Realistic Goals for Environment?

[DustyInfinity]

Macron talked about there being no backup earth, and that resonated with me. I think one of the greatest tragedies in the last 20 years is the politicization of environmental issues. I agree with most republicans that the Paris Accord was a siphoning of us wealth with no impact on the environment. I also agree that college are getting paid to find results that are politically favorable. I don't want to get too much into climate change. Humans are definitely adding CO2, but I haven't seen anything that proves they are principle cause of a cataclysmic warming period. The earth has gone through many warming periods with little human impact. It seems keeping the earth a livable place should be right up there with defense. There does not have to be draconian measures that cripple businesses, but it would be nice if there was some sort of plan. Considering our schizophrenic form of rule where everything completely changes every 4 to 8 years, I see little hope of a meaningful plan clean up pollution. Our rivers are toxic if not flammable, the ocean is becoming a trash pile, and we have particles of plastic in our drinking water. I'm a republican, and this does not seem acceptable to either side of the aisle.

 

[TNHarley]

I think basic regulation on disposal of waste and things like that are good. Possibly even more strict. I mean, you have people that dont give a shit. Dropping guts from their hog farm into the local river.. disposing of liquid waste in the ocean or other rivers.. We need to figure out something. And that includes actually caring.
I think we should all pitch in on cleaning up the ocean. Thats something i would get behind. Thats something we can actually control. And we should DEFINITELY control it.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Macron talked about there being no backup earth, and that resonated with me. I think one of the greatest tragedies in the last 20 years is the politicization of environmental issues. I agree with most republicans that the Paris Accord was a siphoning of us wealth with no impact on the environment. I also agree that college are getting paid to find results that are politically favorable. I don't want to get too much into climate change. Humans are definitely adding CO2, but I haven't seen anything that proves they are principle cause of a cataclysmic warming period. The earth has gone through many warming periods with little human impact. It seems keeping the earth a livable place should be right up there with defense. There does not have to be draconian measures that cripple businesses, but it would be nice if there was some sort of plan. Considering our schizophrenic form of rule where everything completely changes every 4 to 8 years, I see little hope of a meaningful plan clean up pollution. Our rivers are toxic if not flammable, the ocean is becoming a trash pile, and we have particles of plastic in our drinking water. I'm a republican, and this does not seem acceptable to either side of the aisle.

I lived 5 1/2 years in Saudi Arabia, and that shithole nation pollutes more than the US, even with a lesser population. They throw their trash on the streets expecting some 3rd world person to come behind them and pick it up. I notice in the United States, many poor and uneducated people that do the same, especially in the inner cities. Until the rest of the world starts to become enlightened with the problem of pollution, those of US who pick up trash and follow God's law(we are shepherds of the earth) are losing the fight. We are made to think that the US is the bad guy in pollution, that way the liberals can steal more of our money. What do all the major polluters have in common? Liberalism..


China's massive pollution problem
Pollution in Saudi Arabia
Air Quality in Latin America: High Levels of Pollution Require Strong Government Action
Spain is most polluted country in Europe
Pollution, Poverty and People of Color: Asthma and the Inner City

 

[alang1216]

Macron talked about there being no backup earth, and that resonated with me. I think one of the greatest tragedies in the last 20 years is the politicization of environmental issues. I agree with most republicans that the Paris Accord was a siphoning of us wealth with no impact on the environment. I also agree that college are getting paid to find results that are politically favorable. I don't want to get too much into climate change. Humans are definitely adding CO2, but I haven't seen anything that proves they are principle cause of a cataclysmic warming period. The earth has gone through many warming periods with little human impact. It seems keeping the earth a livable place should be right up there with defense. There does not have to be draconian measures that cripple businesses, but it would be nice if there was some sort of plan. Considering our schizophrenic form of rule where everything completely changes every 4 to 8 years, I see little hope of a meaningful plan clean up pollution. Our rivers are toxic if not flammable, the ocean is becoming a trash pile, and we have particles of plastic in our drinking water. I'm a republican, and this does not seem acceptable to either side of the aisle.

I remember smog, water unsafe to swim in, and medical waste washing up on beaches. If we want a clean environment, maybe it doesn't make sense to eliminate the EPA and the regulations that led to a cleaner environment.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Macron talked about there being no backup earth, and that resonated with me. I think one of the greatest tragedies in the last 20 years is the politicization of environmental issues. I agree with most republicans that the Paris Accord was a siphoning of us wealth with no impact on the environment. I also agree that college are getting paid to find results that are politically favorable. I don't want to get too much into climate change. Humans are definitely adding CO2, but I haven't seen anything that proves they are principle cause of a cataclysmic warming period. The earth has gone through many warming periods with little human impact. It seems keeping the earth a livable place should be right up there with defense. There does not have to be draconian measures that cripple businesses, but it would be nice if there was some sort of plan. Considering our schizophrenic form of rule where everything completely changes every 4 to 8 years, I see little hope of a meaningful plan clean up pollution. Our rivers are toxic if not flammable, the ocean is becoming a trash pile, and we have particles of plastic in our drinking water. I'm a republican, and this does not seem acceptable to either side of the aisle.

I remember smog, water unsafe to swim in, and medical waste washing up on beaches. If we want a clean environment, maybe it doesn't make sense to eliminate the EPA and the regulations that led to a cleaner environment.

You do know that if you pulled your head out of your ass, you too would see what a failure the EPA and other Government Agencies have failed the United States and its citizens.
The EPA accidentally ripped a hole in a toxic mine in Colorado — it ruined a river and people are furious

Last week, the Animas River, which flows from southwest Colorado to New Mexico, started filling up with a toxic yellow stew from an old gold mine.
It's changed the color of the river to a mustard yellow, and so far it's stretched more than 100 miles, heading toward the Colorado River.

 

[DustyInfinity]

We can't control what other countries do, but I don't think we should ignore pollution because China is one big stinky smokestack. It does make you pause when entering international agreements. Why should the US give money to clean up India and China? It is good to know we have a tight disposal plan. I mostly interested in what the US can do in our part of the world. All I know is that the river in my town is a sewer and you can't eat the fish. I'm not really buying solar panels and wind farms. I don't see how they have any future role in energy production. Maybe the most immediate thing we could do is work on water pollution. Why are the rivers dumping grounds? There must be obvious laws against it? Is it an enforcement problem? Can you literally guard a whole river? Is that feasible? What about pesticides and herbicides in ground water? Is anyone looking at this? If plastic is in our tap water, and piling up in the ocean, what are we gong to do about it? It would have to be a courageous long term effort to clean this up. I'm not sure I see the will to do it, and our worthless politicians who blow in different directions every four years seem powerless.

 

[DustyInfinity]

What happened to the EPA is a tragedy. It became a political tool. I never heard many success stories about the EPA. You do however hear about abuse of power and arbitrary enforcement problems. If the EPA ever did anything to actually help any of the problems, it might be worth fixing.

 

[TNHarley]

Macron talked about there being no backup earth, and that resonated with me. I think one of the greatest tragedies in the last 20 years is the politicization of environmental issues. I agree with most republicans that the Paris Accord was a siphoning of us wealth with no impact on the environment. I also agree that college are getting paid to find results that are politically favorable. I don't want to get too much into climate change. Humans are definitely adding CO2, but I haven't seen anything that proves they are principle cause of a cataclysmic warming period. The earth has gone through many warming periods with little human impact. It seems keeping the earth a livable place should be right up there with defense. There does not have to be draconian measures that cripple businesses, but it would be nice if there was some sort of plan. Considering our schizophrenic form of rule where everything completely changes every 4 to 8 years, I see little hope of a meaningful plan clean up pollution. Our rivers are toxic if not flammable, the ocean is becoming a trash pile, and we have particles of plastic in our drinking water. I'm a republican, and this does not seem acceptable to either side of the aisle.

I remember smog, water unsafe to swim in, and medical waste washing up on beaches. If we want a clean environment, maybe it doesn't make sense to eliminate the EPA and the regulations that led to a cleaner environment.

I think regulations should be at state level. Fed gov has no business doing that mess

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Macron talked about there being no backup earth, and that resonated with me. I think one of the greatest tragedies in the last 20 years is the politicization of environmental issues. I agree with most republicans that the Paris Accord was a siphoning of us wealth with no impact on the environment. I also agree that college are getting paid to find results that are politically favorable. I don't want to get too much into climate change. Humans are definitely adding CO2, but I haven't seen anything that proves they are principle cause of a cataclysmic warming period. The earth has gone through many warming periods with little human impact. It seems keeping the earth a livable place should be right up there with defense. There does not have to be draconian measures that cripple businesses, but it would be nice if there was some sort of plan. Considering our schizophrenic form of rule where everything completely changes every 4 to 8 years, I see little hope of a meaningful plan clean up pollution. Our rivers are toxic if not flammable, the ocean is becoming a trash pile, and we have particles of plastic in our drinking water. I'm a republican, and this does not seem acceptable to either side of the aisle.

I remember smog, water unsafe to swim in, and medical waste washing up on beaches. If we want a clean environment, maybe it doesn't make sense to eliminate the EPA and the regulations that led to a cleaner environment.

I think regulations should be at state level. Fed gov has no business doing that mess

This is one of the few places I support the Feds being involved.

Pollution does not stop at a state line, it affects neighboring states as well who have no power to regulate what is happening to them.

Pollution being dumped up stream in one state will reach every state downstream.

 

[depotoo]

The epa has been used to serve political purposes.

 

[DustyInfinity]

Each state should have definite plans to keep their state safe. I entirely agree that states should have the biggest say in how to do this. Huge federal programs would have big problems dealing with every unique issue in every state.

 

[alang1216]

Macron talked about there being no backup earth, and that resonated with me. I think one of the greatest tragedies in the last 20 years is the politicization of environmental issues. I agree with most republicans that the Paris Accord was a siphoning of us wealth with no impact on the environment. I also agree that college are getting paid to find results that are politically favorable. I don't want to get too much into climate change. Humans are definitely adding CO2, but I haven't seen anything that proves they are principle cause of a cataclysmic warming period. The earth has gone through many warming periods with little human impact. It seems keeping the earth a livable place should be right up there with defense. There does not have to be draconian measures that cripple businesses, but it would be nice if there was some sort of plan. Considering our schizophrenic form of rule where everything completely changes every 4 to 8 years, I see little hope of a meaningful plan clean up pollution. Our rivers are toxic if not flammable, the ocean is becoming a trash pile, and we have particles of plastic in our drinking water. I'm a republican, and this does not seem acceptable to either side of the aisle.

I remember smog, water unsafe to swim in, and medical waste washing up on beaches. If we want a clean environment, maybe it doesn't make sense to eliminate the EPA and the regulations that led to a cleaner environment.

You do know that if you pulled your head out of your ass, you too would see what a failure the EPA and other Government Agencies have failed the United States and its citizens.
The EPA accidentally ripped a hole in a toxic mine in Colorado — it ruined a river and people are furious

Last week, the Animas River, which flows from southwest Colorado to New Mexico, started filling up with a toxic yellow stew from an old gold mine.
It's changed the color of the river to a mustard yellow, and so far it's stretched more than 100 miles, heading toward the Colorado River.

So if the EPA is not perfect it should be eliminated? There have been many successes THAT I CAN SEE WITH MY OWN EYES!

New York City: 1973 vs. 2013

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The epa has been used to serve political purposes.

Without a doubt. As with most good ideas, it has been corrupted by politics.

 

[TNHarley]

Macron talked about there being no backup earth, and that resonated with me. I think one of the greatest tragedies in the last 20 years is the politicization of environmental issues. I agree with most republicans that the Paris Accord was a siphoning of us wealth with no impact on the environment. I also agree that college are getting paid to find results that are politically favorable. I don't want to get too much into climate change. Humans are definitely adding CO2, but I haven't seen anything that proves they are principle cause of a cataclysmic warming period. The earth has gone through many warming periods with little human impact. It seems keeping the earth a livable place should be right up there with defense. There does not have to be draconian measures that cripple businesses, but it would be nice if there was some sort of plan. Considering our schizophrenic form of rule where everything completely changes every 4 to 8 years, I see little hope of a meaningful plan clean up pollution. Our rivers are toxic if not flammable, the ocean is becoming a trash pile, and we have particles of plastic in our drinking water. I'm a republican, and this does not seem acceptable to either side of the aisle.

I remember smog, water unsafe to swim in, and medical waste washing up on beaches. If we want a clean environment, maybe it doesn't make sense to eliminate the EPA and the regulations that led to a cleaner environment.

I think regulations should be at state level. Fed gov has no business doing that mess

This is one of the few places I support the Feds being involved.

Pollution does not stop at a state line, it affects neighboring states as well who have no power to regulate what is happening to them.

Pollution being dumped up stream in one state will reach every state downstream.

well, you certainly make a good argument. But why would a state not have laws like that?!

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Macron talked about there being no backup earth, and that resonated with me. I think one of the greatest tragedies in the last 20 years is the politicization of environmental issues. I agree with most republicans that the Paris Accord was a siphoning of us wealth with no impact on the environment. I also agree that college are getting paid to find results that are politically favorable. I don't want to get too much into climate change. Humans are definitely adding CO2, but I haven't seen anything that proves they are principle cause of a cataclysmic warming period. The earth has gone through many warming periods with little human impact. It seems keeping the earth a livable place should be right up there with defense. There does not have to be draconian measures that cripple businesses, but it would be nice if there was some sort of plan. Considering our schizophrenic form of rule where everything completely changes every 4 to 8 years, I see little hope of a meaningful plan clean up pollution. Our rivers are toxic if not flammable, the ocean is becoming a trash pile, and we have particles of plastic in our drinking water. I'm a republican, and this does not seem acceptable to either side of the aisle.

I remember smog, water unsafe to swim in, and medical waste washing up on beaches. If we want a clean environment, maybe it doesn't make sense to eliminate the EPA and the regulations that led to a cleaner environment.

You do know that if you pulled your head out of your ass, you too would see what a failure the EPA and other Government Agencies have failed the United States and its citizens.
The EPA accidentally ripped a hole in a toxic mine in Colorado — it ruined a river and people are furious

Last week, the Animas River, which flows from southwest Colorado to New Mexico, started filling up with a toxic yellow stew from an old gold mine.
It's changed the color of the river to a mustard yellow, and so far it's stretched more than 100 miles, heading toward the Colorado River.

So if the EPA is not perfect it should be eliminated? There have been many successes THAT I CAN SEE WITH MY OWN EYES!

It was the state of californication that decided to curb its air pollution....Thanks for playing

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Macron talked about there being no backup earth, and that resonated with me. I think one of the greatest tragedies in the last 20 years is the politicization of environmental issues. I agree with most republicans that the Paris Accord was a siphoning of us wealth with no impact on the environment. I also agree that college are getting paid to find results that are politically favorable. I don't want to get too much into climate change. Humans are definitely adding CO2, but I haven't seen anything that proves they are principle cause of a cataclysmic warming period. The earth has gone through many warming periods with little human impact. It seems keeping the earth a livable place should be right up there with defense. There does not have to be draconian measures that cripple businesses, but it would be nice if there was some sort of plan. Considering our schizophrenic form of rule where everything completely changes every 4 to 8 years, I see little hope of a meaningful plan clean up pollution. Our rivers are toxic if not flammable, the ocean is becoming a trash pile, and we have particles of plastic in our drinking water. I'm a republican, and this does not seem acceptable to either side of the aisle.

I remember smog, water unsafe to swim in, and medical waste washing up on beaches. If we want a clean environment, maybe it doesn't make sense to eliminate the EPA and the regulations that led to a cleaner environment.

I think regulations should be at state level. Fed gov has no business doing that mess

This is one of the few places I support the Feds being involved.

Pollution does not stop at a state line, it affects neighboring states as well who have no power to regulate what is happening to them.

Pollution being dumped up stream in one state will reach every state downstream.

well, you certainly make a good argument. But why would a state not have laws like that?!

Plain and simply, money. More relaxed regulations means more businesses come your way and your tax base goes up. More relaxed regulations means more profit for the companies which means more taxes for the state.

 

[alang1216]

Each state should have definite plans to keep their state safe. I entirely agree that states should have the biggest say in how to do this. Huge federal programs would have big problems dealing with every unique issue in every state.

States need to be involved but if Ohio builds a dirty coal power plant dumps pollutants into the Ohio River several other states will be affected. Only a federal agency can set rules for every state. This is why the EPA was created in the first place.

 

[DustyInfinity]

While I think states should be in charge of their own clean up, I have to admit we need a strong EPA. I definitely have trust issues, and I think it should serve in a support role to state plans, but after defense, keeping the planet livable should be a top priority.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Each state should have definite plans to keep their state safe. I entirely agree that states should have the biggest say in how to do this. Huge federal programs would have big problems dealing with every unique issue in every state.

States need to be involved but if Ohio builds a dirty coal power plant dumps pollutants into the Ohio River several other states will be affected. Only a federal agency can set rules for every state. This is why the EPA was created in the first place.

So one state cant sue another state? I wonder if you are a product of the public indoctrination stations called schools?

 

[TNHarley]

Macron talked about there being no backup earth, and that resonated with me. I think one of the greatest tragedies in the last 20 years is the politicization of environmental issues. I agree with most republicans that the Paris Accord was a siphoning of us wealth with no impact on the environment. I also agree that college are getting paid to find results that are politically favorable. I don't want to get too much into climate change. Humans are definitely adding CO2, but I haven't seen anything that proves they are principle cause of a cataclysmic warming period. The earth has gone through many warming periods with little human impact. It seems keeping the earth a livable place should be right up there with defense. There does not have to be draconian measures that cripple businesses, but it would be nice if there was some sort of plan. Considering our schizophrenic form of rule where everything completely changes every 4 to 8 years, I see little hope of a meaningful plan clean up pollution. Our rivers are toxic if not flammable, the ocean is becoming a trash pile, and we have particles of plastic in our drinking water. I'm a republican, and this does not seem acceptable to either side of the aisle.

I remember smog, water unsafe to swim in, and medical waste washing up on beaches. If we want a clean environment, maybe it doesn't make sense to eliminate the EPA and the regulations that led to a cleaner environment.

I think regulations should be at state level. Fed gov has no business doing that mess

This is one of the few places I support the Feds being involved.

Pollution does not stop at a state line, it affects neighboring states as well who have no power to regulate what is happening to them.

Pollution being dumped up stream in one state will reach every state downstream.

well, you certainly make a good argument. But why would a state not have laws like that?!

Plain and simply, money. More relaxed regulations means more businesses come your way and your tax base goes up. More relaxed regulations means more profit for the companies which means more taxes for the state.

Its hard to argue, man.
Here is a question that would need to be discussed : what about the constitutionality of it?