Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    11:43 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: For those that wish we did not have the EPA. Back to Topics
Cliffisher

Champion Author
Wisconsin

Posts:30,509
Points:3,770,225
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 8:39:00 AM

Welcome to their world.

If the far right was in charge, this is what our country would look like.

[Edited by: Cliffisher at 2/2/2013 8:40:36 AM EST]
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,699
Points:1,282,950
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 8:13:16 PM

Gocatgo ""Johnny, "rain water is just that" the exception is Acid Rain.""

If you had read the linked story nowhere was the phrase “Acid Rain” used. The EPA was trying to call “rain water” a pollutant.
-
Federal Court Rules EPA Cannot Regulate Stormwater Flow, Only Pollutants
-+
this is another link to a differant news source.

What the EPA wanted would have cost the County of Fairfax V.A. 300 million dollars to implement.

This is the kind of thing that has given the EPA a reputation as an over reaching agency without review or oversight.

[Edited by: johnnyg1200 at 2/4/2013 8:13:38 PM EST]
Profile Pic
IammeCA
All-Star Author Ventura

Posts:519
Points:181,640
Joined:Sep 2009
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 5:06:01 PM

<Do conservatives and communists see eye to eye on the willingness to destroy the climate? >

It makes little difference whether business controls government (conservative) or government controls business (communist). When business and government are one and the same the average person loses.
Profile Pic
noseatbelt
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:8,133
Points:212,590
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 5:01:21 PM

Steve, If we were still burning coal in the old fashioned way that china does, I would be a lot more worried about it, but, we don't. burning coal, in this country, is a long way from how it was used 100 years ago, much cleaner, and they keep coming up with ways to make it cleaner. You might not care about how high our electric bills go, doing away with coal, but I and most other people do.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,549
Points:449,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 4:51:46 PM

Well we do need to taper off the use of coal and replace it with sustainable energy. We have to do this to take care of our habitat and ensure that it will be here for the ones who come after us.
Profile Pic
noseatbelt
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:8,133
Points:212,590
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 4:44:30 PM

there is a big difference, between completely doing away with the epa, and what most of us want, that is to stop some of the feel good, but do no good rules they are always coming out with, that can ruin a persons life, or bankrupt them, in a heart beat. Remember the people that were told they were building a new home in a wet land, that wasn't, and wanted to fine them thousands of dollars a day? And that is just one of many, many, instances of the over bearing actions of the epa. And now we have obama using the epa, to destroy the coal industry, at the cost of thousands of jobs.

Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,316
Points:3,024,070
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 4:33:32 PM

"The EPA is currently an out of control bunch of control freaks."

Cute.

"There is the Clean Air Act. Law, passed by Congress. You could disband the EPA today. If someone is polluting in violation of the Clean Air Act, the DOJ can prosecute them tomorrow."

If you read the text of the Clean Air Act, you will see that it is replete with mentions of how the Administrator of the EPA is the executive branch official in charge of executing the law. That's how our system of government works, you see. We have a legislature that writes laws, but there is an executive branch that sees that the laws are carried out. The clean air act is over 400 pages long. It does take a certain amount of administration to get that law to work.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,549
Points:449,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 4:14:42 PM

Do conservatives and communists see eye to eye on the willingness to destroy the climate?
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,051
Points:1,914,260
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 3:59:07 PM

SS: "Until the environment is universally revered more than money; we need the EPA. "


Until there aren't anymore liberals there shouldn't be an evil tool such as the EPA.



mudtoe
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,549
Points:449,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 3:06:47 PM

Until the environment is universally revered more than money; we need the EPA.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,311
Points:2,356,185
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 2:08:30 PM

The EPA's troubles began when they grew out of the law enforcement role and into the role of the legislature and executive branches of government. Indeed the EPA has become the tool of choice of politicians hiding behind the curtain to bypass normal processes and engage political agendas.

[Edited by: EZExit at 2/4/2013 2:08:48 PM EST]
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,207
Points:3,080,645
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 1:07:39 PM

There is the Clean Air Act. Law, passed by Congress.

You could disband the EPA today. If someone is polluting in violation of the Clean Air Act, the DOJ can prosecute them tomorrow. The EPA is currently an out of control bunch of control freaks.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,051
Points:1,914,260
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 12:37:17 PM

SS: "When ever someone says they want to do away with the EPA I know they are clueless to the cause-effect link between action and reaction."


