Help plez I am confuse?
Should the costs of EPA regulations be weighed against their prospective benefits? Explain your answer.
Answers:
What's with people with this "explain your answer" stuff? I'm not here to write your term paper for you. That being said, it is and always has been policy to do a cost/benefit analysis when it comes to environmental protection legislation and enforcement. It would be irresponsible not to. This kind of analysis applies to many other regulatory and even criminal statutes. If you are not going to significantly reduce the problem, there is no justification to spend the money. Pretty basic stuff.
yeah! what he said! write your own paper!
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 $100 Billion 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 in monthly bills is pushing the limit.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: