Are Environmental Regulations Unnecessary?

[orogenicman]

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'...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/n...-bayonne-bridge-project-is-assailed.html?_r=0

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.

And the final approval for the project - comes from the state department of transportation.

Now, about those unnecessary regulations you keep dodging...

 

[orogenicman]

Nough said...

Someone has said that no regulations are necessary?

Wow, I wonder who that was.

That isn't what the poster says. Are you having trouble reading English?

 

[martybegan]

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'...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/n...-bayonne-bridge-project-is-assailed.html?_r=0

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.

And the final approval for the project - comes from the state department of transportation.

Now, about those unnecessary regulations you keep dodging...

I just showed you them, if you refuse to admit you have been proven wrong I have no more use for you.

 

[orogenicman]

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'...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/n...-bayonne-bridge-project-is-assailed.html?_r=0

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.

And the final approval for the project - comes from the state department of transportation.

Now, about those unnecessary regulations you keep dodging...

I just showed you them, if you refuse to admit you have been proven wrong I have no more use for you.

You have listed no specific statutory regulation to which that project is subject, and how it is an example of "unnecessary environmental regulation". Do you even understand the meaning of the phrase "statutory environmental regulation"?

 

[martybegan]

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'...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/n...-bayonne-bridge-project-is-assailed.html?_r=0

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.

And the final approval for the project - comes from the state department of transportation.

Now, about those unnecessary regulations you keep dodging...

I just showed you them, if you refuse to admit you have been proven wrong I have no more use for you.

You have listed no specific statutory regulation to which that project is subject, and how it is an example of "unnecessary environmental regulation". Do you even understand the meaning of the phrase "statutory environmental regulation"?

I showed reviews they had to get for their EIS that were pointless, that they had to get 47 permits from 19 different agencies. I have shown the examples of the results of over-regulation, there is no need to digging up the actual statues.

 

[orogenicman]

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'...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/n...-bayonne-bridge-project-is-assailed.html?_r=0

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.

And the final approval for the project - comes from the state department of transportation.

Now, about those unnecessary regulations you keep dodging...

I just showed you them, if you refuse to admit you have been proven wrong I have no more use for you.

You have listed no specific statutory regulation to which that project is subject, and how it is an example of "unnecessary environmental regulation". Do you even understand the meaning of the phrase "statutory environmental regulation"?

I showed reviews they had to get for their EIS that were pointless, that they had to get 47 permits from 19 different agencies. I have shown the examples of the results of over-regulation, there is no need to digging up the actual statues.

But you didn't cite a specific statutory environmental regulation nor demonstrated how it was "unnecessary". Do you not understand the meaning of the phrase specific "statutory environmental regulation"?

 

[martybegan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/n...-bayonne-bridge-project-is-assailed.html?_r=0

And the final approval for the project - comes from the state department of transportation.

Now, about those unnecessary regulations you keep dodging...

I just showed you them, if you refuse to admit you have been proven wrong I have no more use for you.

You have listed no specific statutory regulation to which that project is subject, and how it is an example of "unnecessary environmental regulation". Do you even understand the meaning of the phrase "statutory environmental regulation"?

I showed reviews they had to get for their EIS that were pointless, that they had to get 47 permits from 19 different agencies. I have shown the examples of the results of over-regulation, there is no need to digging up the actual statues.

But you didn't cite a specific statutory environmental regulation nor demonstrated how it was "unnecessary". Do you not understand the meaning of the phrase specific "statutory environmental regulation"?

I don't have to. Some reg made them do a historic building review when no buildings were impacted, and it cost $600k and time. Obviously the reg exists because they had to follow it.

 

[orogenicman]

And the final approval for the project - comes from the state department of transportation.

Now, about those unnecessary regulations you keep dodging...

I just showed you them, if you refuse to admit you have been proven wrong I have no more use for you.

You have listed no specific statutory regulation to which that project is subject, and how it is an example of "unnecessary environmental regulation". Do you even understand the meaning of the phrase "statutory environmental regulation"?

I showed reviews they had to get for their EIS that were pointless, that they had to get 47 permits from 19 different agencies. I have shown the examples of the results of over-regulation, there is no need to digging up the actual statues.

But you didn't cite a specific statutory environmental regulation nor demonstrated how it was "unnecessary". Do you not understand the meaning of the phrase specific "statutory environmental regulation"?

I don't have to. Some reg made them do a historic building review when no buildings were impacted, and it cost $600k and time. Obviously the reg exists because they had to follow it.

Oh really? So you think you can spout any old claim with regard to "overregulation", and not actually cite the specific statutory regulation to which you are not referring, and believe that anyone is going to accept your claims as credible? That's rather naïve. Some reg? Which reg? Obviously, you have no idea.

 

[martybegan]

I just showed you them, if you refuse to admit you have been proven wrong I have no more use for you.

You have listed no specific statutory regulation to which that project is subject, and how it is an example of "unnecessary environmental regulation". Do you even understand the meaning of the phrase "statutory environmental regulation"?

I showed reviews they had to get for their EIS that were pointless, that they had to get 47 permits from 19 different agencies. I have shown the examples of the results of over-regulation, there is no need to digging up the actual statues.

But you didn't cite a specific statutory environmental regulation nor demonstrated how it was "unnecessary". Do you not understand the meaning of the phrase specific "statutory environmental regulation"?

I don't have to. Some reg made them do a historic building review when no buildings were impacted, and it cost $600k and time. Obviously the reg exists because they had to follow it.

Oh really? So you think you can spout any old claim with regard to "overregulation", and not actually cite the specific statutory regulation to which you are not referring, and believe that anyone is going to accept your claims as credible? That's rather naïve. Some reg? Which reg? Obviously, you have no idea.

I Cited a NY times article. Are you saying the Times is lying about this?

 

[orogenicman]

You have listed no specific statutory regulation to which that project is subject, and how it is an example of "unnecessary environmental regulation". Do you even understand the meaning of the phrase "statutory environmental regulation"?

I showed reviews they had to get for their EIS that were pointless, that they had to get 47 permits from 19 different agencies. I have shown the examples of the results of over-regulation, there is no need to digging up the actual statues.

But you didn't cite a specific statutory environmental regulation nor demonstrated how it was "unnecessary". Do you not understand the meaning of the phrase specific "statutory environmental regulation"?

I don't have to. Some reg made them do a historic building review when no buildings were impacted, and it cost $600k and time. Obviously the reg exists because they had to follow it.

Oh really? So you think you can spout any old claim with regard to "overregulation", and not actually cite the specific statutory regulation to which you are not referring, and believe that anyone is going to accept your claims as credible? That's rather naïve. Some reg? Which reg? Obviously, you have no idea.

I Cited a NY times article. Are you saying the Times is lying about this?

A New York Times article that does not cite specific statutory environmental regulations nor explain how they are "unnecessary" is not a relevant reference. You really don't know how to proceed, do you?

 

[jc456]

You have listed no specific statutory regulation to which that project is subject, and how it is an example of "unnecessary environmental regulation". Do you even understand the meaning of the phrase "statutory environmental regulation"?

I showed reviews they had to get for their EIS that were pointless, that they had to get 47 permits from 19 different agencies. I have shown the examples of the results of over-regulation, there is no need to digging up the actual statues.

But you didn't cite a specific statutory environmental regulation nor demonstrated how it was "unnecessary". Do you not understand the meaning of the phrase specific "statutory environmental regulation"?

I don't have to. Some reg made them do a historic building review when no buildings were impacted, and it cost $600k and time. Obviously the reg exists because they had to follow it.

Oh really? So you think you can spout any old claim with regard to "overregulation", and not actually cite the specific statutory regulation to which you are not referring, and believe that anyone is going to accept your claims as credible? That's rather naïve. Some reg? Which reg? Obviously, you have no idea.

I Cited a NY times article. Are you saying the Times is lying about this?

You're right over-regulation, major issue. you did a nice job explaining it for everyone.

 

[Muhammed]

Nough said...

 

[Muhammed]

Nough said...

Broad brush fallacy.

Global warming nutters are idiots.

 

[orogenicman]

I showed reviews they had to get for their EIS that were pointless, that they had to get 47 permits from 19 different agencies. I have shown the examples of the results of over-regulation, there is no need to digging up the actual statues.

