I'm all for clean air and water, but I wonder at what cost compared to what benefit? Will we spend billions, lose jobs and raise prices just to change the pollution content by a fraction of a measure?
Is this just like 'man-made global warming,' where policy initiatives have serious costs and job consequences only to maybe change the temperature by a degree or two. Tell me, can you really tell the difference between 78 degrees and 76 degrees?
And many of these EPA regulations will impact coal states like Ohio much more than others, so it's easy for less-impacted people to say, 'sure - pay any cost for cleaner air and water.'
Economic Study Shows EPA Regulations Increase Prices, Kill Jobs CNSnews.com
I think we need to have government perform a ROI (return on investment) analysis for each policy proposal and let the people know that as 'good' as many of these programs sounds, in the long term, they cost us much more than they provide in benefits.