EPA up for the ax???

[Flopper]

Which is exactly why we shouldn't do it. In your scenario, Kansas could decide to **** the environment and pollute all they want. Those pollutants could land in Nebraska instead of Kansas and then what? States sue each other? How do you enforce Kansas not polluting on Nebraska? Or do you think that would be fine?

There needs to be a national policy and a national enforcement of it.

Well we finally have found a use for the supreme court. If two states are in dispute then let them litigate there.

Litigate and wait how long for a resolution, when in the mean time people are getting sick? That's not going to help. You need a proactive agency that sets standards BEFORE there are problems. Libertarians keep saying what a paradise this country would be with them in charge, but all I see is that they'd allow the country to become a garbage dump for everyone except those that can afford to isolate themselves. NO WAY!!! Libertarians are as dangerous to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the Marxists. They both don't get that in order for their system to work there has to be a basic shift in human nature. I'm certainly not holding my breath on that promise, especially since they can't show one place in the world where their philosophy has actually worked.

States have had over 200 years to protect our air, water, and wildlife. Most states did little or nothing. The sugar cane farmers in the Everglades disamated the largest Ecosystem in the world and the state is living with the results. I can remember a beautiful river in the 50's being destroyed by a fertilizer plant upstream. My uncle lived and worked in Pittsburgh during 30's and 40's breathing what passed for air. He died 5 years ago from emphysema. No the states did very little environmental protection.

 

[rdean]

This may be Michele Bachmann's vision of American but I doubt many Americans share that vision.

Read what right wingers on this board are saying. That is EXACTLY their vision.

 

[rdean]

Chicago River cleanup rules on tap for pollution board | Government | Crain's Chicago Business

After years of saying disinfection alone would not make the river clean enough for swimming, MWRD commissioners voted 8-1 last week in favor of installing the new equipment anyway. Several newly elected commissioners ran last year on promises to support disinfection, which environmental groups have been pushing for years.

And recently, Illinois' U.S. senators, Democrat Richard Durbin and Republican Mark Kirk, and other elected officials threw their weight behind it.

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

Below that was one fantastic response by Karen M to a previous post:

Steven,
Your post is right on. I always love those who have been in power for years -decades- and when they run say they are going to change everything because it wasn't their fault. For me this applies specifically to the members of congress and the previous administration who have decided that the current President is a failure because he hasn't fixed everything that happened in the previous 8 years in the last two.

However, when you talk about the taxes that didn't exist 100 years ago, I also think about what else didn't exist 100 years ago. Clean water nation wide, decent labor conditions (almost) no fire trap sweatshops with locked doors. Advances in drugs and medicine that were a result of government funded research, voting rights for all of us including women. Equal rights for those who lived in a modified version of slavery for another 100 years after the civil war, etc etc etc.

So I can't say everything those taxes bought was a waste. We have our incredible high standard of living thanks to the government. Yes I credit the Feds with all I have mentioned because, lets face it, private industry never would have done the things that make life safer, better and indeed possible by themselves. States obviously weren't going to give up their laws allowing segregation, discrimination, etc on their own.

Is it a bloated organization, inefficient, and just plain silly at times, oh yeah. But I believe Churchill first said of democracy it's the worst form of government - except for all the rest.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well we finally have found a use for the supreme court. If two states are in dispute then let them litigate there.

Litigate and wait how long for a resolution, when in the mean time people are getting sick? That's not going to help. You need a proactive agency that sets standards BEFORE there are problems. Libertarians keep saying what a paradise this country would be with them in charge, but all I see is that they'd allow the country to become a garbage dump for everyone except those that can afford to isolate themselves. NO WAY!!! Libertarians are as dangerous to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the Marxists. They both don't get that in order for their system to work there has to be a basic shift in human nature. I'm certainly not holding my breath on that promise, especially since they can't show one place in the world where their philosophy has actually worked.

States have had over 200 years to protect our air, water, and wildlife. Most states did little or nothing. The sugar cane farmers in the Everglades disamated the largest Ecosystem in the world and the state is living with the results. I can remember a beautiful river in the 50's being destroyed by a fertilizer plant upstream. My uncle lived and worked in Pittsburgh during 30's and 40's breathing what passed for air. He died 5 years ago from emphysema. No the states did very little environmental protection.

