Why Republicans controlling the EPA will only lead to disaster.

[deanrd]

EPA regulations are put in place after tracking down data, study and experimentation. Nothing is arbitrary. Regulations aren't pulled out of someone's a$$.

But when Republicans get rid of environmental regulations, it's not based on study or data, it's based on what they think costs too much.

Can you see how this will lead to disaster?

You don't know jackshit about pollution, Moon Bat.

There is no disaster you fucking moron. At least not in the way idiots like you are thinking.

Back when the the CAA, CWA, RCRA, SWDA, NPFDS etc were first enacted in a short period of time the US curtailed 80% of the pollution in the US for about 20% of the cost. In the next decades it curtailed 15% for another 20% of the cost.

The stupid environmental wackos are trying to get the last 5% for 60% of the cost and that is a disaster to our economy and despite what the Libtard idiots are claiming, totally unnecessary from a public health standpoint.

Just go put on your pink pussy hat. crawl back under your rock and howl at the sky. Your filthy ass environmental wacko bitch didn't win.so we are going to do the right thing instead of the stupid thing, for a change.

You said:

You don't know jackshit about pollution, Moon Bat.

There is no disaster you fucking moron.

-----------

This from Fox News:

Eyeless shrimp and mutant fish raise concerns over BP spill effects

A Timeline of the Water Crisis in Flint Michigan

Kalamazoo River oil spill timeline after 6 years, billion-plus dollars spent

So many of these non disaster disasters.

If you want to save the eyeless shrimp then go contribute to some stupid fund you dumbass.

Eyeless shrimp is a symptom of a damaged ecosystem.

This is why Republicans running anything is dangerous. They don't know anything and if they manage to learn, they don't care.

 

[deanrd]

Nobody cares about this

Except those few that want clean air and clean water. Too bad Republicans don't.

 

[bripat9643]

EPA regulations are put in place after tracking down data, study and experimentation. Nothing is arbitrary. Regulations aren't pulled out of someone's a$$.

But when Republicans get rid of environmental regulations, it's not based on study or data, it's based on what they think costs too much.

Can you see how this will lead to disaster?

The truth is that most EPA studies are total frauds. They make up the data. They grossly exagerate the toxicity of environmental contaminates, and they grossly exagerate the health benefits of reducing them. They also grossly underestimate the cost.

 

[bripat9643]

EPA regulations are put in place after tracking down data, study and experimentation. Nothing is arbitrary. Regulations aren't pulled out of someone's a$$.

But when Republicans get rid of environmental regulations, it's not based on study or data, it's based on what they think costs too much.

Can you see how this will lead to disaster?

You don't know jackshit about pollution, Moon Bat.

There is no disaster you fucking moron. At least not in the way idiots like you are thinking.

Back when the the CAA, CWA, RCRA, SWDA, NPFDS etc were first enacted in a short period of time the US curtailed 80% of the pollution in the US for about 20% of the cost. In the next decades it curtailed 15% for another 20% of the cost.

The stupid environmental wackos are trying to get the last 5% for 60% of the cost and that is a disaster to our economy and despite what the Libtard idiots are claiming, totally unnecessary from a public health standpoint.

Just go put on your pink pussy hat. crawl back under your rock and howl at the sky. Your filthy ass environmental wacko bitch didn't win.so we are going to do the right thing instead of the stupid thing, for a change.

You said:

You don't know jackshit about pollution, Moon Bat.

There is no disaster you fucking moron.

-----------

This from Fox News:

Eyeless shrimp and mutant fish raise concerns over BP spill effects

A Timeline of the Water Crisis in Flint Michigan

Kalamazoo River oil spill timeline after 6 years, billion-plus dollars spent

So many of these non disaster disasters.

If you want to save the eyeless shrimp then go contribute to some stupid fund you dumbass.

Eyeless shrimp is a symptom of a damaged ecosystem.

This is why Republicans running anything is dangerous. They don't know anything and if they manage to learn, they don't care.

Where are these "eyeless shrimp?"

 

[Anathema]

So fuk the kids? That's your philosophy?

I don't have any kids.

 

[Flash]

EPA regulations are put in place after tracking down data, study and experimentation. Nothing is arbitrary. Regulations aren't pulled out of someone's a$$.

But when Republicans get rid of environmental regulations, it's not based on study or data, it's based on what they think costs too much.

Can you see how this will lead to disaster?

You don't know jackshit about pollution, Moon Bat.

There is no disaster you fucking moron. At least not in the way idiots like you are thinking.

Back when the the CAA, CWA, RCRA, SWDA, NPFDS etc were first enacted in a short period of time the US curtailed 80% of the pollution in the US for about 20% of the cost. In the next decades it curtailed 15% for another 20% of the cost.

The stupid environmental wackos are trying to get the last 5% for 60% of the cost and that is a disaster to our economy and despite what the Libtard idiots are claiming, totally unnecessary from a public health standpoint.

Just go put on your pink pussy hat. crawl back under your rock and howl at the sky. Your filthy ass environmental wacko bitch didn't win.so we are going to do the right thing instead of the stupid thing, for a change.

You said:

You don't know jackshit about pollution, Moon Bat.

There is no disaster you fucking moron.

-----------

This from Fox News:

Eyeless shrimp and mutant fish raise concerns over BP spill effects

A Timeline of the Water Crisis in Flint Michigan

Kalamazoo River oil spill timeline after 6 years, billion-plus dollars spent

So many of these non disaster disasters.

If you want to save the eyeless shrimp then go contribute to some stupid fund you dumbass.

Eyeless shrimp is a symptom of a damaged ecosystem.

This is why Republicans running anything is dangerous. They don't know anything and if they manage to learn, they don't care.

Where are these "eyeless shrimp?"

I think they are the ones that voted for Crooked Hillary. Or are those the deft, blind and spineless shrimp? Hard to tell them apart.

 

[DrLove]

Hmmm - Wonder what's new with the King of Swamp Creatures E Scott Pruitt?

New custom SUV with bulletproof seat covers - RUFKM?
Scandal-scarred EPA chief Scott Pruitt ordered customized SUV with bulletproof seat covers

But there is hope:
Scott Pruitt is the target of no less than 10 federal investigations

 

[DrLove]

Eyeless shrimp is a symptom of a damaged ecosystem.

This is why Republicans running anything is dangerous. They don't know anything and if they manage to learn, they don't care.

Three eyes might be even worse - Remember Blinky the Fish?

 

[deanrd]

EPA regulations are put in place after tracking down data, study and experimentation. Nothing is arbitrary. Regulations aren't pulled out of someone's a$$.

But when Republicans get rid of environmental regulations, it's not based on study or data, it's based on what they think costs too much.

Can you see how this will lead to disaster?

Try using some evidence, your OPINION is not enough.

Evidence? Like Republican policy? Isn't that evidence?

 

[Wyatt earp]

EPA regulations are put in place after tracking down data, study and experimentation. Nothing is arbitrary. Regulations aren't pulled out of someone's a$$.

You lying S.O.B.




The EPA Hopes To Kill The Texas Jobs Machine

Study EPA Global Warming Rule To Kill Nearly 300 000 Jobs The Daily Caller

CFACT testifies against EPA s job-killing ozone rule


17 States Sue EPA Over Air Quality Rules

Judge rules EPA lied about transparency tells agency to halt discrimination against conservatives - Washington Times

 

[Wyatt earp]

EPA regulations are put in place after tracking down data, study and experimentation. Nothing is arbitrary. Regulations aren't pulled out of someone's a$$.

You lying S.O.B.




The EPA Hopes To Kill The Texas Jobs Machine

Study EPA Global Warming Rule To Kill Nearly 300 000 Jobs The Daily Caller

CFACT testifies against EPA s job-killing ozone rule


17 States Sue EPA Over Air Quality Rules

Judge rules EPA lied about transparency tells agency to halt discrimination against conservatives - Washington Times

The Obama administration’s EPA used the 1993 Harvard Six Cities Study to justify air quality regulations on particulate matter, or particles of pollution in the air. The regulations—linked to devastating the coal industry—also affect automobiles, power plants and factories.

In 2013 the House Science, Space and Technology Committee subpoenaed the EPA for data from the study, which links particulate air pollution to infant mortality.

'The American people should be confident that when agencies regulate, they rely on up-to-date, accurate, and unbiased information.'

- Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla.
But in 2014, then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told thecommittee the agency couldn’t produce either the Harvard study or information from a 1994 American Cancer Society study—claiming the EPA didn’t own the information







Junk science'? Studies behind Obama regulations under fire



Scientific studies used by the Obama administration to help justify tough environmental regulations are coming under intensifying scrutiny, with critics questioning their merit as the Trump EPA reverses or delays some of those rules.


In one case, agencies determined the research used to prop up a ban on a pesticide was questionable. On another front, the Environmental Protection Agency never complied with a congressional subpoena for the data used to justify most Obamaadministration air quality rules.

“EPA regulations are based on secret data developed in the 1990s,” Steve Milloy, who served on President Trump’s EPA transition team, told Fox News. “For the EPA, coming up with cherry-picked data is standard operating procedure.”

Milloy, author of “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA,” was previously a lawyer for the Securities and Exchange Commission and is among critics who accuse federal agencies of carefully selecting scientific research to fit a political agenda.

'Junk science'? Studies behind Obama regulations under fire


In October, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a directive to ensure that individuals serving on EPA advisory committees don’t get EPA grants and are free from potential conflicts of interest.

“Whatever science comes out of EPA, shouldn’t be political science,” Pruitt said in a statement. “From this day forward, EPA advisory committee members will be financially independent from the agency.

 

[deanrd]

EPA regulations are put in place after tracking down data, study and experimentation. Nothing is arbitrary. Regulations aren't pulled out of someone's a$$.

You lying S.O.B.




The EPA Hopes To Kill The Texas Jobs Machine

Study EPA Global Warming Rule To Kill Nearly 300 000 Jobs The Daily Caller

CFACT testifies against EPA s job-killing ozone rule


17 States Sue EPA Over Air Quality Rules

Judge rules EPA lied about transparency tells agency to halt discrimination against conservatives - Washington Times

Thanks for proving my point.

I only looked at your third link. This is the "study" in the link that talks about unnecessary clean air regulations:

The National Association of Manufacturers recently released an economic analysis which suggests that this proposed tightening of our nation’s ozone standard will cost an estimated $270 billion annually.

----------

What that tells you is that filth is cheap. Until disease sets in. Or you try to clean it up.

 

[Wyatt earp]

EPA regulations are put in place after tracking down data, study and experimentation. Nothing is arbitrary. Regulations aren't pulled out of someone's a$$.

You lying S.O.B.




The EPA Hopes To Kill The Texas Jobs Machine

Study EPA Global Warming Rule To Kill Nearly 300 000 Jobs The Daily Caller

CFACT testifies against EPA s job-killing ozone rule


17 States Sue EPA Over Air Quality Rules

Judge rules EPA lied about transparency tells agency to halt discrimination against conservatives - Washington Times

Thanks for proving my point.

I only looked at your third link. This is the "study" in the link that talks about unnecessary clean air regulations:

The National Association of Manufacturers recently released an economic analysis which suggests that this proposed tightening of our nation’s ozone standard will cost an estimated $270 billion annually.

----------

What that tells you is that filth is cheap. Until disease sets in. Or you try to clean it up.

No it tells me the Obama's EPA pulled shit out of their ASS...


Once again what business does Washington D.C. have of regulating rain puddles 2,000 miles away?

 

[deanrd]

EPA regulations are put in place after tracking down data, study and experimentation. Nothing is arbitrary. Regulations aren't pulled out of someone's a$$.

You lying S.O.B.




The EPA Hopes To Kill The Texas Jobs Machine

Study EPA Global Warming Rule To Kill Nearly 300 000 Jobs The Daily Caller

CFACT testifies against EPA s job-killing ozone rule


17 States Sue EPA Over Air Quality Rules

Judge rules EPA lied about transparency tells agency to halt discrimination against conservatives - Washington Times

The Obama administration’s EPA used the 1993 Harvard Six Cities Study to justify air quality regulations on particulate matter, or particles of pollution in the air. The regulations—linked to devastating the coal industry—also affect automobiles, power plants and factories.

In 2013 the House Science, Space and Technology Committee subpoenaed the EPA for data from the study, which links particulate air pollution to infant mortality.

'The American people should be confident that when agencies regulate, they rely on up-to-date, accurate, and unbiased information.'

- Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla.
But in 2014, then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told thecommittee the agency couldn’t produce either the Harvard study or information from a 1994 American Cancer Society study—claiming the EPA didn’t own the information







Junk science'? Studies behind Obama regulations under fire



Scientific studies used by the Obama administration to help justify tough environmental regulations are coming under intensifying scrutiny, with critics questioning their merit as the Trump EPA reverses or delays some of those rules.


In one case, agencies determined the research used to prop up a ban on a pesticide was questionable. On another front, the Environmental Protection Agency never complied with a congressional subpoena for the data used to justify most Obamaadministration air quality rules.

“EPA regulations are based on secret data developed in the 1990s,” Steve Milloy, who served on President Trump’s EPA transition team, told Fox News. “For the EPA, coming up with cherry-picked data is standard operating procedure.”

Milloy, author of “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA,” was previously a lawyer for the Securities and Exchange Commission and is among critics who accuse federal agencies of carefully selecting scientific research to fit a political agenda.

'Junk science'? Studies behind Obama regulations under fire


In October, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a directive to ensure that individuals serving on EPA advisory committees don’t get EPA grants and are free from potential conflicts of interest.

“Whatever science comes out of EPA, shouldn’t be political science,” Pruitt said in a statement. “From this day forward, EPA advisory committee members will be financially independent from the agency.

Scott Pruitt? The guy who needs a private $43,000.00 phone booth in his office? Of course he would want to get rid of regulations. A lobbyist rents him a fancy house for almost nothing.

Despite denials, lobbyist tied to condo met with EPA chief Pruitt

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

EPA regulations are put in place after tracking down data, study and experimentation. Nothing is arbitrary. Regulations aren't pulled out of someone's a$$.

You lying S.O.B.




The EPA Hopes To Kill The Texas Jobs Machine

Study EPA Global Warming Rule To Kill Nearly 300 000 Jobs The Daily Caller

CFACT testifies against EPA s job-killing ozone rule


17 States Sue EPA Over Air Quality Rules

Judge rules EPA lied about transparency tells agency to halt discrimination against conservatives - Washington Times

Thanks for proving my point.

I only looked at your third link. This is the "study" in the link that talks about unnecessary clean air regulations:

The National Association of Manufacturers recently released an economic analysis which suggests that this proposed tightening of our nation’s ozone standard will cost an estimated $270 billion annually.

----------

What that tells you is that filth is cheap. Until disease sets in. Or you try to clean it up.

What that tells you is that filth is cheap.

10 ppb is filth?

Drastically tightening the ozone standard as EPA proposes would make work for bureaucrats, but cost many private sector jobs while providing no meaningful benefit to the environment. Certainly no benefit sufficient to justify the tremendous cost.

Currently much of the nation does not meet the 75 parts per billion standard, yet our air quality continues to improve. EPA should work to make the 75 PPB standard work.

EPA’s proposal to tighten the ozone standard to 65 or even 60 PPB will cost jobs in the in the counties that have already met the current standard as well as the many counties whose hard work has them about to meet the standard.

Let's see your science. Let's see your math.
Before we spend hundreds of billions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

EPA regulations are put in place after tracking down data, study and experimentation. Nothing is arbitrary. Regulations aren't pulled out of someone's a$$.

You lying S.O.B.




The EPA Hopes To Kill The Texas Jobs Machine

Study EPA Global Warming Rule To Kill Nearly 300 000 Jobs The Daily Caller

CFACT testifies against EPA s job-killing ozone rule


17 States Sue EPA Over Air Quality Rules

Judge rules EPA lied about transparency tells agency to halt discrimination against conservatives - Washington Times

The Obama administration’s EPA used the 1993 Harvard Six Cities Study to justify air quality regulations on particulate matter, or particles of pollution in the air. The regulations—linked to devastating the coal industry—also affect automobiles, power plants and factories.

In 2013 the House Science, Space and Technology Committee subpoenaed the EPA for data from the study, which links particulate air pollution to infant mortality.

'The American people should be confident that when agencies regulate, they rely on up-to-date, accurate, and unbiased information.'

- Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla.
But in 2014, then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told thecommittee the agency couldn’t produce either the Harvard study or information from a 1994 American Cancer Society study—claiming the EPA didn’t own the information







Junk science'? Studies behind Obama regulations under fire



Scientific studies used by the Obama administration to help justify tough environmental regulations are coming under intensifying scrutiny, with critics questioning their merit as the Trump EPA reverses or delays some of those rules.


In one case, agencies determined the research used to prop up a ban on a pesticide was questionable. On another front, the Environmental Protection Agency never complied with a congressional subpoena for the data used to justify most Obamaadministration air quality rules.

“EPA regulations are based on secret data developed in the 1990s,” Steve Milloy, who served on President Trump’s EPA transition team, told Fox News. “For the EPA, coming up with cherry-picked data is standard operating procedure.”

Milloy, author of “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA,” was previously a lawyer for the Securities and Exchange Commission and is among critics who accuse federal agencies of carefully selecting scientific research to fit a political agenda.

'Junk science'? Studies behind Obama regulations under fire


In October, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a directive to ensure that individuals serving on EPA advisory committees don’t get EPA grants and are free from potential conflicts of interest.

“Whatever science comes out of EPA, shouldn’t be political science,” Pruitt said in a statement. “From this day forward, EPA advisory committee members will be financially independent from the agency.

Scott Pruitt? The guy who needs a private $43,000.00 phone booth in his office? Of course he would want to get rid of regulations. A lobbyist rents him a fancy house for almost nothing.

Despite denials, lobbyist tied to condo met with EPA chief Pruitt

A lobbyist met with Pruitt?
Is that worse than the Secretary of State meeting with Clinton "Foundation" donors?

 

[Sunsettommy]

EPA regulations are put in place after tracking down data, study and experimentation. Nothing is arbitrary. Regulations aren't pulled out of someone's a$$.

But when Republicans get rid of environmental regulations, it's not based on study or data, it's based on what they think costs too much.

Can you see how this will lead to disaster?

Try using some evidence, your OPINION is not enough.

Evidence? Like Republican policy? Isn't that evidence?

Still no evidence, you must be allergic to them.

 

[Flash]

EPA regulations are put in place after tracking down data, study and experimentation. Nothing is arbitrary. Regulations aren't pulled out of someone's a$$.

But when Republicans get rid of environmental regulations, it's not based on study or data, it's based on what they think costs too much.

Can you see how this will lead to disaster?

You don't know jackshit about pollution, Moon Bat.

There is no disaster you fucking moron. At least not in the way idiots like you are thinking.

Back when the the CAA, CWA, RCRA, SWDA, NPFDS etc were first enacted in a short period of time the US curtailed 80% of the pollution in the US for about 20% of the cost. In the next decades it curtailed 15% for another 20% of the cost.

The stupid environmental wackos are trying to get the last 5% for 60% of the cost and that is a disaster to our economy and despite what the Libtard idiots are claiming, totally unnecessary from a public health standpoint.

Just go put on your pink pussy hat. crawl back under your rock and howl at the sky. Your filthy ass environmental wacko bitch didn't win.so we are going to do the right thing instead of the stupid thing, for a change.

You said:

You don't know jackshit about pollution, Moon Bat.

There is no disaster you fucking moron.

-----------

This from Fox News:

Eyeless shrimp and mutant fish raise concerns over BP spill effects

A Timeline of the Water Crisis in Flint Michigan

Kalamazoo River oil spill timeline after 6 years, billion-plus dollars spent

So many of these non disaster disasters.

If you want to save the eyeless shrimp then go contribute to some stupid fund you dumbass.

Eyeless shrimp is a symptom of a damaged ecosystem.

This is why Republicans running anything is dangerous. They don't know anything and if they manage to learn, they don't care.

You are confused Moon Bat.

Obama's dismal economic growth was a symptom of the damage caused by unnecessary and economy busting regulations. Worthless regulations that need to be repealed.

The US spends as much money on environmental restoration as the rest of the world combined. Ever since the late 1970s pollution and waste generation in the US have been declining.

If you want to bitch about pollution then go bitch to China, Russia, India and Brazil and the whole continent of Africa because they are the world's big polluters.

I am a retired environmental engineer that spent 30 years cleaning up more pollution than ten thousand of you stupid Environmental Wacko Moon Bats will see in your pathetic lives. I occasionally teach a college class on Environmental Science. You should sign up for one of my courses. That way you would learn something and not look like such an idiot when you post your silly ass Libtard bullshit.

 

[Dragonlady]

EPA regulations are put in place after tracking down data, study and experimentation. Nothing is arbitrary. Regulations aren't pulled out of someone's a$$.

But when Republicans get rid of environmental regulations, it's not based on study or data, it's based on what they think costs too much.

Can you see how this will lead to disaster?

We finally stopped the lie driven agenda. created an OPEN science to all as evidence for regulations, and made it so even the layman can challenge the lies from the far left wacko's...

You fucktards created the damage and agenda driven regulations where shoddy science was used to deprive us of our right to feed ourselves and be happy doing so.

Open science that is challenged is a huge leap forward from the hidden lies and deceit of the old corrupt leftwing guard...

Going back is a fools errand...

Keep Going Scott Pruitt!!!!!... all the libtards can F-off

That was done and you clowns denied the science.

People will die. It’s inevitable. Sooner rather than later at the rate Pruitt is dismantling the regulations.

 

[Dragonlady]

EPA regulations are put in place after tracking down data, study and experimentation. Nothing is arbitrary. Regulations aren't pulled out of someone's a$$.

But when Republicans get rid of environmental regulations, it's not based on study or data, it's based on what they think costs too much.

Can you see how this will lead to disaster?

There may have been other Republican presidents fighting against some regulations, but the current policy of destroying the Agency from within is unprecedented.

IT is utterly corrupt and needs to be burned to the ground... That is why the policies are being shredded and removed while a new way of OPENLY discussing them from all points of view is being initiated as true science dictates. The days of the Enviro wackos and UN power grabers ruining the agency are over.

As you would say evidence???