home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14006 talk.politics.misc:70126
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!hal.com!decwrl!concert!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!ellis!thf2
- From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
- Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
- Subject: Re: The hidden costs of Environmentalism : A case study
- Keywords: r-12, cars, big bucks
- Message-ID: <1993Jan27.040332.20699@midway.uchicago.edu>
- Date: 27 Jan 93 04:03:32 GMT
- References: <C1Hs2M.3DH@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
- Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
- Organization: University of Chicago
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <C1Hs2M.3DH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
- > He was correct, because we tried in vain to buy freon anywhere in town. He
- >was finally told that the only place to go was a garage where they have the
- >new EPA approved delivary systems for R-12. The cost for a garage to do this
- >$6 job is now $110. That is a 1733% increase in cost, and it is another
- >example of the price we will pay for our environment.
-
- Except it was never a $6 job. It was $6 for the can, and $200+ for the
- environmental damage. Just because you didn't have to directly pay for the
- damage you did to the environment by wasting away the ozone, doesn't
- mean that it was less "costly" before the regulations.
-
- > I am not against protecting the environment, but should we have to pay
- >this type of cost? Why didn't someone figure out a way to lower the cost
- >before they implemented the regulations?
-
- Hey, you can pay the cost either in regulating freon usage so it doesn't
- leak and kill the ozone, or you can pay the cost with the extra risk of
- cancer to the next ten thousand generations. Your call.
- --
- ted frank | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu
- standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
- the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
-