Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have helped write environmental impact statements, and they have bulked up to the point of being useless. They are filled with standard reviews with standard results, and make projects take way too much time to get off the ground.
And larger ships are more efficient usually, meaning for a given amount of cargo you need less ships, plus more room usually equals less waiting for space to traverse a location, thus less ship idling.
Environmental Impact statements were not supposed to be catch alls, they were supposed to look at direct impacts. BANANA's such as yourself use them to STOP progress, not regulate it.
No doubt YOUR environmental impact statements have been useless. Larger ships are not necessarily more efficient, and are with a doubt more destructive if a spill occurs.
YOU are the type of person that stops anything from getting done.
And my work is fine, its uneducated obstructionists such as yourself that think the goal of an EIS is to prevent work from happening, not to make sure it's done right.
I am the type of person who wants to ensure that projects are done right.
By not being done at all. You don't need a 5000 page EIS that goes into impacts on existing historical structures (when none are actually impacted) to raise a freaking bridge.
It is clear that you don't know what you are talking about. The Louisville East End Bridge across the Ohio River being built today was going to impact historical structures, and they had to place part of the expressway leading up to it inside a tunnel to mitigate impacts to those historical properties.
hahahahahahhahahahaha, how? YOu can't prove what that picture is.excuse my nudge, but, he stated the picture. Can you validate that the picture is of pollution? It's all he said. Now you took that to environment. Is he wrong then?Nough said...
The photograph means nothing, and you know it. For all we know that can be fog at dusk or dawn.
Fluff, nothing but.
You would have to have been born after the 1970s, or else be willfully ignorant not to know how bad the pollution was back then. Take your pick.
Yes.
No doubt YOUR environmental impact statements have been useless. Larger ships are not necessarily more efficient, and are with a doubt more destructive if a spill occurs.
YOU are the type of person that stops anything from getting done.
And my work is fine, its uneducated obstructionists such as yourself that think the goal of an EIS is to prevent work from happening, not to make sure it's done right.
I am the type of person who wants to ensure that projects are done right.
By not being done at all. You don't need a 5000 page EIS that goes into impacts on existing historical structures (when none are actually impacted) to raise a freaking bridge.
It is clear that you don't know what you are talking about. The Louisville East End Bridge across the Ohio River being built today was going to impact historical structures, and they had to place part of the expressway leading up to it inside a tunnel to mitigate impacts to those historical properties.
The article I listed gave a specific case of the bayonne bridge, not the bridge you referenced. But according to your "logic" if its needed for one bridge, its needed for all bridges. Again, THAT is the problem I am talking about, and THAT is what creates a 5000 page EIS.
YOU are the type of person that stops anything from getting done.
And my work is fine, its uneducated obstructionists such as yourself that think the goal of an EIS is to prevent work from happening, not to make sure it's done right.
I am the type of person who wants to ensure that projects are done right.
By not being done at all. You don't need a 5000 page EIS that goes into impacts on existing historical structures (when none are actually impacted) to raise a freaking bridge.
It is clear that you don't know what you are talking about. The Louisville East End Bridge across the Ohio River being built today was going to impact historical structures, and they had to place part of the expressway leading up to it inside a tunnel to mitigate impacts to those historical properties.
The article I listed gave a specific case of the bayonne bridge, not the bridge you referenced. But according to your "logic" if its needed for one bridge, its needed for all bridges. Again, THAT is the problem I am talking about, and THAT is what creates a 5000 page EIS.
That is correct. Every such project with the potential to significantly impact the environment is required to submit an environmental impact statement. This is a long established SOP, one that isn't going to change any time soon. Get over it.
I am the type of person who wants to ensure that projects are done right.
By not being done at all. You don't need a 5000 page EIS that goes into impacts on existing historical structures (when none are actually impacted) to raise a freaking bridge.
It is clear that you don't know what you are talking about. The Louisville East End Bridge across the Ohio River being built today was going to impact historical structures, and they had to place part of the expressway leading up to it inside a tunnel to mitigate impacts to those historical properties.
The article I listed gave a specific case of the bayonne bridge, not the bridge you referenced. But according to your "logic" if its needed for one bridge, its needed for all bridges. Again, THAT is the problem I am talking about, and THAT is what creates a 5000 page EIS.
