English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Do you agree or disagree? Explain using specific examples where possible.

2006-10-24 09:39:30 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

5 answers

It depends on which laws your talking about. A cost, benefit analysis needs to be done in each case. Environmental laws have their place. People want to live in a clean environment. If we didn't have any environmental laws we'd be have some of the horrific environmental problems that China is having right now, except they'd be a lot worse because we've been industrialized much longer.

Some environmental laws defiantly have helped. The smog prevention laws in L.A. are just one example--it used to be as unhealthy as smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day by just living in L.A.

2006-10-24 09:51:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Some are good, like cleaning up our rivers, etc. But you're right, most cannot be justified on a cost/benefit basis. And all of the people who are falling all over themselves to vote for "Green" candidates will go to the wall to prevent a nuclear power plant in their locale. The real threat to the environment comes from the 3rd world countries that burn wood for heat, and use animals for transportation. And their leaders fought successfully to have them exempted in the Kyoto protocol. By and large, proponents of environmental regulations have an ulterior motive.

2006-10-24 17:33:56 · answer #2 · answered by Pete 4 · 0 0

We can't continue to screw up the planet forever, so something must be done. It is more a matter of the cost of NOT doing anything outweighing the cost of implementing some regulations.

2006-10-24 16:56:33 · answer #3 · answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7 · 0 0

agree
in calif we have to have every car smog tested every year at a average cost of $300
thats fine if you are rich or live in a big city
where you can ride a bus.
but what about people with less money
living in rural areas ( most of people in the state )
and we have to pay more for "special" gas
it's a load of #2

2006-10-24 16:46:42 · answer #4 · answered by the bad seed 2 · 0 0

That is Bush's excuse for not signing the Kyoto protocol, which would reduce greenhouse gases. "It would hurt the economy". That's his logic

Sure, let's have a profitable economy on a planet that may not last over a few more decades then!

2006-10-24 16:42:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers