70 to 1990, $436 billion was spent in conforming to the new regulations; however, the net benefit of the Act was $6.8 trillion. (Nebel and Wright, 2000, p. 549). The net savings take into account the “avoided costs” of improved human health, less damage by acid rain, less environmental clean-up, and conservation of fossil fuels. The U.S. Government has been unwilling to put constraints on manufacturing and vehicular pollutants, while hiding behind the excuse that it could stifle the economy. While there may be some temporary stress put on consumers and manufacturers by more stringent pollution restrictions, the long-term benefits will far outweigh the consequences. It has been proven that there are real savings to be seen by implementing more efficient manufacturing processes and the creation of jobs in the field of resource conservation. The technology is available and some regulations are already in the law books, but government and public support must be present to enforce these laws and implement the technology. For example, the State of California’s Air Restriction Board passed legislation stating that all major manufacturers wishing to sell cars in California would need to sell a “significant” number of Zero Emissions Vehicles in order to make a market in the state. Though this may appear to be strict mandate, its enforcement has been less than noteworthy. Even its wording, “significant”, leads to lackadaisical interpretation and is difficult to enforce. The technology has been developed and is available to create commuter vehicles that produce very few harmful emissions and have a very minimal impact on non-renewable resources. The average American home is only about half as efficient as current technology could make it. Large appliances, such as the refrigerator, freezer, air conditioner, and furnace could be made to use less than 35% of the power as compared to their current power drain...
