Matthew and Julie Bos wrote:
Is 15% a realistic number or is 1.5% closer to the mark? How long will upgrading the polluting plant allow it to continue to spew carcinogens and acidic byproducts into our air and what is the cost to the state and federal governments, not to mention the citizenry, for not upgrading these destructive plants? The Bush administration is excellent at making short term, stopgap measures look good for the economy, but I'm more interested in preserving the quality of life for my grandchildren than preserving the fortune of wealthy Americans.So instead of being 15 percent more efficient, plants are only being maintained and not improved. Maybe you would like to explain how in this case the Clinton era policy actually helps the environment?
Doug
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
