No, Miko.
Firstly, consider the effect of British fossil fuel burning in the 70's and 80's. When you burn fossil fuels, as well as producing particulates, CO2 etc, you produce Sulphur oxides. This dissolves in water to form an acidic solution.
This fell as rain on large parts of Scandinavia (ask Santa), killing trees before leaching into the lakes and rendering them sterile of life. Every part of the eco-system was hit, from small microbes to the fish. A bit of a disaster if you happened to be Norwegian, Swedish etc.
But hey, it happened outside our country's borders, so why should we give a damn?
Therefore one reason for avoiding large releases of such gases, is to avoid such marine pollution.
Many of you are against limiting the air emissions of industry? I'm assuming this is due to the fact that there is still some debate as to the actual causes of global warming.
So where do you stand on water or land releases? Many harmful substances have no upper limit set, partly because there is contradicting evidense as to their lethality or potential to damage life.
Based on that rationale, are you suggesting that it is now appropiate to release anything you like - if the methods to control it our damaging to 'American industry and American workers'? For instance, the methods used to remove heavy metals form industrial effluents are very expensive. Should we all now just let them flow into the sea, because it would improve profits?