If he was working during the 40s he must have been well over 80 when he died.
People were not tuned to clean air and water issues. Now they are. That isn't going to change back.

 

[Seawytch]

Nothing that humans have done in our history has ever hurt the earth, it has been proven that millions of years ago the carbon in the air was 30% higher then it is now, earth heals itself. Did you know that you are made of carbon? everything is carbon based, and if the progressives have their way you will be paying for carbon that already existed millions of years before man did, now doesn't that sound stupid?

OMG...scientists everywhere are collectively groaning. I'm actually not even talking about global climate change, my flat-earth friend, but pollution. You know...that shit that killed four thousand people in London in 1957? The shit that is causing all kinds of health problems for our nation's populace?

I would amuse them by telling them that there is nothing wrong with the air, and I would even give them scientific fact to back it up with.

Why don't you amuse us instead and try to produce these "scientific facts" about how pollution isn't bad for you. I'm sure we will be highly amused.

 

[Steelplate]

Nothing that humans have done in our history has ever hurt the earth, it has been proven that millions of years ago the carbon in the air was 30% higher then it is now, earth heals itself. Did you know that you are made of carbon? everything is carbon based, and if the progressives have their way you will be paying for carbon that already existed millions of years before man did, now doesn't that sound stupid?

OMG...scientists everywhere are collectively groaning. I'm actually not even talking about global climate change, my flat-earth friend, but pollution. You know...that shit that killed four thousand people in London in 1957? The shit that is causing all kinds of health problems for our nation's populace?

I would amuse them by telling them that there is nothing wrong with the air, and I would even give them scientific fact to back it up with.

Why don't you amuse us instead and try to produce these "scientific facts" about how pollution isn't bad for you. I'm sure we will be highly amused.

Seawytch.... I missed Grunt's post.. so I am actually addressing him, not you on this.

Nothing that humans have done have affected the Earth? True... the Earth will keep on spinning no matter what. But just between you and me? I'd rather my kids and perhaps someday my grandkids are able to survive in a habitable planet.

 

[Flopper]

It’s taken 40 or 50 years to cleanup our waterways and air. Without regulation and enforcement, fines, lawsuits, and inspections, the environment will return to the days before environmental laws. Big corporations are not going to continue to spend millions on equipment that protects our air and water or forego development of environmental sensitive land without enforcement. Their goal is profit, not protection of the environment.

Without EPA protection our precious wetlands would be only a small fraction of what they are today. Wetlands naturally filter and recharge the water that later comes out of our faucets. They act like giant sponges, slowing the flow of surface water and reducing the impact of flooding. Their protection is vital not just to man but to fish and wildlife.

By 1967 the great California Condor’s numbers had shrank to only 25 in the wild. The Whooping Crane numbers had been reduced to only 21 worldwide. Even the Bald Eagle, our national bird was on the verge of extinction. By banning of DDP, use of lead in buckshot, and rigid protection of nesting places, these birds are all making a comeback along hundreds of other creatures.

Economic woes come and go, but extinction is forever.

Yes, if we cut even one dollar from EPA's budget every big mean corporation will rush to dump their toxic shit all over school yards and stuff.
Geez, people are stupid. This is how Democrats get in office.

No. The EPA budget should be cut as should every dept. of government. There's a big difference in between reducing the size and eliminating a function of government.

 

[rdean]

You are the one that is claiming that the states standards are to low then prove it. \

It is no secret that the EPA and the Obama admininstration have a plan to bankrupt the coal industry.

Maybe the coal industry should follow China in cleaning up the emissions?

China Outpaces U.S. in Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants
China Far Outpaces U.S. in Building Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants - NYTimes.com

World's Top Polluter Emerges as Green-Technology Leader
World's Top Polluter Emerges as Green-Technology Leader - WSJ.com

So why are their overall carbon emissions many times that of the US?[/QUOTE]

They are also now leading the world in "birth defects". Does the right see that as a necessary "byproduct"?

(SHANGHAI) — Millions of Chinese children suffer from lead poisoning despite a crackdown on contamination, and local officials are systematically withholding the right to medical testing to cover up the problem, a rights group alleges.

China Hushes Up Lead Poisoning Epidemic - TIME

Hong Kong's English daily South China Morning Post has a distinctly unsavory dispatch from the Chinese media this morning: Government scientists have released research that millions of acres of Chinese agricultural land and over 12 million tons of Chinese grain are contaminated by toxic metal pollution

Heavy Metal: 12 Million Tons of Chinese Rice Contaminated - Ecocentric - TIME.com

Republicans insist we could be as successful as China. Hilarious.

 

[rdean]

It’s taken 40 or 50 years to cleanup our waterways and air. Without regulation and enforcement, fines, lawsuits, and inspections, the environment will return to the days before environmental laws. Big corporations are not going to continue to spend millions on equipment that protects our air and water or forego development of environmental sensitive land without enforcement. Their goal is profit, not protection of the environment.

Without EPA protection our precious wetlands would be only a small fraction of what they are today. Wetlands naturally filter and recharge the water that later comes out of our faucets. They act like giant sponges, slowing the flow of surface water and reducing the impact of flooding. Their protection is vital not just to man but to fish and wildlife.

By 1967 the great California Condor’s numbers had shrank to only 25 in the wild. The Whooping Crane numbers had been reduced to only 21 worldwide. Even the Bald Eagle, our national bird was on the verge of extinction. By banning of DDP, use of lead in buckshot, and rigid protection of nesting places, these birds are all making a comeback along hundreds of other creatures.

Economic woes come and go, but extinction is forever.

Yes, if we cut even one dollar from EPA's budget every big mean corporation will rush to dump their toxic shit all over school yards and stuff.
Geez, people are stupid. This is how Democrats get in office.

No. The EPA budget should be cut as should every dept. of government. There's a big difference in between reducing the size and eliminating a function of government.

Tell that to the next kid born with three eyes.

 

[bripat9643]

Killing the EPA would go a long way towards creating jobs and growing the economy, while making a negligible difference in the quality of the environment.

The EPA budget could be cut by 90% and there would be no noticeable degradation in th environment.

 

[bripat9643]

You're wrong about that. The EPA is easily covered by the General Welfare AND Interstate Commerce clauses.

If you're worried about corruption, don't look to the agencies that are trying to keep us safe and healthy, but to how we finance elections. If we went to public financing, our representitives wouldn't have to spend so much time drumming up campaign contributrions and selling their vote to whomever can bundle the highest amount.

Neither cover the EPA. The so-called "general welfare clause" only refers to the enumerated powers in the Constitution. If it was a blank check for the government to do whatever it wanted, then what would be the point of enumerating any powers for the federal government?

In the view of the people who wrote the Constitution the regulation of commerce by design deals solely with duties and imposts on the intercourse of trade between Nations or States, which in return had absolutely nothing to do with regulating internal industries, labor or transactions. As Thomas Jefferson put it: “To make a thing which may be bought and sold is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this were an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every state, as to its external.”

 

[bripat9643]

That's right!

Because corporations will gladly and willingly police themselves.

No, it's because 90% of what the EPA activities don't improve the environment. They only harm industry and kill jobs.

 

[bripat9643]

So you can show what effects on the environment the EPA has had in the last 20 years, right? BEcause if you can't you're just wasting everyone's time.
And given your record today I'm not holding my breath.

They driven up the price of everything 200% so we all have less garbage to throw away.

 

[bripat9643]

As much as people love to bash on the EPA, the reason it got so big in the first place is that private industry was out of control dumping shit wherever and whenever they felt like. Thirty years ago we had a major mess on our hands environmentally. When it comes to money, it's been proven that businesses will not regulate themselves, so getting rid of or reducing the size of the EPA would almost certainly be a step backwards and lead us to more problems.

If we look at China as an example, they have a bloody mess on their hands due to this same reason, and they are paying dearly. The cost of their cleanup is going to be astronomical and they are beginning to see this. I realize the cost to American business is great to live within certain environmental standards, but reducing our own is not the answer. The answer lies in pressuring these up and coming economies to be more environmentally conscious themselves as they develop. Forcing them to increase their costs a bit to make the right environmental decisions would help American business be more competitive.

You use China as an example of an unregulated economy when China is one of the most heavily regulated economies in the world?

That just brings to mind the fact that the most polluted countries in the world have all been socialist. One of the biggest polluters in the world is the U.S. government.

 

[bripat9643]

Sure. For one, the EPA has prevented the detrimental effects of acid rain across the Northern Forests, protecting tree and fish species from the Adirondacks to northern Maine. In doing so, they've also protected the largest industries in the region.

The theory that so-called "acid rain" was causing any environmental damage is largely a myth.

http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-8-number-3/environmentalism-triumph-politics

Yet in 1987, epa research raised doubts about the destructiveness of acid rain. Then came the most complete study of Acid Rain ever conducted, the half billion dollar National Acid Precipitation Assessment Project (napap), which concluded that the allegedly horrific effects of Acid Rain were largely a myth. Among other things, the study found that lakes were, on average, no more acidic than before the industrial era; just 240 of 7000 Northeast lakes, most with little recreational value, were critically acidic, or “dead”; most of the acidic water was in Florida, where the rain is only one-third as acidic; there was only very limited damage to trees, far less than that evident elsewhere in the world where so2 emissions are minimal; half of the Adirondack lakes were acidified due to natural organic acids; and crops remained undamaged at acidic levels ten times present levels. In the end, napap's scientists figured that liming the few lakes that were acidic would solve the problem at a fraction of the cost of the Clean Air Act's Acid Rain provisions.

 

[bripat9643]

When I was a kid, it wasn't safe to swim in Lake Erie due to all the dumping that had taken place. Today it is safe to swim. It also wasn't safe to eat fish out of Lake Erie, today it is. The problem with not regulating companies is that they will not willingly pay the extra costs to run a clean operation. Then they **** up the environment, and when they are found liable, they go belly up. So guess who is left with the cost to clean up the mess? You and me, that's who.

That problem was solved 30 years ago. the question is "what has the EPA done in the last 20 years that has significantly improved the environment?" The answer is: nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, it IS a fact. The Northern Forests and the lakes and streams they support were saved from acid rain by Bush's EPA and the cap and trade program they created.

Wrong. Acid lakes in the Northern Forests were acidic before a single coal fired power plant was ever built.

 

[tonystewart1]

Here is a copy of "Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act." from the WV DEP website.

Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Act."

Here is a link to their main site if you would like to poke around.

WV Department of Environmental Protection

 

[pete]

Yeah, screw the air we breathe and the water we drink in the long run as long as we create some coal mining jobs in the short term, right?

Just think how you can amuse the kids (as they are struggling to breathe due to the pollution in the air) by lighting the water in the sink on fire. YAY!

What is it now 40 45 % taking entitlement handouts .... that's almost half of the country and growing (not to mention the ones not counted). Now most of these people don't give 2 shits about the air, water or anything as that would require them actually doing something.
How do you clean up after half a country thats not helping and then there is the bigger picture of the rest of the world. We dont live in a bubble.

 

[konradv]

Why are you picking on Libertarians may I ask??? Sure, we like our liberties & conveniences too but also like fresh clean water & pure air to breathe also. My question was aimed at CURRENT PRIORITIES. Even president Obama has said repeatedly that both the financial & economic well being is TOP PRIORITY at this time for the USA. Michele Bachmann for your info is a Republican NOT a Libertarian candidate!!! I was merely passing on to our community members what representative Bachmann(a Republican!) had said about liquidating the EPA so as to pave the way to get industry back in America. It could have been a Democrat representative that said it instead of Michele Bachmann. Party affiliation has NOTHING to do with my post. The comment on the EPA made by representative Bachmann is NOT

Because they're the the fashion "du jour". After what we saw happen in the 20th century, we need to look hard at ALL purveyors of "isms". I thought I made it clear why. Like the Marxists, their philosophy requires a a change in human nature to work. Marxists expect everyone to work hard for the common good, forgetting that if people aren't rewarded in a timely manner, many will not work at all. The Libertarians expect that most transactions be agreements between individuals with little or no outside interference, forgetting that without adequate protections, some of the strong will inevitably prey on the weak. There's a big libertarian strain in this discussion and I refuse to let the opportunity to reveal the downside of the rose-colored scenarios they present.