Exxon Oil Leak...GOP wants top cut EPA?

[whitehall]

How about this: "Exxon oil leak, democrats want to keep the EPA ineffective and bloated with political hacks just like Fannie Mae".

 

[Big Fitz]

Exxon Says Oil Leak Mainly Confined to 10-Mile Area - WSJ.com

Yeah, that will do it!

Yes, when the EPA is mainly interested in politics and not protecting the environment it is time for it to go. They have done some good things but lately they are an arm of a political organization and ignoring their own scientists reports on subjects they wish to control. Hence, they have to go.

I'd like to see a cost effect study done on EVERY regulation and policy the EPA has. If it is shown to be either ineffectual or overpriced, it must end.

 

[code1211]

We did. That's how the EPA was formed. Specifically what are you referring to that doesn't work and they are not taking responsibility for.

Specifically, oil spills. The P in EPA implies that the environment will be held safe from attack. The oil spills seem to be happening with some regularity. Why is the damage ongoing while the agency fiddles?

In non-oil related news, though:

I am personally aware of a site that has cost three companies more than two million dollars between all of them and has not been changed in way whatsoever due to EPA fiddling.

3 national Corporations. Company A wanted to buy the land of company B so A could expand operations. Company B decided to sell to Company A and move into a facility owned by Company C due to a recent acquisition.

B spent more than a million dollars on the renovations of the site owned by C and was shot down by the EPA after this much expense as it was suddenly classified as a Super Fund Site. In order to move into the facility, the facility would have had to have been razed, the top 3 feet of soil from the 40 acre site removed and replaced and the facility rebuilt.

As it happened, B, due to a different acquisition, owned the site from which C was doing business in this market and when the lease expired in that facility, B took posession of C's former base and C? Well, C moved into the site that B was going to move into.

The site is under the ownership of the original owners so the Super Fund Site activities need not occur. After an 8 month delay and a waste of about 2 million dollars in expenses, all three companies are doing business as they would have without the EPA interferance and the actual ground is not improved under the definitions of the EPA, but the cash and time have been wasted.

This is the mission of the EPA.

In the late 1980’s the EPA became involved in activities to prevent oil spills. Facility spills as well as spills throughout the US have fallen dramatically, half to a third of what they were 20 years ago.

Since the EPA was formed, we are all breathing cleaning air in our major cities. Over the last 35 years, Nitrous Dioxide is down 46%, Sulfur Dioxide is down 71%, Carbon Monoxide is down 79%, Lead is down 92%.

The cleanups of our lakes and rivers are too numerous to mention. The EPA website documents most of the major cleanups.

To suggest that EPA should be eliminated because we still have oil spills makes about as much sense as eliminating the police because we sill have unsolved murders.

Americans still seems to want a clean safe environment. The day may come that Americans will be willing to trash the environment for jobs but that day has not come.

Good news: air quality in the US has improved! « Fabius Maximus

http://www.environmental-research.com/publications/pdf/spill_statistics/paper4.pdf

US Environmental Protection Agency

I have no doubt that the policies of the EPA have had a good effect. I haven't heard about a river bursting into flame in about 50 years and that is the result fo better regulation.

I also have no doubt that the many of the regulations and actions of the EPA are the result of tunnel visioned beaurocrats who have little or no real world experience and who get involved in stopping any advance to perseve an imagined good.

The story i related above is a great example. There are more. There is another warehouse that used to be a factory in my town that is currently on some prime land with convenient access to transportation and a pretty big parking lot. Big enough for the cars of the 1200 people that used to work there.

It stands in pretty much the same configuation it had 20 years ago when it closed with no improvement because to sell it, the seller would have to clean up the site. To not sell it and only pay the taxes on it, the clean up does not occur and the pollution and whatever bad things that includes goes on. It's cheaper for the owner to hold the plant useless.

What's wrong with this picture?

I don't look for these things. I just happen to run into them in the normal course of conversation.

The solution is obviously not to continue to messy things up. However, there is a quality of reasonableness that is missing from the regulations and enforcement of the EPA.

They needs to be reined in and the current administration has decided to use them as the hammer to punish those that it has identified as enemies. Enemies to this adiminstration is anyone who wants to hire a new employee.

 

[code1211]

For people like Code, the health of our children is irrelevent, as long as the corperations are making the rich richer.

You apply yur own absolutist approach to me. I am a pragmatist. Dogmatic devotion to a prevailing principle in exclsion of all other options is the province of the extremist.

You know. Like the peole who run the EPA.

 

[skookerasbil]

Regulation is the statist strategy for destroying business in the name of safety and standards. And the amount of regulation being applied to business over the past 2 years is nothing less than stupifying. It is smothering for business. You ask how business has left this country? I give you the United States government. It is a brilliant approach to trying to turn this country to a socialistic state..........slowly and very methodically.

Hopelessly naive liberals have always automatically assummed that "regulations" are implemented by government with noble intentions........in the name of health and safety.

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD.

 

[editec]

Exxon Oil Leak...GOP wants top cut EPA?

RATS, no untypically, are calling for the death of the CAT.

 

[Big Fitz]

Exxon Oil Leak...GOP wants top cut EPA?

RATS, no untypically, are calling for the death of the CAT.

No no! Ai not teh rite CAT!!!!

 

[Flopper]

Exxon Says Oil Leak Mainly Confined to 10-Mile Area - WSJ.com

Yeah, that will do it!

Yes, when the EPA is mainly interested in politics and not protecting the environment it is time for it to go. They have done some good things but lately they are an arm of a political organization and ignoring their own scientists reports on subjects they wish to control. Hence, they have to go.

I'd like to see a cost effect study done on EVERY regulation and policy the EPA has. If it is shown to be either ineffectual or overpriced, it must end.

I'm sure that could be done if you can put a price tag on the bald eagle, our wetlands, clean air, and clean water.

 

[Flopper]

Specifically, oil spills. The P in EPA implies that the environment will be held safe from attack. The oil spills seem to be happening with some regularity. Why is the damage ongoing while the agency fiddles?

In non-oil related news, though:

I am personally aware of a site that has cost three companies more than two million dollars between all of them and has not been changed in way whatsoever due to EPA fiddling.

3 national Corporations. Company A wanted to buy the land of company B so A could expand operations. Company B decided to sell to Company A and move into a facility owned by Company C due to a recent acquisition.

B spent more than a million dollars on the renovations of the site owned by C and was shot down by the EPA after this much expense as it was suddenly classified as a Super Fund Site. In order to move into the facility, the facility would have had to have been razed, the top 3 feet of soil from the 40 acre site removed and replaced and the facility rebuilt.

As it happened, B, due to a different acquisition, owned the site from which C was doing business in this market and when the lease expired in that facility, B took posession of C's former base and C? Well, C moved into the site that B was going to move into.

The site is under the ownership of the original owners so the Super Fund Site activities need not occur. After an 8 month delay and a waste of about 2 million dollars in expenses, all three companies are doing business as they would have without the EPA interferance and the actual ground is not improved under the definitions of the EPA, but the cash and time have been wasted.

This is the mission of the EPA.

In the late 1980’s the EPA became involved in activities to prevent oil spills. Facility spills as well as spills throughout the US have fallen dramatically, half to a third of what they were 20 years ago.

Since the EPA was formed, we are all breathing cleaning air in our major cities. Over the last 35 years, Nitrous Dioxide is down 46%, Sulfur Dioxide is down 71%, Carbon Monoxide is down 79%, Lead is down 92%.

The cleanups of our lakes and rivers are too numerous to mention. The EPA website documents most of the major cleanups.

To suggest that EPA should be eliminated because we still have oil spills makes about as much sense as eliminating the police because we sill have unsolved murders.

Americans still seems to want a clean safe environment. The day may come that Americans will be willing to trash the environment for jobs but that day has not come.

Good news: air quality in the US has improved! « Fabius Maximus

http://www.environmental-research.com/publications/pdf/spill_statistics/paper4.pdf

US Environmental Protection Agency

I have no doubt that the policies of the EPA have had a good effect. I haven't heard about a river bursting into flame in about 50 years and that is the result fo better regulation.

I also have no doubt that the many of the regulations and actions of the EPA are the result of tunnel visioned beaurocrats who have little or no real world experience and who get involved in stopping any advance to perseve an imagined good.

The story i related above is a great example. There are more. There is another warehouse that used to be a factory in my town that is currently on some prime land with convenient access to transportation and a pretty big parking lot. Big enough for the cars of the 1200 people that used to work there.

It stands in pretty much the same configuation it had 20 years ago when it closed with no improvement because to sell it, the seller would have to clean up the site. To not sell it and only pay the taxes on it, the clean up does not occur and the pollution and whatever bad things that includes goes on. It's cheaper for the owner to hold the plant useless.

What's wrong with this picture?

I don't look for these things. I just happen to run into them in the normal course of conversation.

The solution is obviously not to continue to messy things up. However, there is a quality of reasonableness that is missing from the regulations and enforcement of the EPA.

They needs to be reined in and the current administration has decided to use them as the hammer to punish those that it has identified as enemies. Enemies to this adiminstration is anyone who wants to hire a new employee.