I'd gladly take that chance in order to break the liberal's favorite tool of oppression.



mudtoe

Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,549
Points:449,285
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 11:52:32 AM

It was interesting that when they held the Bejing Olympics the government shut down most of the industry and limited driving for a few weeks prior and during the games, in deference to the pollution. 'Amazingly' the skies cleared up and looked nice while the visitors and cameras were there.

I guess when you have a communist government you can do that.

And of course as soon as all the visitors had left it was back to treating the air as a big gaseous sewer.

When ever someone says they want to do away with the EPA I know they are clueless to the cause-effect link between action and reaction.

Similarly those are the same ones who deny the climate is changing and/or that billions of humans burning things daily for hundreds of years could not possibly have an effect on the atmosphere.

For ever action there is a reaction. Just as surely as if you put stuff in the air then there is stuff in the air, if you make regulations to try to keep fools from doing it there will be fools who wrongly conclude that, not only are the regulations bad, but that ALL regulations are bad.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,464
Points:1,557,720
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 11:24:59 AM

I75 - the reason the National Forests were placed in the Dept of Agriculture in the first place was the Dept of Interior was too politicized and the folks at the time wanted then managed for the benefit of all the people. A good reason to leave them there is that trees are just another crop to be planted tended and harvested. The BLM (with a few exceptions) is much more a dept of protect it from everyone bunch of people.

That being said the Forest Service has changed a whole lot in the last few years. They also have become much more a tree hugger organization dedicated to protecting the 'forests' from the people.

When I first worked for them we actually made a profit where I worked. The wood we sold more than paid for the costs to operate the place plus manage the land. We sent more money back to Washington than we spent. That is no longer true. Because of changes in the laws and how the courts see things now an ever increasing amount of the budget is going to fire fighting and the amount of money going back to Washington is shrinking hugely. A few more years like what has been going on and the National Parks and National Forests will be managed about the same. 'Protect them from the people'.

I realize that many to most folks - especially back east - don't have a clue as to the significance of the difference but it is huge. When I was a Silviculturist we managed forested land to produce multiple resources depending on the objectives for the land. Many times when the primary goal was timber production we could grow enough lumber per acre per year to build one average home from the wood grown on 2 - 3 acres (5,000 board feet/ac/year). Today those same acres are not being managed for much of anything and more and more they are being attacked by insects and fires.


[Edited by: flyboyUT at 2/4/2013 11:25:54 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Cliffisher
Champion Author Wisconsin

Posts:30,509
Points:3,770,225
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 11:16:40 AM

Gocat, one of my favorite Winter fishing spots is Columbia Lake in Portage, Wi.

20 degree Winter weather and 50 to 80 degree water. We had to carry our boats into the launch area and the area for the power plant intake is off limits.

Huge bass have been caught in that lake.
In my younger days we always had a New Years Day tournament on the lake.
.

[Edited by: Cliffisher at 2/4/2013 11:17:17 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Cliffisher
Champion Author Wisconsin

Posts:30,509
Points:3,770,225
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 11:10:43 AM

I remember people posting back in the 2003-2004 time frame that all of the forest fires were the fault of the Democrats and that the control of the forests should be given to the lumber companies.
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,182
Points:3,177,110
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 10:57:47 AM

Johnny, "rain water is just that" the exception is Acid Rain.

oil, "they need to balance enviornmental protection with technology..." and that same message is valid for Corporate America. The problem is the cost. I worked at a coal burning power plant in the 1970s that was shut down because the company did not want to spend the money for new equipment. Not long after the plant was bulldozed they realized they made a mistake. The mistake was about 100 megawatts of power from coal fired boilers that was lost. The plant was one the oldest in the company. The site is now a Park.

It is because of the Epa that Corporate America has cleaned its act up. Most modern industrial sites work hard to be clean enviornment show places. My own plant I retired from had one of the best fishing spots in the county. As an employee and fisherman I had no problem eating the fish from the surrounding waters that discharged from the plant.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,207
Points:3,080,645
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Feb 4, 2013 10:56:01 AM

I dunno fly, but I always wondered why naturally occurring forests were included under the jurisdiction of "agriculture" anyway. The Dept. of Interior can handle them, although the Bureau of Land Management could use some reorganization.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,464
Points:1,557,720
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 11:23:03 PM

I75 - what will you do with the millions of acres of National Forest land presently 'managed' by the USFS?
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:74,207
Points:3,080,645
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 11:21:19 PM

You can also scratch the FDA, heck make it the entire Dept of Agriculture.

Dept. of Education - hit the bricks.

Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae - should be disbanded.

The FCC and the Dept. of Commerce have largely outlived their usefulness. Why keep them?

The NLRB has made itself a national laughingstock. Obama helped.

And that Raisin Advisory Committee.......ridiculous!

Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,311
Points:2,356,185
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 5:50:27 PM

Is there a thread for those of us that want the EPA, but do not want an EPA that is overbearing, top heavy, and irrational? Kind of like what the EPA used to be, a branch of enforcement, not an additional legislative branch nor an arm of the executive branch.
Profile Pic
e_jeepin
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:4,800
Points:140,690
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 5:42:30 PM

More garbage from the "Republicans want dirty air" crowd.

No, we want the cleanest air we can get that doesn't put us all out of work. Sensible regulation not half baked ideology lacking facts!

For example, The EPA ram rods gasoline highly diluted with ethanol -- Feel good policy lacking common sense

Who cares that it shortens your engine's life
Who cares that you get less MPG
Who cares that it drives up corn and food prices

China took the reverse approach. "Pollute all you want, we have the World's jobs!"

They cut everyone's throats, including their own.

If the US had sensible regulation, less jobs would flee to polluted China.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,325
Points:325,385
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 3:57:33 PM

"Do we want groups like the Sierra Club or Green Peace pushing things with no legal recourse? "

As opposed to having groups of which you approve pushing things with no legal recourse.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,718
Points:333,350
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 3:06:09 PM

We wish the EPA did not go off the deep end.
They need to balance environmental protection with technology, science and economics.
They cant just go demand we use technology that does not exist or base policy on what if speculation.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,699
Points:1,282,950
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 2:58:36 PM

Gocatgo “”No one in their right mind should expect polluters to police themselves.””

You are correct Gocatgo, but at the same time we can’t give a government agency that have sympathies with groups like the Sierra Club absolute power. That is what the EPA wants. The EPA fought to prevent individuals from having the right to take the EPA to court. The EPA has even gone so far as to try to call Co2 and rain water pollutants. Rain water is just that rain water, it’s not a pollutant. Co2 is used by every plant on the earth and produced by every living animal. While the effects of both can be discussed neither is a pollutant or a poison.

Do we want groups like the Sierra Club or Green Peace pushing things with no legal recourse?
Profile Pic
LTVibe
Champion Author Orlando

Posts:6,701
Points:523,620
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 2:48:11 PM

gocatgo: "When the choice was clean air and water or profit, Corporate America chose pollution."

Yes, indeed! Even liberal corporate board members like Al Gore choose profit over the environment:

Chinese environmental groups accused Apple Inc. of turning a blind eye as its suppliers pollute the country

Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,560
Points:3,488,120
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 1:45:34 PM

Flyboy - 1000 pardons, please. I thought USFS was part of DoI, not DoA? Thank you for clarifying the point.

Gocatgo - I would tell you that there were many companies, most, in fact, who realized that fouling rivers and creeks was bad business. Eastman-Kodak and 3M were large examples of companies that have always respected the environment and did dispose of their waste properly. Union Carbide was, at one time, and example of a company that was not a responsible steward of the environment. But then again, there are plenty of "superfund" sites that were and ARE owned by the US Government themselves. There's a whole bunch of them in and around Knoxville and Oak Ridge, TN, in fact. Look it up if you don't believe me.

But I also agree that the creation of the EPA was a good thing. No question. It's what it's become and that the laws don't often take science into account that I have a problem with. Here's an example for you - look at the allowable exposure to ethylene glycol monomethylether. Then look up ethylene gycol monomethyletherACETATE. Note that the latter is 1/10 that of the former, even though since it's a bigger, heavier molecule, it doesn't evaporate as quickly. The reason why, is that the reviewer was pregnant at the time. The acetate ester isn't necessarily any more toxic than the glycol ether solvent it is derived from. Less so, in fact. It wasn't science that played into this decision - it was emotion.
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,182
Points:3,177,110
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 1:21:14 PM

No one in their right mind should expect polluters to police themselves. When the choice was clean air and water or profit, Corporate America chose pollution. That is why we have the Epa in the first place. Thank you Richard Nixon.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,699
Points:1,282,950
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 12:54:50 PM

Mud<<The EPAs true purpose is to assist in putting government in charge of everything by making regulations under the cover of protecting the environment, that could never make it through Congress as laws. I'd rather see no EPA than the one we have now because liberals with that kind of power are a far greater threat to our existence than pollution.>>

SGM4law “”That's just sad that you feel that way.”””

What’s sad is that Mud is correct. As proof I give you.

I'm back now and here is more proof the EPA is out of control and thinks is is a law into it's self.

How often has the Supreme Court of the United States decided anything unanimously?
With a court as divided as this one is, you have to be completely in the wrong to get a smack down from all nine of these ideally opposed justices. I guess only an out of control agency with the funding of the tax payers would spend the money to go to the Supreme Court with a case that is this weak.
-
EPA Loses Major Supreme Court Decision on Wetland Enforcement
-
The EPA has tried to impose fines on the fuel industry for not using technology that doesn’t even exist. Once again the court, this time a district court, ruled that the EPA had gone too far.
-
the judges scolded in their ruling, in which they found the EPA’s pressure on refiners was an overreach of authority.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,699
Points:1,282,950
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 9:07:14 AM

Mud<<The EPAs true purpose is to assist in putting government in charge of everything by making regulations under the cover of protecting the environment, that could never make it through Congress as laws. I'd rather see no EPA than the one we have now because liberals with that kind of power are a far greater threat to our existence than pollution.>>

SGM4law “”That's just sad that you feel that way.”””

What’s sad is that Mud is correct. As proof I give you.
-
[L=http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/mobile/article/text deleted Court Throws Out New EPA Rules on Coal-Plant Emissions for Eastern States[/L]
-
Federal court has to tell EPA rain water is not a pollutant covered by the clean water act.
-
I will find more as I have the time
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,699
Points:1,282,950
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 8:54:40 AM

Mud<<The EPAs true purpose is to assist in putting government in charge of everything by making regulations under the cover of protecting the environment, that could never make it through Congress as laws. I'd rather see no EPA than the one we have now because liberals with that kind of power are a far greater threat to our existence than pollution.>>

SGM4law “”That's just sad that you feel that way.”””

What’s sad is that Mud is correct. As proof I give you.
-
Profile Pic
LTVibe
Champion Author Orlando

Posts:6,701
Points:523,620
Joined:Mar 2010
Message Posted: Feb 3, 2013 8:00:02 AM

>>"If the far right was in charge, this is what our country would look like."<<

The far right? Yet the link posted takes us to a picture taken in Communist China. Aren't Communists considered far left?

And that other far left Socialist paradise, the Soviet Union, had an environmental record every bit as abysmal and pathetic as China.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,464
Points:1,557,720
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 10:34:15 PM

AC ---- You go wash your mouth out with fells Naptha soap. The Dept of the Interior indeed!!!!!

Ok teasing off ---

I was a Silviculturist (a Forester who specializes in managing vegetation) for the US Forest Service. The USFS is in the Dept. of Agriculture. The difference may seem subtle but its not as the laws which govern teh missions of each agency are quite a bit different.

Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,560
Points:3,488,120
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 8:32:00 PM

Cliffsher said: "I returned to the same route on a family vacation in 1978.
It was astounding to see how much worse it had become.
All we could see was an orange haze."

--Again, was that due to EPA, to SCAQMD, or due to CARB (California Air Resources Board - who regulate tailpipe emissions, or try to..)? You seem to think EPA is the be all and end all of environmental regulations. OK, if that's the case, then why, since Louisville KY has the same federal regulations, do they have ozone problems? Answer me that one..

Hiram - exactly correct that the EPA was signed into law under President Nixon. A whole lot of lefties seem to forget that minor point. No, the Reps are not anti-environment, not at all. They are simply pro-business (or rather anti-regulation) when the laws/rules proposed are dubious as to their actual effect. I think you ought to acknowledge that point. Often the Dems propose unworkable legislation.

sgm - remember Flyboy used to work for the Dept of the Interior. Unless you are an attorney for EPA, I think he's got the better of you on this argument, including the ethanol mandate fines. Yes, it's impossible to comply with the law at this point.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,464
Points:1,557,720
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 6:54:32 PM

Sure would to see the exhaustive analysis they did on this decision
.
>>>Never mind that a federal appeals court just ruled that the Obama administration is setting impossibly high production goals for cellulosic biofuels production. The Environmental Protection Agency just ramped up the standards even higher, from 8.7 million gallon mandates for 2012 to 14 million gallons by the end of this year.

To put into perspective: In 2012, production of cellulosic biofuel was near zero, according to the Associated Press.

Industry insiders are astonished at the White House’s standards, which they see as a subtle brush-off of the court’s decision. Just last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia threw out the 2012 alternative fuels mandate, characterizing it as a wish more than a realistic goal.

“The court recognized the absurdity of fining companies for failing to use a nonexistent biofuel,” said Bob Greco, with American Petroleum Institute, in the Associated Press report.

The White House views cellulosic biofuels as a crucial development in the fight to lower greenhouse gas emission levels, the Associated Press says.<<<

Yep just fine them evil oil companies if they dont use enough 'unobtanium' to meet your rules........
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,464
Points:1,557,720
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 6:10:38 PM

You are entitled to your opinion SGM. The analysis they do is interesting at best.

Things like allowing windmill companies to kill literally thousands of endangered birds every year but not allowing forest management on private lands because of a bird that is not harmed by good land management. The bird is being harmed by the invasion of another protected bird though.

What is the analysis on the effects of using 50% of our corn crop to make fuel? Does it have any effects on world food supply? What effect does the increase of corn production to meet the standards to burn ethanol for fuel have on the Gulf of Mexico 'dead zone'? Does restricting the production of oil and gas within sight of a National Park boundary equal the value of all the costs of corn fuel?

Go ahead - try to tell me all the decisions of the EPA are analyzed much at all. Remember these are the same people who said that logging spread over space and time in 40 acre blocks is unacceptable and must stop to protect streams and wildlife habitat. When professional foresters said that the result in 30-50 years would be massive fires that would burn hundreds of thousands of acres instead of small patch cuts we were told to go away. The 'analysis of the EPA' was right and we didn't know what we were talking about and were just in the bag of industry. SGM - ever been on a fire team in these fire situations? Ever seen a hundred thousand acres black and smoking? Ever worked for years to replant a burn one tenth the size of the current ones?

Yes the EPA has done a lot of good without a doubt!

But there comes a point of diminishing returns and sometimes they just don't care for what the near term consequences are nor the unintended consequences of their decisions.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,316
Points:3,024,070
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 5:31:06 PM

<<SGM the problem folks have with the present EPA is that they rarely if ever look at things like cost benefit or unintended consequences of their edicts.>>

That's just not true. The cost-benefit analysis is one of the major types of analysis of proposed regs, as well as BAT-type rules for more critical items. They wrangle over that stuff all the time. Lobbyists and litigators for companies doing environmental damage can and do slow everything down to a crawl by making the right noises at the regulators.
Profile Pic
Hiram 615
Champion Author Pittsburgh

Posts:23,963
Points:3,072,710
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 4:21:32 PM

mudtoe - "I'd rather see no EPA than the one we have now because liberals with that kind of power are a far greater threat to our existence than pollution."


Thank that Liberal, Richard Nixon
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,464
Points:1,557,720
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 4:04:47 PM

SGM the problem folks have with the present EPA is that they rarely if ever look at things like cost benefit or unintended consequences of their edicts.

Its things like the ethanol mandate - you know to use more cellulosic ethanol or pay a fine. But the process does not exist to product the alcohol needed so the fule producers cannot comply with the rule - so the EPA will fine them because teh refuse to follow a rule that is physically impossible to follow.

They are also demanding that we use ever more of our corn crop to make fule but have they analyzed the effects on the rest of the worlds food supply if about 50% of the entire US corn crop goes to make fuel. At the same time they mandate this they want to shut down adn restrict producing oil and natural gas fuels.

Do they care what the effects are of what they are mandating? Are there any controls on what they do?

Nobody likes to harm the environment but we should ask at what point do we reach ever smaller gains at the cost of ever more undesirable impacts.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,316
Points:3,024,070
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 3:54:19 PM

<<The EPAs true purpose is to assist in putting government in charge of everything by making regulations under the cover of protecting the environment, that could never make it through Congress as laws. I'd rather see no EPA than the one we have now because liberals with that kind of power are a far greater threat to our existence than pollution.>>

That's just sad that you feel that way.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,316
Points:3,024,070
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 3:53:21 PM

I was reading a paper by a Chinese environmental legal scholar yesterday, about the structure of their carbon emissions controls. They have such a different governance system it's hard to compare to ours.

They are trying to implement change on the national level but there are many economic pressures at the local level to not comply with environmental dictates.
Profile Pic
Cliffisher
Champion Author Wisconsin

Posts:30,509
Points:3,770,225
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 12:29:48 PM

Back in 1966 I was stationed at the Barstow Marine Base.
On my off weekends I would travel to my brothers house in Norwalk.
At one point, as you drive off of the high desert by Big Bear Mtn., you can see the valley that contains Los Angles.
There was smog but you could still see a good part of the valley.

