It’s not the scientists job to analyze implementation, it’s to determine harm. There are comment periods before regulations take effect. Industry can suggest costs and plans during this period along with cost analysis so the argument that they are not discussed is specious and misleading.
School test scores were higher in southern California prior to clean air rules. one has nothing to do with the other yet I’m sure someone will use it as an argument for orange skys. Is the fact that peoples health is improved more or less offset by the enormous costs?
Comments are closed.