"Earth Day"- Draggin' Us Down!

[PoliticalChic]

I ask only two things of people like PoliChick and T. Would you please cite the strong, reliable, scientifically precise yet productive pieces of legislation offered up by a Conservative group in either house of Congress in favor of environmental protection? Where's the sterling Conservative legislative record on environmental issues?

Since it doesn't exist, why haven't either of you considered a real estate purchase in Love Canal, NY? Or Times Beach, MO? Could you feel confident bathing, cooking and drinking in the water at Imperial, PA?

You know pollution exists. It poisons and destroys the air, water and soil. You know it comes from industrial and agricultural activities. Yet you want to let it run rampant. Regulated not by law but by company overtsite personnel. It costs money to use government inspectors. Taxpayer money. Do you think it's an American right to pollute? That to regulate emissions is a hindrance to industry and the money to be made?

You bend over backward to dismiss and belittle any action taken by any citizen to protect the environment. You actually believe that mankind cannot harm the environment, in spite of watching the horror in Japan the last month. In spite of Love Canal, NY and Times Beach, MO and Imperial, PA.

With all we've seen, from rivers in Cleveland to the harbor in Boston, how remediation and regulation have helped turn bad situations around. And you would roll back the mechanisms that made those places better.

I honestly can't accept your point of view. I have seen first hand how regulations on emissions changes the works. I have been a field Environmental Engineer. I've cleaned up former steel mill sites so real estate development, even residential units, can be safely built. I have sampled and assessed soils and building materials containing hazardous materials. I have helped a city you have heard of make its drinking water safely potable after being contaminated by naphthalene.

The environmental movement has made a significant change in the state of our planet today. To deny this is to deny scientifically verifiable facts. Yours is a political position against a sane, verifiable, responsible public health and safety position. I'm afraid the paranoia, obfuscations and lies about environmentalists and our concerns is over the top at best, dangerously, irresponsibly silly at worst.

I don't know if you consider Nixon as a conservative, but he was a Republican...
I suggest you review his domestic policies.


Have a wonderful Easter!

 

[skookerasbil]

Only k00ks think we can double down on getting the green economy established as our system......................

Know what these are assholes?

Diesel locomotives from GE and EMD!!! There are tens of thousands of them countrywide.......cost 2.5 million/unit. Our economy STOPS if they stop. But more to the point, only the k00ks could think that some kind of theory is going to prevail above a multi-billion dollar business. Its not the way the world works s0ns...............

The k00ks version for moving freght across the country!!!!!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

EDIT>>>> How awesome is that photo??? <<< EDIT

 

[Nosmo King]

I ask only two things of people like PoliChick and T. Would you please cite the strong, reliable, scientifically precise yet productive pieces of legislation offered up by a Conservative group in either house of Congress in favor of environmental protection? Where's the sterling Conservative legislative record on environmental issues?

Since it doesn't exist, why haven't either of you considered a real estate purchase in Love Canal, NY? Or Times Beach, MO? Could you feel confident bathing, cooking and drinking in the water at Imperial, PA?

You know pollution exists. It poisons and destroys the air, water and soil. You know it comes from industrial and agricultural activities. Yet you want to let it run rampant. Regulated not by law but by company overtsite personnel. It costs money to use government inspectors. Taxpayer money. Do you think it's an American right to pollute? That to regulate emissions is a hindrance to industry and the money to be made?

You bend over backward to dismiss and belittle any action taken by any citizen to protect the environment. You actually believe that mankind cannot harm the environment, in spite of watching the horror in Japan the last month. In spite of Love Canal, NY and Times Beach, MO and Imperial, PA.

With all we've seen, from rivers in Cleveland to the harbor in Boston, how remediation and regulation have helped turn bad situations around. And you would roll back the mechanisms that made those places better.

I honestly can't accept your point of view. I have seen first hand how regulations on emissions changes the works. I have been a field Environmental Engineer. I've cleaned up former steel mill sites so real estate development, even residential units, can be safely built. I have sampled and assessed soils and building materials containing hazardous materials. I have helped a city you have heard of make its drinking water safely potable after being contaminated by naphthalene.

The environmental movement has made a significant change in the state of our planet today. To deny this is to deny scientifically verifiable facts. Yours is a political position against a sane, verifiable, responsible public health and safety position. I'm afraid the paranoia, obfuscations and lies about environmentalists and our concerns is over the top at best, dangerously, irresponsibly silly at worst.

I believe it was President Richard Nixon that suggested the EPA, no? Last time I checked he was a Republican.

Guess you were wrong about that one eh?

No I wasn't wrong. I asked about the Conservative record on environmental issues not the Republican record.

Learn something about politics before you attempt smarmy wit about it.

 

[The T]

Translation: "Conservatives wish bad water bad air and provide bad stewardship all for making a buck..."

That about cover it?

You are truly wrong there sport. NO ONE wishes these things unless they're truly stupid.

And thanks for highlighting my point of skewing the lines. Nice job.

Yes, that does cover it, dumb ass.

Enviro groups rally against words of Joe Barton, again | Trail Blazers Blog | dallasnews.com

Environmental groups are once again rallying their troops with the words of Rep. Joe Barton.

Like many other Republicans in Congress, Barton wants to nullify new Environmental Protection Agency regulations. One rule at the top of his hit list: a new limit on mercury and other toxic pollutants emitted by boilers, power plants and cement kilns.

Environmental groups are e-mailing supporters with Barton's remarks from a recent hearing that focused on the costs to industry of that rule. The EPA analysis said the power-plant rule could avoid as many as 17,000 premature deaths.

Barton questioned the EPA's analysis and suggested there is no "medical negative" to such emissions. He asked why the EPA would further limit mercury emissions when "the average 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant produced three pounds of mercury a year":

"You're not going to get enough mercury exposure or SO2 exposure or even particulate matter exposure," Barton told a witness testifying for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "I think the EPA numbers are pulled out of the thin air. And I'm going to ask that we send an official document to the EPA -- let's back them up.
(The NRDC witness, John Walke, told Barton that it was particulate matter, not mercury, that causes premature deaths.)

The League of Conservation Voters, which gives Barton a 10% score for his votes on environmental issues, told supporters in an email:

The scale and scope of these pro-polluter attacks is at times breath-taking. For example, at a Congressional hearing just a few days ago, Rep. Joe Barton claimed that there was "no medical negative" from mercury, sulfur dioxide or other toxic air pollutants

You Consevatives are all about you, right now, and damn tomorrow. You don't give a damn about your own children, or those of anybody else. You are the Hickman's of social policy. Ayn Rand wouldn't love you, however. You are among the lice.

Wrong. Just plain wrong.

 

[Dot Com]

 

[IanC]

funny!