Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
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 …
Once again the cost of the "cure" exceeds the problem. As you have pointed out climate-related deaths are at an all time low. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYBSwS3XcAAkRn9.jpg …
So are you saying you’re against clean water???!!! Just kidding. See how easy it is to demagogue an issue.
Study needs to come out from behind paywall for wider debate. Does it take account of pollution deterred for fear of penalties? Savings to downstream drinking water systems that use river water? Intangible value of our wish for cleaner rivers?
To be frank, $100 per person does not sound at all unreasonable or out of line with costs elsewhere. The benefits of clean water are not just financial so you can’t do a purely financial cost benefit analysis.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
