What's wrong w/ protecting the environment?

[NOVA]

What's wrong w/ protecting the environment?

I don't really understand why this is a negative for conservatives.

And it is - Trump was talking about appointing this guy to the EPA, who wants to get rid of the EPA and deregulate, and then added that they will still ensure clean air & clean water.

No one wants or condones dirty water or air or dirty anything else....when you start off with
a foolish premise, your entire argument becomes a joke...You, yourself mentioned climate change could not be proven,
so why punish ourselves with ridiculous regulations over something we have no control over. We don't call water collected in your yard from heavy rain wetlands....
Even the EPA poisons rivers(https://patriotpost.us/posts/36896), accidents happen, no one is spilling oil in the ocean on purpose....
The EPA should be a watchdog of the environment but they should not have the power to dream up regulations that have the force of law on their own...they are not the
lawmakers ....they can show cause and present their case to Congress just as others do.

The foolish predictions of the 70's should have taught us a lesson about believing every nut that comes along saying millions will die of famine by 1990 and the oceans will flood 100 miles inland if we don't change our ways, as they did then...some fossil fuels may not be infinite but it'll be hundreds of years before we have to panic about it....the ocean is not dying nor is the air un- breathable. The trees are growing and food has never been more plentiful....the climate will change and storms will destroy the landscape and people as they have for millennia....

That is not to say we will allow just anybody to do anything they wish without regard for the environment...we don't shit in the streets and don't throw our
garbage in our back yards as we did in the past....we learn, we grow, we recycle. and we don't jump to foolish conclusions and swear by every rumor we hear as
the liberals tend to do all too often......above all, we use common sense....

The sermon is over.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

They vary in enforcement by administration. Obama has taken them to an outlier point where only science of pollution is considered by theEPA.
Real world that doesn't work,and that is what Trump (Pruitt?) wants to mitigate

You've been watching Fox news far too much. I've worked in the environmental industry for nearly 30 years. Obama has been a moderate who has implemented regulations that other developed industrial nations adopted a long time ago. So trying that line of bullshit on someone else. It simply isn't true. You're just another ideologue rationalizing on a partisan basis what some propaganda outlook has told you regardless of the facts.

You want to deregulate as Pruitt intends, which would end national standards and delegating those standards to the States would be equivalent to ending these management standards all together, don't bullshit yourself there, that's an indisputable fact, as that's how pollution was managed prior to EPA. Want some reminders of what that was like? Burning rivers? Love Canal? