GOP Slaps the EPA upside the head

[gallantwarrior]

obama's losing a lot lately

As is the GOP, wasting its time on this nonsense rather than jobs and the economy.

This "nonsense" shouldn't have to dealt with. The EPA has been empowered to issue fiat regulations that destroy jobs and the economy. This "nonsense" is a prime example of the type of beaurocratic obstruction our bloated government is so fond of inflicting on we the people for no other purpose than they can! It's good to see Congress doing something to abate this type of overreach.

 

[Bfgrn]

obama's losing a lot lately

As is the GOP, wasting its time on this nonsense rather than jobs and the economy.

This "nonsense" shouldn't have to dealt with. The EPA has been empowered to issue fiat regulations that destroy jobs and the economy. This "nonsense" is a prime example of the type of beaurocratic obstruction our bloated government is so fond of inflicting on we the people for no other purpose than they can! It's good to see Congress doing something to abate this type of overreach.

Fox News and the right wing talking heads have created a whole mutation of human beings. People with no intelligence, common sense or the ability to decipher propaganda from truth.

YOU are one of them.

 

[Full-Auto]

As is the GOP, wasting its time on this nonsense rather than jobs and the economy.

This "nonsense" shouldn't have to dealt with. The EPA has been empowered to issue fiat regulations that destroy jobs and the economy. This "nonsense" is a prime example of the type of beaurocratic obstruction our bloated government is so fond of inflicting on we the people for no other purpose than they can! It's good to see Congress doing something to abate this type of overreach.

Fox News and the right wing talking heads have created a whole mutation of human beings. People with no intelligence, common sense or the ability to decipher propaganda from truth.

YOU are one of them.

Tissue? Kotex? A feelings coach perhaps?

 

[westwall]

Show where the EPA had planned regulation against "Farm Dust"

Here you go bucko...



SUMMARY: On or about June 30, 2010, the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) of EPA is making available for public comment a
draft document: Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards--Second External Review
Draft. This draft document will serve to ``bridge the gap'' between the
scientific information and the judgments required of the Administrator
in determining whether it is appropriate to retain or revise the
standards as part of the review of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM).

DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before August 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0492, by one of the following methods:
Regulations.gov Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail)
to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
0492.
Fax: Fax your comments to 202-566-9744, Attention Docket
ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492.
Mail: Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: EPA
Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0492. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at Regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
Regulations.gov or e-mail. The Regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through Regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
Regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket


FR Doc 2010-16490

Hey bucko...WHERE does it say the EPA plans to CHANGE the existing regulation on Particulate Matter? WHERE are the parameters? This is a required REVIEW, which is required BY LAW. You right wing turds should understand what BY LAW means.

Hey dilfod, what does this section of the release mean....in ENGLISH? BTW I highlighted the relevent word for you based on your minimal understanding of said language.

"retain or revise the standards as part of the review of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM)."

 

[westwall]

As is the GOP, wasting its time on this nonsense rather than jobs and the economy.

This "nonsense" shouldn't have to dealt with. The EPA has been empowered to issue fiat regulations that destroy jobs and the economy. This "nonsense" is a prime example of the type of beaurocratic obstruction our bloated government is so fond of inflicting on we the people for no other purpose than they can! It's good to see Congress doing something to abate this type of overreach.

Fox News and the right wing talking heads have created a whole mutation of human beings. People with no intelligence, common sense or the ability to decipher propaganda from truth.

YOU are one of them.

Actually you and your ilk are the ones that conistently are shown to have no ability to understand simple things. It's fools like you who allowed the CARB to impose MTBE on the citizens of California with its attendent billions in environmental damage and poisoning of thousands of water wells all over the state. All of this after WE presented all manner of evidence to show it would occur.

 

[Bfgrn]

Here you go bucko...



SUMMARY: On or about June 30, 2010, the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) of EPA is making available for public comment a
draft document: Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards--Second External Review
Draft. This draft document will serve to ``bridge the gap'' between the
scientific information and the judgments required of the Administrator
in determining whether it is appropriate to retain or revise the
standards as part of the review of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM).

DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before August 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0492, by one of the following methods:
Regulations.gov Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail)
to [email protected], Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
0492.
Fax: Fax your comments to 202-566-9744, Attention Docket
ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492.
Mail: Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: EPA
Docket Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0492. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at Regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
Regulations.gov or e-mail. The Regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through Regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
Regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket


FR Doc 2010-16490

Hey bucko...WHERE does it say the EPA plans to CHANGE the existing regulation on Particulate Matter? WHERE are the parameters? This is a required REVIEW, which is required BY LAW. You right wing turds should understand what BY LAW means.

Hey dilfod, what does this section of the release mean....in ENGLISH? BTW I highlighted the relevent word for you based on your minimal understanding of said language.

"retain or revise the standards as part of the review of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM)."

Here is your word for the day...OR

Wouldn't a review of a regulation require that review's final conclusion to either retain OR revise that regulation? It could revise it to lower restrictions.

This is BOGUS westfall. It is a review. The Clean Air Act REQUIRES these reviews. The Republicans are LYING to you.

 

[Navy1960]

The United States currently pays around $20 billion per year to farmers in direct subsidies as "farm income stabilization"[9][10][11] via U.S. farm bills. These bills pre-date the economic turmoil of the Great Depression with the 1922 Grain Futures Act, the 1929 Agricultural Marketing Act and the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act creating a tradition of government support.

The beneficiaries of the subsidies have changed as agriculture in the United States has changed. In the 1930s, about 25% of the country's population resided on the nation's 6,000,000 small farms. By 1997, 157,000 large farms accounted for 72% of farm sales, with only 2% of the U.S. population residing on farms. In 2006, the top 3 states receiving subsidies were Texas (10.4%), Iowa (9.0%), and Illinois (7.6%). The Total USDA Subsidies from farms in Iowa totaled $1,212,000,000 in 2006.[12] From 2003 to 2005 the top 1% of beneficiaries received 17% of subsidy payments.[12] In Texas, 72% of farms do not receive government subsidies. Of the close to $1.4 Billion in subsidy payments to farms in Texas, roughly 18% of the farms receive a portion of the payments
Agricultural subsidy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions. It has become a common cause of all the people of this country. It is a cause of particular concern to young Americans, because they more than we will reap the grim consequences of our failure to act on programs which are needed now if we are to prevent disaster later.

Clean air, clean water, open spaces--these should once again be the birthright of every American. If we act now, they can be.

We still think of air as free. But clean air is not free, and neither is clean water. The price tag on pollution control is high. Through our years of past carelessness we incurred a debt to nature, and now that debt is being called.
Richard Nixon 1970 Republican


Just as a point here, while I feel some some sympathy for farmers who struggle due to many factors among them unfair trade which is killing American Agriculture, one only need to go to the local produce Isle at the grocery store to understand that most of it is not produced here in this nation any longer. Having said that, there needs to be a fair balance between the environment and the needs of the American people and I submit we can do both and prosper and to condemn an agency that has been set up for the purpose of protecting the environment we live in serves no useful purpose towards that.

 

[westwall]

Hey bucko...WHERE does it say the EPA plans to CHANGE the existing regulation on Particulate Matter? WHERE are the parameters? This is a required REVIEW, which is required BY LAW. You right wing turds should understand what BY LAW means.

Hey dilfod, what does this section of the release mean....in ENGLISH? BTW I highlighted the relevent word for you based on your minimal understanding of said language.

"retain or revise the standards as part of the review of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM)."

Here is your word for the day...OR

Wouldn't a review of a regulation require that review's final conclusion to either retain OR revise that regulation? It could revise it to lower restrictions.

This is BOGUS westfall. It is a review. The Clean Air Act REQUIRES these reviews. The Republicans are LYING to you.

The clean air act does not require REVISING moron. That is the verbiage the EPA used. Understand it. It means what it says even though you CHOOSE to ignore what it, and basic ENGLISH mean.

