An open challenge to anyone who supports government regulations.

[Quantum Windbag]

You struck out on this one. If you look through the law, you'll see Congress gave the EPA wide authority in defining air pollutants and the court agreed. Pollutants are not limited to just suspended matter. In a 5-4 decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court held that “greenhouse gases fit well within the Act’s capacious definition of ‘air pollutant’. The Act defines "air pollutant" as "any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air".

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title42/pdf/USCODE-2008-title42-chap85.pdf

Does that make oxygen and nitrogen pollutants, or does it mean you don't fracking know what you are talking about?

Even if we define normal atmospheric gases as pollution, the process did not work the way you described because the EPA specifically decided that there was no need to regulate tailpipe emissions that included them. That makes your description of the process wrong.

I was not suggesting that the federal government had that authority. I was trying to illustrate that when a law is passed, regulations may be required because there're isn't enough detail for implementation.

Regulations might be required because Congress doesn't actually do its job?

Some regulations such as those protecting endangered species may not be in the best interest of businesses and their customers because the purpose of the regulation and underlying law are to preservation wildlife for the benefit of current and future generations. Regulations that limit hazardous material dumping and preservation of natural resources, transportation of hazardous materials, and use of airspace are there to protect the public, not to increase corporate profits.

Funny, the Sierra Club is a corporation that makes a lot of money off of the Endangered Species Act, and there are corporations that make millions off of dealing with hazardous waste. Just because laws do not benefit the corporation you are looking at does not mean that it doesn't benefit a corporation.

However, that is certainly not the case with all regulations. Brokerage and bank customers would certainly not be better off without the SEC, bank reserve requirements, and mandated audits; restaurant customers are better off with health dept. regulations; operation of nuclear power plants without any regulation or oversight would unthinkable. I could go on, but...

Wanna bet on the SEC and how it makes things better for customers?

Whether they were meant to or not, they do. Prosecutors certainly use regulations to prosecute violators as they should. However, those same regulations provide protection for companies that follow the law.

I will give you a chance to do a little research and retract this statement.

My point is that there's a lot of objections to regulations that do not exist. Because the regulatory authority publishes a set of recommendations and guidelines does not mean it's a regulation.

Don't tell those prosecutors you just said should use regulations to prosecute people that.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Court found that greenhouse gases fall under the legislative definition of air pollutant (which does not mention particulates) and thus the EPA is required to promulgate regulations on them.

The term ‘‘air pollutant’’ means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ is used.​

Read a fucking primary source once in a while. Your carefully chosen example proves Flopper's point.

Funny, nothing there includes naturally occurring gases, which might explain why the court actually ordered the EPA to make an offical detiremination about greenhouse gases and tailpipe emissions under the theory that Congress actually gave them the authority to regulate the world's climate. As I pointed out, Congress has since said they specifically did not authorize that, and several states have filed suit challenging those regulations.

Nonetheless, it actually proves my point, not Flopper's, because the EPA read the law and determined that regulating greenhouses gases from tailpipes would not work, and that they law did not cover it. The court took an activist approach and created new law. It had nothing to do with Congress.

That was the EPA under Bush who didn't think pollution was harming the environment.
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."

Carbon dioxide is not pollution, and they never said it was not harming the environment. By the way, the request was filed when Clinton was president, and no one has ever even hinted any sort of political manipulation by the Bush administration vis a vis the decision. The only part Bush was responsible for was saying that they would not do it even if they could. Thanks for once again making a legal issue into a political one.

 

[Annie]

Well... I'll play.

Sticking to cars... how about crumple zones, or perhaps crash test standards in general?

I've got to say, that in the past 10 years, I've had two cars involved in accidents that I think prior to 1998 or so, would have resulted in deaths. Seriously, I don't think in either case it was regulations from government that caused the engineering, but I'm thankful the engineering was there.

#1: Driving my 1999 LeBaron Convertible on tollway, 80 mph with top down. I'm in the right lane, slowing down, getting ready to exit. Center lane car, suddenly veers right and clips my driver's side right front fender. My car spins, eventually hitting a guard rail. The car that hit me, is hit by another.

My 15 year old son has jumped out of my car, freaking. I get him back in, ambulances already on the way.

My car had $8k in damage, near total, not quite. Neither my son nor myself hurt in any way.

The kid that hit us, he was reaching for a candy bar in a bag, on front passenger side floor. He lost one of his eyes, due to air bag flinging a finger into the eyeball. I found that out about 4 days after the accident, when he called from hospital to see how we were doing. I felt terrible, he was 20. He kept crying about how he could have killed us. Bottom line, both of our cars protected the occupants in ways not seen before certainly late 1980's. Both of our cars were doing 80 or close to. His car was hit twice!

More recently my car, 2004, driven by my son was hit from the rear by SUV going over 50mph. My car was at standstill when hit. 2 passengers in front, one in rear. All windows broke. Rear end brought to near 2nd seat. No one hurt, no cuts, bruises, etc. Amazing.

 

[francoHFW]

Fracking and off shore drilling are safer now. TY Obama. etc etc

 

[Annie]

Fracking and off shore drilling are safer now. TY Obama. etc etc

Post the links for each to prove your assertion.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The reduction in blood lead levels decreased dramatically after government required catalytic converters in all new cars. Since leaded fuel destroys catalytic converters, this requirement essentially began a phase out of leaded fuel, and the resulting decrease in blood lead levels of the average population is without a doubt a good thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

QWB has a fail in this thread.

Government has a role to play in our lives.

Whether the role is beneficial or hurtful depends on the level of electoral vigilance.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Fracking and off shore drilling are safer now. TY Obama. etc etc

Post the links for each to prove your assertion.

Why would he do that? You nutjobs don't accept facts. You demand proof on a regular basis....but never concede the point once proof is provided. Really.......you fuckers never concede a fucking point.

 

[Flopper]

Does that make oxygen and nitrogen pollutants, or does it mean you don't fracking know what you are talking about?

Even if we define normal atmospheric gases as pollution, the process did not work the way you described because the EPA specifically decided that there was no need to regulate tailpipe emissions that included them. That makes your description of the process wrong.

According to the law, any substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air can be considered a pollutant if it damages the environmental. It could be any naturally occurring substance such as oxygen or nitrogen or any of trace substances such as hydrogen, carbon monoxide, neon, or helium.

In regard to CO2 emissions, the EPA has the option but not the obligation to regulate CO2 tailpipe emissions. It's a judgement call by EPA. The law gives them that option.

Wanna bet on the SEC and how it makes things better for customers?

What a dumb comment
Next you'll be claiming public disclosure is of no benefit to investors and insider trading benefits small investors

 

[JakeStarkey]

Worth repeating.

QWB has a fail in this thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The reduction in blood lead levels decreased dramatically after government required catalytic converters in all new cars. Since leaded fuel destroys catalytic converters, this requirement essentially began a phase out of leaded fuel, and the resulting decrease in blood lead levels of the average population is without a doubt a good thing.

Damn, one of the dumbest posters on the board makes the best argument for his position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

According to the law, any substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air can be considered a pollutant if it damages the environmental. It could be any naturally occurring substance such as oxygen or nitrogen or any of trace substances such as hydrogen, carbon monoxide, neon, or helium.

Air is pollution now. Glad we settled just how stupid you are. Should we also regulate the amount of hydrogen dioxide in water?

In regard to CO2 emissions, the EPA has the option but not the obligation to regulate CO2 tailpipe emissions. It's a judgement call by EPA. The law gives them that option.

Actually, the law does not give them the option, a fact which the EPA made clear in its initial ruling on the subject.

What a dumb comment
Next you'll be claiming public disclosure is of no benefit to investors and insider trading benefits small investors

Is that a no?

 

[JakeStarkey]

QWB has repeatedly ignored many examples of good government regulations saving lives.

His OP is fail.

 

[Flopper]

Air is pollution now. Glad we settled just how stupid you are. Should we also regulate the amount of hydrogen dioxide in water?

If Oxygen, Nitrogen or trace elements are introduced into the air at high levels, they can be very harmful and would certainly be classified as a pollutant at that level.

Actually, the law does not give them the option, a fact which the EPA made clear in its initial ruling on the subject.

Of course, it was an EPA under the control of Republicans.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If Oxygen, Nitrogen or trace elements are introduced into the air at high levels, they can be very harmful and would certainly be classified as a pollutant at that level.

Nitrogen makes up almost 80% of the atmosphere, is chemically inert under normal conditions, and does not contribute to global warming. What, exactly, is it we are supposed to be worried about?

Of course, it was an EPA under the control of Republicans.

The finding would have been the same if Gore had won the election because the law clearly does not apply to ambient air itself, which is why only a scientific ignoramus would try to argue it applied to nitrogen like you are doing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fail.