GirlChat #505937
Re: back to the land policies
Posted by Baldur on 2010-July-03 15:45:06 EDT, Saturday
In reply to Re: back to the land policies posted by Silence Dogood on 2010-July-03 09:21:56 EDT, Saturday
Which largely killed the nascent small generation industry, including promising development of small-scale wind power. Now, 80 years later, the government wants to spend even more money to develop technology that might have been under continuous development for all those years if the government had not spent money on an alternative that was not economically viable.
Similarly, interference with the economics of water supply has also encouraged growth in areas not naturally suited to it, with sometimes disastrous results for the environment.
As for Bush's regulations: a 13% annual increase over the previous administration, including many high cost regulations. See link below.
This post is archived, preventing any new replies.
Responses
- One more thing I meant to add.. - Silence Dogood on 2010-July-04 09:23:24 EDT, Sunday - (0 / 0 / 1)
- Re: One more thing I meant to add.. - qtns2di4 on 2010-July-08 04:28:48 EDT, Thursday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- Re: back to the land policies - Silence Dogood on 2010-July-04 09:09:20 EDT, Sunday - (1 / 0 / 4)
- Re: back to the land policies - qtns2di4 on 2010-July-08 04:24:19 EDT, Thursday - (0 / 0 / 3)
- Re: back to the land policies - Baldur on 2010-July-09 18:12:37 EDT, Friday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- Re: back to the land policies - kratt on 2010-July-08 18:29:21 EDT, Thursday - (1 / 0 / 1)
- Re: back to the land policies - qtns2di4 on 2010-July-09 06:54:56 EDT, Friday - (0 / 0 / 0)
- Re: back to the land policies - qtns2di4 on 2010-July-08 04:24:19 EDT, Thursday - (0 / 0 / 3)