But you didn't cite a specific statutory environmental regulation nor demonstrated how it was "unnecessary". Do you not understand the meaning of the phrase specific "statutory environmental regulation"?

I don't have to. Some reg made them do a historic building review when no buildings were impacted, and it cost $600k and time. Obviously the reg exists because they had to follow it.

Oh really? So you think you can spout any old claim with regard to "overregulation", and not actually cite the specific statutory regulation to which you are not referring, and believe that anyone is going to accept your claims as credible? That's rather naïve. Some reg? Which reg? Obviously, you have no idea.

I Cited a NY times article. Are you saying the Times is lying about this?

You're right over-regulation, major issue. you did a nice job explaining it for everyone.

What regulation, where?

 

[jc456]

But you didn't cite a specific statutory environmental regulation nor demonstrated how it was "unnecessary". Do you not understand the meaning of the phrase specific "statutory environmental regulation"?

I don't have to. Some reg made them do a historic building review when no buildings were impacted, and it cost $600k and time. Obviously the reg exists because they had to follow it.

Oh really? So you think you can spout any old claim with regard to "overregulation", and not actually cite the specific statutory regulation to which you are not referring, and believe that anyone is going to accept your claims as credible? That's rather naïve. Some reg? Which reg? Obviously, you have no idea.

I Cited a NY times article. Are you saying the Times is lying about this?

You're right over-regulation, major issue. you did a nice job explaining it for everyone.

What regulation, where?

the ones he referenced.

 

[orogenicman]

Nough said...

Broad brush fallacy.

Global warming nutters are idiots.

How are you getting a "global warming" argument out of an image that shows the importance of environmental regulations, such as those directed at preventing air pollution? Are you trying to say you prefer to breath toxic waste?

 

[orogenicman]

I don't have to. Some reg made them do a historic building review when no buildings were impacted, and it cost $600k and time. Obviously the reg exists because they had to follow it.

Oh really? So you think you can spout any old claim with regard to "overregulation", and not actually cite the specific statutory regulation to which you are not referring, and believe that anyone is going to accept your claims as credible? That's rather naïve. Some reg? Which reg? Obviously, you have no idea.

I Cited a NY times article. Are you saying the Times is lying about this?

You're right over-regulation, major issue. you did a nice job explaining it for everyone.

What regulation, where?

the ones he referenced.

He referenced no specific regulations.

 

[jc456]

Oh really? So you think you can spout any old claim with regard to "overregulation", and not actually cite the specific statutory regulation to which you are not referring, and believe that anyone is going to accept your claims as credible? That's rather naïve. Some reg? Which reg? Obviously, you have no idea.

I Cited a NY times article. Are you saying the Times is lying about this?

You're right over-regulation, major issue. you did a nice job explaining it for everyone.

What regulation, where?

the ones he referenced.

He referenced no specific regulations.

so, your point is stupid.

Edit: and his point was made. Move on now. you asked he provided. Way more than you ever do bubba.

 

[martybegan]

Oh really? So you think you can spout any old claim with regard to "overregulation", and not actually cite the specific statutory regulation to which you are not referring, and believe that anyone is going to accept your claims as credible? That's rather naïve. Some reg? Which reg? Obviously, you have no idea.

I Cited a NY times article. Are you saying the Times is lying about this?

You're right over-regulation, major issue. you did a nice job explaining it for everyone.

What regulation, where?

the ones he referenced.

He referenced no specific regulations.

Got it.

Suck it, twat.

http://www.nj.gov/dep/hpo/1identify/gaspart1.pdf

 

[Muhammed]

Nough said...

Broad brush fallacy.

Global warming nutters are idiots.

How are you getting a "global warming" argument out of an image that shows the importance of environmental regulations, such as those directed at preventing air pollution? Are you trying to say you prefer to breath toxic waste?

So what is the purpose of your bs here? Judging from your other idiotic threads I think it's pretty much a given that you are trying to promote your delusional, superstitious and idiotic global warming doomsday cult fearmongering propaganda again.

AS USUAL.

Hey dumbass, is that what this is about or not?