 

[westwall]

The United States currently pays around $20 billion per year to farmers in direct subsidies as "farm income stabilization"[9][10][11] via U.S. farm bills. These bills pre-date the economic turmoil of the Great Depression with the 1922 Grain Futures Act, the 1929 Agricultural Marketing Act and the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act creating a tradition of government support.

The beneficiaries of the subsidies have changed as agriculture in the United States has changed. In the 1930s, about 25% of the country's population resided on the nation's 6,000,000 small farms. By 1997, 157,000 large farms accounted for 72% of farm sales, with only 2% of the U.S. population residing on farms. In 2006, the top 3 states receiving subsidies were Texas (10.4%), Iowa (9.0%), and Illinois (7.6%). The Total USDA Subsidies from farms in Iowa totaled $1,212,000,000 in 2006.[12] From 2003 to 2005 the top 1% of beneficiaries received 17% of subsidy payments.[12] In Texas, 72% of farms do not receive government subsidies. Of the close to $1.4 Billion in subsidy payments to farms in Texas, roughly 18% of the farms receive a portion of the payments
Agricultural subsidy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions. It has become a common cause of all the people of this country. It is a cause of particular concern to young Americans, because they more than we will reap the grim consequences of our failure to act on programs which are needed now if we are to prevent disaster later.

Clean air, clean water, open spaces--these should once again be the birthright of every American. If we act now, they can be.

We still think of air as free. But clean air is not free, and neither is clean water. The price tag on pollution control is high. Through our years of past carelessness we incurred a debt to nature, and now that debt is being called.
Richard Nixon 1970 Republican


Just as a point here, while I feel some some sympathy for farmers who struggle due to many factors among them unfair trade which is killing American Agriculture, one only need to go to the local produce Isle at the grocery store to understand that most of it is not produced here in this nation any longer. Having said that, there needs to be a fair balance between the environment and the needs of the American people and I submit we can do both and prosper and to condemn an agency that has been set up for the purpose of protecting the environment we live in serves no useful purpose towards that.

Restoration of destroyed land is definately a needed thing. However, money that could be used to do it is squandered in mindless endeavors that so far have enriched friends of the pres but have actually done nothing for the people of the US, nor the ground they live on.

One thing that is plain to see but, which the liberal environmentalist doesn't understand, is
so long as man lives he will have an impact on the land around him. The more wealthy man becomes the LESS impact he has on the planet.

Modern coal plants cause far less environmental damage then the cleanest solar plant by far. The reason is the horrible toxins that are used in the creation of the solar panels. Those remain after the manufacturing is done and because most of those plants are overseas (in Third World countries so they only kill brown people, so it's OK) you don't see the environmental damage they do. Thus the "out of sight, out of mind" mentality exhibited by environmentalists the world over.

For the planet to do better there is a simple way. Find the most efficient method of generating the energy we need. At this time, fossil fuel powered plants are orders of magnitude more efficient then the best "green" energy systems. Only nuclear has the same levels of efficiency but they too have their problems.

The only other way to deal with mans incessant need for power is the enviro's other alternative which is namely kill enough people and it won't matter anymore. That too has been advocated, most recently in bald form by Jaques Cousteau who famously uttered "we need to start killing about 325,000 people a day" to reign in his percieved overpopulation problem.

Frankly, I'm not willing to murder people for soem nebulous goal like that. There are better ways, more reasonable ways to get to that point. It just requires work and most environmentalists don't like to have to work.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hey dilfod, what does this section of the release mean....in ENGLISH? BTW I highlighted the relevent word for you based on your minimal understanding of said language.

"retain or revise the standards as part of the review of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM)."

Here is your word for the day...OR

Wouldn't a review of a regulation require that review's final conclusion to either retain OR revise that regulation? It could revise it to lower restrictions.

This is BOGUS westfall. It is a review. The Clean Air Act REQUIRES these reviews. The Republicans are LYING to you.

The clean air act does not require REVISING moron. That is the verbiage the EPA used. Understand it. It means what it says even though you CHOOSE to ignore what it, and basic ENGLISH mean.

westfall, are you really going to take this tact? It is perfectly clear, in English:

"determining whether it is appropriate to retain or revise the standards as part of the review of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM)."

Determine
verb
1. to settle or decide (a dispute, question, etc.) by an authoritative or conclusive decision.
2. to conclude or ascertain, as after reasoning, observation, etc.

whether
conjunction
Definition: either
Synonyms: if

Retain
verb
1. to keep possession of.
2. to continue to use, practice, etc.: to retain an old custom.

or
conjunction
Definition: a suggestion of choice

Revise
verb
1. to amend or alter: to revise one's opinion.

 

[westwall]

Here is your word for the day...OR

Wouldn't a review of a regulation require that review's final conclusion to either retain OR revise that regulation? It could revise it to lower restrictions.

This is BOGUS westfall. It is a review. The Clean Air Act REQUIRES these reviews. The Republicans are LYING to you.

The clean air act does not require REVISING moron. That is the verbiage the EPA used. Understand it. It means what it says even though you CHOOSE to ignore what it, and basic ENGLISH mean.

westfall, are you really going to take this tact? It is perfectly clear, in English:

"determining whether it is appropriate to retain or revise the standards as part of the review of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM)."

Determine
verb
1. to settle or decide (a dispute, question, etc.) by an authoritative or conclusive decision.
2. to conclude or ascertain, as after reasoning, observation, etc.

whether
conjunction
Definition: either
Synonyms: if

Retain
verb
1. to keep possession of.
2. to continue to use, practice, etc.: to retain an old custom.

or
conjunction
Definition: a suggestion of choice

Revise
verb
1. to amend or alter: to revise one's opinion.

Yes, I can bandy English with you all day long. It's a useless waste of time as well. Only a disingenuous person (such as yourself) would see the efforts of the EPA to regulate everything under the sun and think they, in their infinite kindness, have no design on doing the same here.


I get it, you're partisan hack who thinks they do no wrong.

verb (used with object)
1.
to amend or alter: to revise one's opinion.

2.
to alter something already written or printed, in order to make corrections, improve, or update: to revise a manuscript.

3.
British . to review (previously studied materials) in preparation for an examination.

noun
4.
an act of revising.

5.
a revised form of something; revision.

6.
Printing . a proof sheet taken after alterations have been made, for further examination or correction.

 

[Bfgrn]

The clean air act does not require REVISING moron. That is the verbiage the EPA used. Understand it. It means what it says even though you CHOOSE to ignore what it, and basic ENGLISH mean.

westfall, are you really going to take this tact? It is perfectly clear, in English:

"determining whether it is appropriate to retain or revise the standards as part of the review of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM)."

Determine
verb
1. to settle or decide (a dispute, question, etc.) by an authoritative or conclusive decision.
2. to conclude or ascertain, as after reasoning, observation, etc.

whether
conjunction
Definition: either
Synonyms: if

Retain
verb
1. to keep possession of.
2. to continue to use, practice, etc.: to retain an old custom.

or
conjunction
Definition: a suggestion of choice

Revise
verb
1. to amend or alter: to revise one's opinion.

Yes, I can bandy English with you all day long. It's a useless waste of time as well. Only a disingenuous person (such as yourself) would see the efforts of the EPA to regulate everything under the sun and think they, in their infinite kindness, have no design on doing the same here.


I get it, you're partisan hack who thinks they do no wrong.

verb (used with object)
1.
to amend or alter: to revise one's opinion.

2.
to alter something already written or printed, in order to make corrections, improve, or update: to revise a manuscript.

3.
British . to review (previously studied materials) in preparation for an examination.

noun
4.
an act of revising.

5.
a revised form of something; revision.

6.
Printing . a proof sheet taken after alterations have been made, for further examination or correction.

WOW, you just lost all credibility with me westfall. What would make someone be as dishonest as you are on this phoney bill? You were lied to. This was a strictly political stunt by a bunch of teapublicans who are wasting taxpayers money writing ultra partisan bogus bills.

What is truly sad, there is NOTHING these teapublicans can do that will draw your condemnation. If they told you children were a threat to America, you'd be right here parroting whatever the tell you. I recall you used to claim you are a geologist. What a fucking liar.

