Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stribe30 who wrote (133696)	2/27/2001 7:53:08 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579765

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