Comments on: Smog Rules Could Cost Industry $90B–and Save $100B on Health Costs

By: Fatkid

Fatkid — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:37:06 +0000

jmw~ whuh? that’s like not cleaning your toilet because you know your fat Aunt Stella’s coming over and is gonna use it. Don’t shovel your sidewalk, people will just end up walking all over it. It’s better if they walk across the street.

By: JMW

JMW — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:32:14 +0000

@Adrian #3. In the spirit of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”, won’t saving all those leaves actually increase green house gasses? After all, all these people who will live will require food, jobs, transportation, housing – and all the cows/pigs/chickens/people farting, all the cars, buses, trains & planes moving, all the office buildlings, factories and homes being built all have an impact on the carbon.

I know, I know…when I volunteer to kill myself to remove my carbon footprint from the world, I can complain about other people.

But it makes me wonder if the government scientists who did this study included in their costs the impacts of having the extra people around.

By: Adrian

Adrian — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:07:33 +0000

This is good news. It would reduce many respiratory illness. It saves so may lives and also 100 billion on health care.

By: Cory

Cory — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 00:05:58 +0000

Lol, “between $13 billion and $100 billion”. Man, government sucks.

By: Fatkid

Fatkid — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:07:18 +0000

If there isn’t a way to force compliance with planet saving policies and technologies, we will keep passing the buck to future generations until there are none left to pay the tab.

I can already write off tollways that should’ve been free now and social security I’ve bought into. It’d be nice to at least have a blue sky to look at when I am an 83 year old commuter.