Thanks for the links,
But the point I am trying to make.. Is how can a subjective, open-ended issue be "cost out", when the risk can not be properly assessed at the time. IMO, the numbers are pure guesses..
Do the best job possible at the time, when errors are found, correct them and for goodness sake, do not devalue a certain population and area, by placing the offending issue AWAY from YOURSELF or MYSELF, (not you just a figure of speech).. NIMBY syndrome.. And after the fact, if it turns out, the risk can not be controlled, Admit the mistake, clean it up and move on..
The worst case of NIMBY, IMO, if I rember right, was when our esteemed Sec. of Treasury, Larry Summers, under the Clinton administration had suggested in the early 1990's that we ship our toxic waste to third world countries for disposal.. disgraceful. but it didn't stop or slow down his career. Anyway that's sort of off the topic.. But it does show, the worth diminishes as distance increases, in the minds of many, which includes the leadership.
But I will disagree, that environmental lobbyists are more powerful than industrial lobbyists, if that's what I understand you to say.. |
