If all makeup, perfume, and cologne were banned to meet EPA goals, would you agree?
4. EPA is looking at the pollution from back yard bar-b-ques. If EPA wanted to ban them, would you agree?
One last one. If we could save one life in 1000 years by reducing pollutants, but the cost was $1 Trillion dollars per year, should the USA go basically bankrupt to pay for it.
Everyone has their limits on what they will pay to have done. Most communities find that $10-$20 total increases per month in monthly bills is pushing the limit.
(this is the fourth time this question has been asked in the last few days).
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: