Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
And other indicators similarly show that rivers got cleanerpic.twitter.com/xRmt7A3INn
But cost was also $100/person/year Benefits? One established way: homes near rivers become worth more, capturing all willingness to pay for environmental improvements in area Estimate impact on all home values 25 miles downstream of a CWA grant over 30yrs: Each $ delivers ¢24pic.twitter.com/yCVNUDruQk
Yes, there are other, unmeasured benefits, but they have to be more than 3 times as large to make the Clean Water Act just break evenpic.twitter.com/BqWMxB23zN
So, it is plausible that the Clean Water Act has cost more than benefits, and it is very likely that the benefits do not vastly outweigh costspic.twitter.com/CN6CIX198u
Finally, Clean Water Act cost *more* than Clean Air Act Despite Clean Air Act saving 100,000+ lives every year Whereas Clean Water Act saves almost nonehttps://www.pnas.org/content/115/2/290 …
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