I returned to the same route on a family vacation in 1978.
It was astounding to see how much worse it had become.
All we could see was an orange haze.

Without the present EPA rules and regulations, the valley would look like that area in China.



[Edited by: Cliffisher at 2/2/2013 12:30:49 PM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,051
Points:1,914,260
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 12:05:36 PM

The EPAs true purpose is to assist in putting government in charge of everything by making regulations under the cover of protecting the environment, that could never make it through Congress as laws. I'd rather see no EPA than the one we have now because liberals with that kind of power are a far greater threat to our existence than pollution.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,464
Points:1,557,720
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 11:57:50 AM

AC - you are absolutely right in the last paragraph. Reason and logic often mean nothing to these zealots.

Reminds me of when I used to be an inspector on logging operations on the National Forests. The tree huggers demanded that the loggers not put anything in the streams at all. The then started to demand that they remove the dead trees and branches that had naturally fallen in the streams too. The tree hugger reason was that the decaying organic matter would use up the oxygen in the water and harm the fish and insects. The loggers objected because they didn't put them in there but no matter. Of course a couple of years later the other bunch of tree huggers use taxpayer dollars to place logs and stuff in the streams to provide eddies and resting places for fish and to provide habitat for insects. I also could go on and on about the dumb things enviros have done. Like shooting golden eagles to stop them from eating Peregrine Falcon young. Or foisting windmills on us the slaughter endangered birds and bats in the name of green energy.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,560
Points:3,488,120
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 11:41:28 AM

Now, I'm more of an environmental supporter than many here might guess. In fact, I made it a point when I was a teacher in grad school, to let my undergrad students know that if I caught them pouring waste chemicals down the drains in labs, they WOULD fail my class.

But I've seen both sides of it. I've seen government idiots (I'll reserve stronger language) make laws based on pure emotion, and not on scientific fact. I've seen the EPA do the same thing. Example - there's a town in Colorado that has a fairly high concentration of lead in the soil in that area. So the EPA wants to move the town, even though the residents test as having "normal" levels of lead in their blood. The residents don't want to go, and there appears to be no danger, except in the minds of the EPA regulators. The residents would rather have the road leading to their isolated town re-built to be a bit safer. That's more of a hazard than the lead!

Here in LaLa land, we have a regulatory agency called the South Coast Air Quality Management District. "AQMD" is not really regulated by anybody, they have all APPOINTED officials, and they can make any "rule" they want to. All they have to do is put it out for public commentary for 90 days, and they do not have to take into account the public's input. An example of AQMD's idiocy - I am FORBIDDEN to use isopropyl rubbing alcohol as a cleaning solvent in any quantity. 1 drop is breaking the law - one gallon is also breaking the law. Hmmm... but as a private individual, I can go to Walgreen's or Home Depot, and buy all the IPA I want to, and use it every day. We had a computer program that was put out by AQMD to track the amount of lead that's used at our factory. That computer program had a known error in it. Well, the numbers that come out of that program's calculations are public knowledge. Some enviro-guerilla group threatened to sue our company for putting out too much lead (based on the error in the program, the amount was inflated by like 1000x). We basically showed them the corrected calculation, told them to bring on the lawsuit and that we would vigorously defend ourselves, and that, no, we wouldn't settle out of court with them at any price, not even for one dollar. Never heard from those fools ever again.

I'm all for SENSIBLE environmental regulations. Obviously we need to have laws that say "you can't dump mercury into rivers" or that you have to use dust filters in a lime-slaking - concrete factory. (3 concrete factories could make all of NYC or LA or Chicago a very dusty place if it weren't for capture filters). I get that. And neither do we want to poison people - I get that, too. But the problem is that 1) the laws don't respect quantities used. 2) The laws don't take into account cost/benefit analysis, in general 3) the laws don't take into account the cost of compliance and enforcement (neither in terms of $$ nor environmental damage) and 4) the laws often don't take into account scientific fact nor are based on data collected.

If you want some additional examples, let me know and I'll show you what I mean. I've already used too many megabits here.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,464
Points:1,557,720
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 11:06:20 AM

This is what the tree huggers say they want life to be...
.
.
But this is what happens when they implement their policies
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,325
Points:325,385
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Feb 2, 2013 8:58:20 AM

It's a money-grubber's dream come true... sales of air filters on the rise... they're even selling cans of fresh air.
Post a reply Back to Topics