That is correct. Every such project with the potential to significantly impact the environment is required to submit an environmental impact statement. This is a long established SOP, one that isn't going to change any time soon. Get over it.
it isnt a question of submitting one, its a question of them becoming ways to STOP a project instead of approving one. There is no need for 5000 page EIS's unless your only goal is to prevent progress.
well let me put it this way, in a court of law it would not be allowed because sir there is no way to prove it.hahahahahahhahahahaha, how? YOu can't prove what that picture is.excuse my nudge, but, he stated the picture. Can you validate that the picture is of pollution? It's all he said. Now you took that to environment. Is he wrong then?The photograph means nothing, and you know it. For all we know that can be fog at dusk or dawn.
Fluff, nothing but.
You would have to have been born after the 1970s, or else be willfully ignorant not to know how bad the pollution was back then. Take your pick.
Yes.
Sure I can.
By not being done at all. You don't need a 5000 page EIS that goes into impacts on existing historical structures (when none are actually impacted) to raise a freaking bridge.
It is clear that you don't know what you are talking about. The Louisville East End Bridge across the Ohio River being built today was going to impact historical structures, and they had to place part of the expressway leading up to it inside a tunnel to mitigate impacts to those historical properties.
The article I listed gave a specific case of the bayonne bridge, not the bridge you referenced. But according to your "logic" if its needed for one bridge, its needed for all bridges. Again, THAT is the problem I am talking about, and THAT is what creates a 5000 page EIS.
That is correct. Every such project with the potential to significantly impact the environment is required to submit an environmental impact statement. This is a long established SOP, one that isn't going to change any time soon. Get over it.
it isnt a question of submitting one, its a question of them becoming ways to STOP a project instead of approving one. There is no need for 5000 page EIS's unless your only goal is to prevent progress.
Regulations are necessary because of human nature. It's a heck of a lot more profitable to dumb stuff in a river than to properly dispose of it. That's simply one example, noted for those unable to extrapolate.
I am the type of person who wants to ensure that projects are done right.
By not being done at all. You don't need a 5000 page EIS that goes into impacts on existing historical structures (when none are actually impacted) to raise a freaking bridge.
It is clear that you don't know what you are talking about. The Louisville East End Bridge across the Ohio River being built today was going to impact historical structures, and they had to place part of the expressway leading up to it inside a tunnel to mitigate impacts to those historical properties.
The article I listed gave a specific case of the bayonne bridge, not the bridge you referenced. But according to your "logic" if its needed for one bridge, its needed for all bridges. Again, THAT is the problem I am talking about, and THAT is what creates a 5000 page EIS.
That is correct. Every such project with the potential to significantly impact the environment is required to submit an environmental impact statement. This is a long established SOP, one that isn't going to change any time soon. Get over it.
it isnt a question of submitting one, its a question of them becoming ways to STOP a project instead of approving one. There is no need for 5000 page EIS's unless your only goal is to prevent progress.
well let me put it this way, in a court of law it would not be allowed because sir there is no way to prove it.hahahahahahhahahahaha, how? YOu can't prove what that picture is.excuse my nudge, but, he stated the picture. Can you validate that the picture is of pollution? It's all he said. Now you took that to environment. Is he wrong then?You would have to have been born after the 1970s, or else be willfully ignorant not to know how bad the pollution was back then. Take your pick.
Yes.
Sure I can.
It is clear that you don't know what you are talking about. The Louisville East End Bridge across the Ohio River being built today was going to impact historical structures, and they had to place part of the expressway leading up to it inside a tunnel to mitigate impacts to those historical properties.
The article I listed gave a specific case of the bayonne bridge, not the bridge you referenced. But according to your "logic" if its needed for one bridge, its needed for all bridges. Again, THAT is the problem I am talking about, and THAT is what creates a 5000 page EIS.
That is correct. Every such project with the potential to significantly impact the environment is required to submit an environmental impact statement. This is a long established SOP, one that isn't going to change any time soon. Get over it.
it isnt a question of submitting one, its a question of them becoming ways to STOP a project instead of approving one. There is no need for 5000 page EIS's unless your only goal is to prevent progress.
Regulations are necessary because of human nature. It's a heck of a lot more profitable to dumb stuff in a river than to properly dispose of it. That's simply one example, noted for those unable to extrapolate.
No one is arguing over regulation, its over-regulation that is the problem. When you have to go to 25 agencies to get a bridge raised, and create a 5000 page document to do it, there is a problem.
right!!!!!well let me put it this way, in a court of law it would not be allowed because sir there is no way to prove it.hahahahahahhahahahaha, how? YOu can't prove what that picture is.excuse my nudge, but, he stated the picture. Can you validate that the picture is of pollution? It's all he said. Now you took that to environment. Is he wrong then?
Yes.
Sure I can.
That's not true.
By not being done at all. You don't need a 5000 page EIS that goes into impacts on existing historical structures (when none are actually impacted) to raise a freaking bridge.
It is clear that you don't know what you are talking about. The Louisville East End Bridge across the Ohio River being built today was going to impact historical structures, and they had to place part of the expressway leading up to it inside a tunnel to mitigate impacts to those historical properties.
The article I listed gave a specific case of the bayonne bridge, not the bridge you referenced. But according to your "logic" if its needed for one bridge, its needed for all bridges. Again, THAT is the problem I am talking about, and THAT is what creates a 5000 page EIS.
That is correct. Every such project with the potential to significantly impact the environment is required to submit an environmental impact statement. This is a long established SOP, one that isn't going to change any time soon. Get over it.
it isnt a question of submitting one, its a question of them becoming ways to STOP a project instead of approving one. There is no need for 5000 page EIS's unless your only goal is to prevent progress.
All projects stand or fall on their own merit. If an environmental impact statement indicates a project is a bad idea, it's a friggin bad idea. Deal with it. The days of rampant development, damn the costs, are over.
The article I listed gave a specific case of the bayonne bridge, not the bridge you referenced. But according to your "logic" if its needed for one bridge, its needed for all bridges. Again, THAT is the problem I am talking about, and THAT is what creates a 5000 page EIS.
That is correct. Every such project with the potential to significantly impact the environment is required to submit an environmental impact statement. This is a long established SOP, one that isn't going to change any time soon. Get over it.
it isnt a question of submitting one, its a question of them becoming ways to STOP a project instead of approving one. There is no need for 5000 page EIS's unless your only goal is to prevent progress.
Regulations are necessary because of human nature. It's a heck of a lot more profitable to dumb stuff in a river than to properly dispose of it. That's simply one example, noted for those unable to extrapolate.
No one is arguing over regulation, its over-regulation that is the problem. When you have to go to 25 agencies to get a bridge raised, and create a 5000 page document to do it, there is a problem.
We are still waiting for statutory examples of over-regulation. Cite a specific regulation as an example.
It is clear that you don't know what you are talking about. The Louisville East End Bridge across the Ohio River being built today was going to impact historical structures, and they had to place part of the expressway leading up to it inside a tunnel to mitigate impacts to those historical properties.
The article I listed gave a specific case of the bayonne bridge, not the bridge you referenced. But according to your "logic" if its needed for one bridge, its needed for all bridges. Again, THAT is the problem I am talking about, and THAT is what creates a 5000 page EIS.
That is correct. Every such project with the potential to significantly impact the environment is required to submit an environmental impact statement. This is a long established SOP, one that isn't going to change any time soon. Get over it.
it isnt a question of submitting one, its a question of them becoming ways to STOP a project instead of approving one. There is no need for 5000 page EIS's unless your only goal is to prevent progress.
All projects stand or fall on their own merit. If an environmental impact statement indicates a project is a bad idea, it's a friggin bad idea. Deal with it. The days of rampant development, damn the costs, are over.
Typical NIMBY twat. We aren't talking about development, we are talking about infrastructure, you know, thing that makes all you progs wet in the panties. It doesn't occur to you that to build things there will always be some negative impact, somewhere. Its why you idiots like wind and solar so much, because you think you are getting something for nothing, however that isn't the case, that is NEVER the case.
The article I listed gave a specific case of the bayonne bridge, not the bridge you referenced. But according to your "logic" if its needed for one bridge, its needed for all bridges. Again, THAT is the problem I am talking about, and THAT is what creates a 5000 page EIS.
That is correct. Every such project with the potential to significantly impact the environment is required to submit an environmental impact statement. This is a long established SOP, one that isn't going to change any time soon. Get over it.
it isnt a question of submitting one, its a question of them becoming ways to STOP a project instead of approving one. There is no need for 5000 page EIS's unless your only goal is to prevent progress.
