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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (7862)	3/7/2001 2:30:10 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I bet they are a higher percentage of your income than you care to think. Even a low guess, assuming you make $100k is $200/month for car insurance and $200/month for mortgage insurance that's about 5% of your gross income. We aren't spending even a fraction of that on the environment. How many house fires have you seen first hand. I saw one about 30 years ago (total) and a minor one 10 years ago. Had I self insured and the one I saw recently happened to me, I'd still be ahead. Much less than $20k in damages.

To: TimF who wrote (7862)	3/8/2001 7:39:30 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Some ideas to help perserve the environment have reasonable costs, others IMO do not. Just wanted to be sure you saw what the Supreme Court recently said about costs and the Clean Air Act. FWIW Clean-Air Authority Of EPA Is Upheld Court: Law Bars Cost Consideration By Charles Lane Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, February 28, 2001; Page A01 The Supreme Court yesterday unanimously upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to set new and tougher clean air standards without first considering the potential economic impact on industry, a major victory for federal efforts to control pollution. washingtonpost.com