There is a balance to keep between the cost of preserving our environment and that of providing affordable NECESSITY OF LIFE for everyone.
This is why I am a supporter of nuclear energy.
But there are many other ways to save on polution that would in fact BENEFIT the poor, not only in cleaner air, but also in cost. One of those ways is to get rid of all the big, old gaz guzlers, and move toward hybrids and smaller cars with a much better gaz efficiency. Developing better public transportation is also a ways to limit the quantity of polution that cars spew in the air, AND to help poor and middle class people to reach their work place without having to depend on cars.
The deforestation that took place was just absolutely terrible planning by people who had only GREED in mind. Planting new trees to replace every tree that is being cut should easily take care of that (and provide work) without costing that much.
And industries do have a responsibility to clean their mess. . .although I am willing to look at a "reasonable" quotient of return to investment in terms of cleaning the mess made by industry. I believe I read (forgot when, forgot the text book it came out of, but it was in one of my economics class in College) an analysis that determined that if it cost X to clean 95% of the polution created by a specific industry, but it cost 3X to clean the polution created by that same industry at 97%, it is debatable whether or not it is wise to pursue that extra 2% cleaner air. I am willing to compromise on that.
However, what I am not willing to compromise on, are companies (like the Koch brothers) who prefer to spend millions, and even billions in lobbyists, and in commercials to defend their "right" to mess up our environment, INSTEAD of taking those billions to clean up their mess!