All projects stand or fall on their own merit. If an environmental impact statement indicates a project is a bad idea, it's a friggin bad idea. Deal with it. The days of rampant development, damn the costs, are over.
Typical NIMBY twat. We aren't talking about development, we are talking about infrastructure, you know, thing that makes all you progs wet in the panties. It doesn't occur to you that to build things there will always be some negative impact, somewhere. Its why you idiots like wind and solar so much, because you think you are getting something for nothing, however that isn't the case, that is NEVER the case.
Your whining aside, my statement still stands. Deal with it or go sit at the kiddie table.
That is correct. Every such project with the potential to significantly impact the environment is required to submit an environmental impact statement. This is a long established SOP, one that isn't going to change any time soon. Get over it.
it isnt a question of submitting one, its a question of them becoming ways to STOP a project instead of approving one. There is no need for 5000 page EIS's unless your only goal is to prevent progress.
Regulations are necessary because of human nature. It's a heck of a lot more profitable to dumb stuff in a river than to properly dispose of it. That's simply one example, noted for those unable to extrapolate.
No one is arguing over regulation, its over-regulation that is the problem. When you have to go to 25 agencies to get a bridge raised, and create a 5000 page document to do it, there is a problem.
We are still waiting for statutory examples of over-regulation. Cite a specific regulation as an example.
I did, and you ignored it. Go play in traffic.
it isnt a question of submitting one, its a question of them becoming ways to STOP a project instead of approving one. There is no need for 5000 page EIS's unless your only goal is to prevent progress.
Regulations are necessary because of human nature. It's a heck of a lot more profitable to dumb stuff in a river than to properly dispose of it. That's simply one example, noted for those unable to extrapolate.
No one is arguing over regulation, its over-regulation that is the problem. When you have to go to 25 agencies to get a bridge raised, and create a 5000 page document to do it, there is a problem.
We are still waiting for statutory examples of over-regulation. Cite a specific regulation as an example.
I did, and you ignored it. Go play in traffic.
Except that it wasn't an example of overregulation. Seems you don't even know the meaning of the word. How sad for you.
Regulations are necessary because of human nature. It's a heck of a lot more profitable to dumb stuff in a river than to properly dispose of it. That's simply one example, noted for those unable to extrapolate.
No one is arguing over regulation, its over-regulation that is the problem. When you have to go to 25 agencies to get a bridge raised, and create a 5000 page document to do it, there is a problem.
We are still waiting for statutory examples of over-regulation. Cite a specific regulation as an example.
I did, and you ignored it. Go play in traffic.
Except that it wasn't an example of overregulation. Seems you don't even know the meaning of the word. How sad for you.
yes it is. Needing that many agencies to approve raising a bridge is over-regulation. You are just too dense to see it.
No one is arguing over regulation, its over-regulation that is the problem. When you have to go to 25 agencies to get a bridge raised, and create a 5000 page document to do it, there is a problem.
We are still waiting for statutory examples of over-regulation. Cite a specific regulation as an example.
I did, and you ignored it. Go play in traffic.
Except that it wasn't an example of overregulation. Seems you don't even know the meaning of the word. How sad for you.
yes it is. Needing that many agencies to approve raising a bridge is over-regulation. You are just too dense to see it.
There is only one agency that approves raising the bridge - the transportation department. And it does what the legislature (i.e., your elected representatives) says it must do. Now about those 'unnecessary regulations'...
Since then, the Port Authority’s “fast-track” approach to a project that will not alter the bridge’s footprint has generated more than 5,000 pages of federally mandated archaeological, traffic, fish habitat, soil, pollution and economic reports that have cost over $2 million. A historical survey of every building within two miles of each end of the bridge alone cost $600,000 — even though none would be affected by the project.
After four years of work, the environmental assessment was issued in May and took into consideration comments from 307 organizations or individuals. The report invoked 207 acronyms, including M.B.T.A. (Migratory Bird Treaty Act) and N.L.R. (No Longer Regulated). Fifty-five federal, state and local agencies were consulted and 47 permits were required from 19 of them. Fifty Indian tribes from as far away as Oklahoma were invited to weigh in on whether the project impinged on native ground that touches the steel-arch bridge’s foundation.
Someone has said that no regulations are necessary?Nough said...
