SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: stribe30 who wrote (133696)2/27/2001 7:53:08 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 1570750
 
Environmentalists in the United States are
celebrating what they say is an historic ruling
by the Supreme Court.

In a unanimous decision, the nine judges ruled
that health benefits should be the sole criteria
in setting air pollution standards.

Road haulage associations, manufacturers and
chambers of commerce had all challenged the
way the Environmental Protection Agency or
EPA set pollution standards.

Lawyers for the industry lobby argued that the
EPA had tightened ozone and soot levels
without clear criteria and without consideration
of the cost, which they put at $50bn a year.



So if one person was made marginally healthier by a federal regulation at the cost of $1tril a year the regulation should pass? I'm sorry but that seems like a senseless decsion to me. Of course I'm not reading thedecision directly but instead your quote from a story about the decision so something could have been lost in the retelling.

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News