You don’t hear much about EPA success stories because they aren’t judged as newsworthy these days. But what does hit the news media are stories like the one you mentioned, an industrial site that sits idle because an environmental cleanup would be required to sell the property. If the cleanup were not done when the property changed hands, then when would it be done? Often newly acquired commercial property becomes subject to major construction or renovation. The cleanup needs to occur prior to new construction work.

In 1980 congress passed the law that require a property owner to cleanup hazardous waste before selling the property. At the same time they established the EPA Superfund, which was to be used to cleanup hazardous waste sites that had been abandoned by the owner, such as the Love Canal. There have been several bills in Congress that would have changed the law to allow the Superfund to be used for cleanup of non-abandoned property where the current owner was not responsible for the waste. Due to the cost it was never passed.

Much public outrage is cause by a lack of understanding of just how important these cleanups are. Toxic waste in our groundwater affects just about everything, our drinking water, irrigation of crops, our streams and rivers, and our wildlife. Hazardous waster cleanups and EPA regulations that prevent the formation of these sites will eventually eliminate the need for these cleanups.

I am not opposed to cutting the EPA budget. The country is in a serious financial situation and there should be across the board cuts to all line items in the budget. But abolishing the EPA, would be a terrible mistake.

 

[Big Fitz]

Yes, when the EPA is mainly interested in politics and not protecting the environment it is time for it to go. They have done some good things but lately they are an arm of a political organization and ignoring their own scientists reports on subjects they wish to control. Hence, they have to go.

I'd like to see a cost effect study done on EVERY regulation and policy the EPA has. If it is shown to be either ineffectual or overpriced, it must end.

I'm sure that could be done if you can put a price tag on the bald eagle, our wetlands, clean air, and clean water.

I believe Poultry is about 2.25/lb. Eagle may be more pricey. Wetlands were traditionally called SWAMPS... and we used to drain them for farmland. The air now i cleaner than it ever has been since the discovery of coal as a power source and clean water? You think the water ISN'T cleaner now??? We used to dump sewage directly into the streets and rivers and now? No... not even close.

There have been some very good things that came out of the ideas of environmentalism. The problem is, you ecofascists didn't stop when you reached a good equilibrium. Like a cancer, you kept trying to grow and expand and gain more control and power. Like you have a hole in your soul you try to fill up by controlling more and more and more till everything's consumed.



I wish this was a redacto in absurdum like your statement, but it just doesn't seem to be the case as it keeps bearing out overtime you won't stop.

 

[Flopper]

I'd like to see a cost effect study done on EVERY regulation and policy the EPA has. If it is shown to be either ineffectual or overpriced, it must end.

I'm sure that could be done if you can put a price tag on the bald eagle, our wetlands, clean air, and clean water.

I believe Poultry is about 2.25/lb. Eagle may be more pricey. Wetlands were traditionally called SWAMPS... and we used to drain them for farmland. The air now i cleaner than it ever has been since the discovery of coal as a power source and clean water? You think the water ISN'T cleaner now??? We used to dump sewage directly into the streets and rivers and now? No... not even close.

There have been some very good things that came out of the ideas of environmentalism. The problem is, you ecofascists didn't stop when you reached a good equilibrium. Like a cancer, you kept trying to grow and expand and gain more control and power. Like you have a hole in your soul you try to fill up by controlling more and more and more till everything's consumed.



I wish this was a redacto in absurdum like your statement, but it just doesn't seem to be the case as it keeps bearing out overtime you won't stop.

The bald eagle was chosen June 20, 1782 as the emblem of the United States of American, because of its long life, great strength and majestic looks.

And you say it's worth just over $2.25/lb. With that statement, there no need to waste time reading the rest of your post.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'm sure that could be done if you can put a price tag on the bald eagle, our wetlands, clean air, and clean water.

I believe Poultry is about 2.25/lb. Eagle may be more pricey. Wetlands were traditionally called SWAMPS... and we used to drain them for farmland. The air now i cleaner than it ever has been since the discovery of coal as a power source and clean water? You think the water ISN'T cleaner now??? We used to dump sewage directly into the streets and rivers and now? No... not even close.

There have been some very good things that came out of the ideas of environmentalism. The problem is, you ecofascists didn't stop when you reached a good equilibrium. Like a cancer, you kept trying to grow and expand and gain more control and power. Like you have a hole in your soul you try to fill up by controlling more and more and more till everything's consumed.



I wish this was a redacto in absurdum like your statement, but it just doesn't seem to be the case as it keeps bearing out overtime you won't stop.

The bald eagle was chosen June 20, 1782 as the emblem of the United States of American, because of its long life, great strength and majestic looks.

And you say it's worth just over $2.25/lb. With that statement, there no need to waste time reading the rest of your post.

Do you need a government voucher for a clue cause you're too lazy to go out and buy one? Can you get that with foodstamps?