 

[westwall]

westfall, are you really going to take this tact? It is perfectly clear, in English:

"determining whether it is appropriate to retain or revise the standards as part of the review of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM)."

Determine
verb
1. to settle or decide (a dispute, question, etc.) by an authoritative or conclusive decision.
2. to conclude or ascertain, as after reasoning, observation, etc.

whether
conjunction
Definition: either
Synonyms: if

Retain
verb
1. to keep possession of.
2. to continue to use, practice, etc.: to retain an old custom.

or
conjunction
Definition: a suggestion of choice

Revise
verb
1. to amend or alter: to revise one's opinion.

Yes, I can bandy English with you all day long. It's a useless waste of time as well. Only a disingenuous person (such as yourself) would see the efforts of the EPA to regulate everything under the sun and think they, in their infinite kindness, have no design on doing the same here.


I get it, you're partisan hack who thinks they do no wrong.

verb (used with object)
1.
to amend or alter: to revise one's opinion.

2.
to alter something already written or printed, in order to make corrections, improve, or update: to revise a manuscript.

3.
British . to review (previously studied materials) in preparation for an examination.

noun
4.
an act of revising.

5.
a revised form of something; revision.

6.
Printing . a proof sheet taken after alterations have been made, for further examination or correction.

WOW, you just lost all credibility with me westfall. What would make someone be as dishonest as you are on this phoney bill? You were lied to. This was a strictly political stunt by a bunch of teapublicans who are wasting taxpayers money writing ultra partisan bogus bills.

What is truly sad, there is NOTHING these teapublicans can do that will draw your condemnation. If they told you children were a threat to America, you'd be right here parroting whatever the tell you. I recall you used to claim you are a geologist. What a fucking liar.

What is sad is you've never heard of a defensive strike, (which is what this is) here is what is out there. I grant you that there probably wasn't anything coming down the pike. However, the EPA has strayed so far off the reservation that the Repubs and Ag state Dems felt the need to control them preemptively.

Just look up the CO2 regs they have in place that Obama told them to put on the shelf for now. You see he figured (rightly) that if they were implemented he didn't have a chance in hell of being re-elected.

Objections



In a letter to the EPA dated July 23, 2010, 21 U.S. senators argued that tougher standards for allowable particulates would be difficult for farmers to meet, and could hurt rural economies. The letter urged the EPA to use "common sense" in revising its rules, stating that "excessive dust control measures...could slow economic development and impose significant costs to farmers and businesses."

As of September 2010, it is unclear whether the EPA will leave the current standard unchanged, reduce the allowable limit by roughly 50 percent (per the informal proposal made during the review process), or reduce the limit by some smaller percentage.



Read more: EPA Regulations on Rural Dust | eHow.com EPA Regulations on Rural Dust | eHow.com

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, I can bandy English with you all day long. It's a useless waste of time as well. Only a disingenuous person (such as yourself) would see the efforts of the EPA to regulate everything under the sun and think they, in their infinite kindness, have no design on doing the same here.


I get it, you're partisan hack who thinks they do no wrong.

verb (used with object)
1.
to amend or alter: to revise one's opinion.

2.
to alter something already written or printed, in order to make corrections, improve, or update: to revise a manuscript.

3.
British . to review (previously studied materials) in preparation for an examination.

noun
4.
an act of revising.

5.
a revised form of something; revision.

6.
Printing . a proof sheet taken after alterations have been made, for further examination or correction.

WOW, you just lost all credibility with me westfall. What would make someone be as dishonest as you are on this phoney bill? You were lied to. This was a strictly political stunt by a bunch of teapublicans who are wasting taxpayers money writing ultra partisan bogus bills.

What is truly sad, there is NOTHING these teapublicans can do that will draw your condemnation. If they told you children were a threat to America, you'd be right here parroting whatever the tell you. I recall you used to claim you are a geologist. What a fucking liar.

What is sad is you've never heard of a defensive strike, (which is what this is) here is what is out there. I grant you that there probably wasn't anything coming down the pike. However, the EPA has strayed so far off the reservation that the Repubs and Ag state Dems felt the need to control them preemptively.

Just look up the CO2 regs they have in place that Obama told them to put on the shelf for now. You see he figured (rightly) that if they were implemented he didn't have a chance in hell of being re-elected.

Objections



In a letter to the EPA dated July 23, 2010, 21 U.S. senators argued that tougher standards for allowable particulates would be difficult for farmers to meet, and could hurt rural economies. The letter urged the EPA to use "common sense" in revising its rules, stating that "excessive dust control measures...could slow economic development and impose significant costs to farmers and businesses."

As of September 2010, it is unclear whether the EPA will leave the current standard unchanged, reduce the allowable limit by roughly 50 percent (per the informal proposal made during the review process), or reduce the limit by some smaller percentage.



Read more: EPA Regulations on Rural Dust | eHow.com EPA Regulations on Rural Dust | eHow.com

This was a review the Clean Air Act REQUIRES. There were no proposed changes. And, the teapublican bill is not 'a defensive strike', it is an ATTACK on the Clean Air Act.

The bill, deceptively labeled “Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act,” would radically undermine the bipartisan Clean Air Act protections that have been in place for decades. The bill creates a new category of pollution called “nuisance dust” which it exempts entirely from the Act, ‘nuisance dust’ is a made-up term that has no basis in established science. Under this legislation, particulate pollution from open-pit mines, mine processing plants, sand mines, lead smelters and cement kilns would be exempted from the Clean Air Act. These facilities emit course and fine particulates, arsenic, lead, mercury and other toxic substances.”

The only EPA that was out of control was the Bush EPA; the WORSE environmental president in history. The Obama EPA is trying to undo the damage. But Bush so severely disabled the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act that many polluter will NEVER be forced to abate their toxic emissions...EVER. Back in 2002, the top three enforcers at EPA, Sylvia Lowrance, Bruce Buckheit, and Eric Schaeffer, all resigned their jobs in protest of the Bush policies. I saw two of them interviewed on an HBO documentary. They said the changes Bush pushed through will result in the premature DEATH of 100,000 Americans. The cock sucker Bush should be HUNG. And MORONS like you are too fucking stupid to know your ass from a hole in the ground. These weren't Democrats. These were people who had served through the Reagan and Bush administrations, the earlier Bush administration.

Even the Republicans For Environmental Protection called out Bush. Educate yourself you fucking little moron LIAR:

Bush's sorry environmental record

The following op-ed was published in the Concord (NH) Monitor on September 23, 2004

by RUSSELL E. TRAIN, a REP America member in Washington, DC,
and RICK RUSSMAN, a REP America member in New Hampshire

Except in a few instances, the environmental policies of the Bush administration are a disgrace.

As lifelong Republicans who have worked for decades to protect and restore clean air and clean water, we find the turning back of the environmental clock by this administration profoundly disturbing. And New Hampshire suffers from these backward policies.

Republican President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. In his 1970 State of the Union message, he called the environmental cause "as fundamental as life itself." With bipartisan leadership in Congress, Nixon initiated many of the environmental protections we enjoy today.

Republican President George H.W. Bush signed the Clean Air Act of 1990, one of the most protective environmental statutes.

Unfortunately, President George W. Bush's administration is reversing course from 30 years of bipartisan leadership to protect our health and environment.

The administration's policies to promote energy, mining and timber interests with little regard for the interests of common citizens represent a throwback to an era of exploitation. The administration's assault on the environment has increased pollution and health threats in New Hampshire, according to a report by Environment2004.

The administration weakened the Clean Air Act to allow aging power plants to continue spewing sulfur, mercury and other contaminants into the skies. These end up in New Hampshire's air and waters. This pollution from Midwestern power plants and other sources forms smog that threatens the 65,000 New Hampshire residents who suffer from asthma. It falls as acid rain that damages New Hampshire's forests and waters.

Mercury pollution has forced New Hampshire to establish a fish consumption advisory that covers all its lakes and rivers. Infants, children, pregnant women and women of child-bearing age are particularly vulnerable to mercury. Mercury affects a child's ability to learn, most notably impairing memory, attention and fine motor function.

New Hampshire's drinking water is threatened by the Bush administration. Fifteen percent of New Hampshire's public water supplies and thousands of its private wells are contaminated by the fuel additive MtBE. Recent studies show that MtBE may cause cancer, and it makes drinking water smell and taste foul even at low levels, yet the administration has not banned its use.

To pay for the cleanup of this contamination, New Hampshire sued 22 oil companies responsible for MtBE contamination. Nonetheless, the Bush administration's energy bill would block these suits and force New
Hampshire taxpayers to foot the bill for cleaning up the state's contaminated drinking water. The industry contributed $338,000 to the Bush presidential campaign and Republican congressional candidates in 1999 and 2000.

Republican Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu fervently oppose this policy.

The administration has adopted these and other policies based on the advice of its industry allies instead of the EPA's scientists and experts. Its proposed mercury policy would delay significant mercury reduction until 2018. This was lifted from the utility industry's recommendations while the administration ignored the EPA's children's health protection experts.

This is but one example of the administration disregarding scientific guidance - a radical change from previous Republican and Democratic administrations.

The scientific community is alarmed by the Bush administration's widespread rejection of sound science. The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nationwide organization of eminent scientists declared: "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions."More recently, 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists wrote in an open letter to the American people that the administration "has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the policy-making that is so important to our collective welfare."

There was no mandate in the 2000 election to weaken and undo our environmental and public health protections. In this year's election, environmental policy needs a full public debate.

We do not believe that turning back the clock or simply maintaining the status quo is a sufficient response for the road ahead. The candidates should do at least as well in responding to the planet's realities in
2004 as Richard Nixon did in 1970.

How do the candidates propose to slow global climate change and reduce our dependence on foreign oil? How will their environmental policies protect our children's health and America's natural resources that are vital to the health of our economy?

These are issues the candidates must address. The American people deserve nothing less.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Russell E. Train was the administrator of the EPA during the Nixon and Ford administrations. Rick Russman, a Republican, is on the board of the National Environmental Trust and chairs the Granite State Conservation Voters Alliance. He was a state senator for 10 years and served as chairman of the Senate Environmental Committee. Both are long-time members of REP America.

Concord Monitor...



Clearing the Air
Why I quit Bush's EPA.

By Eric Schaeffer


"We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
Lakota Sioux Proverb

 

[gallantwarrior]

BUSH did it! BUSH did it! BUSH did it!
Crumbs off a cracker, can't you come up with anything more original than that?

 

[thetor]

BUSH did it! BUSH did it! BUSH did it!
Crumbs off a cracker, can't you come up with anything more original than that?

Are you from the cabin tor

 

[Stephanie]

I hope the next administration puts the brakes on the EPA and a lot of other agencies that are OVERSTEPPING their bounds.

They are killing our jobs and our country with their ridiculous crap like wanting to regulate DUST of all things.

 

[konradv]

I hope the next administration puts the brakes on the EPA and a lot of other agencies that are OVERSTEPPING their bounds.

They are killing our jobs and our country with their ridiculous crap like wanting to regulate DUST of all things.

LOL!!! Lost the argument, so it's back to the original false statement!!! Any wonder the current crop of CONS should be shown the door next November?

 

[Bfgrn]

I hope the next administration puts the brakes on the EPA and a lot of other agencies that are OVERSTEPPING their bounds.

They are killing our jobs and our country with their ridiculous crap like wanting to regulate DUST of all things.

Yea, the "jobs" bills the current House of Mis-representatives contrived would create thousands of jobs for undertakers, grave diggers and chemotherapy technicians.

 

[Stephanie]

I hope the next administration puts the brakes on the EPA and a lot of other agencies that are OVERSTEPPING their bounds.

They are killing our jobs and our country with their ridiculous crap like wanting to regulate DUST of all things.

Yea, the "jobs" bills the current House of Mis-representatives contrived would create thousands of jobs for undertakers, grave diggers and chemotherapy technicians.

Well then...stop friggen breathing.
my gawd. do you people have ANY control over your own lives.