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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (22897)	9/27/2007 10:47:21 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

"I look at pollution in an economic sense, as a cost, and perhaps a negative externality. " My own view is similar to your own. Pollution is generally bad and increasing pollution should be viewed (absent mitigating factors) as a cost of a thing. Decreasing pollution is generally good and its reduction can generally be considered a public good. There are situations though that do not conform to preconceived notions. There is a swamp in either Virginia or North Carolina (or both?) that does not comply with federal clean air standards while in a natural state. "Greens on the other hand look at pollution as being evil. To them there is no optimal level of human caused pollution other than zero." Then they need to stop exhaling or they are hypocrites. <;-)_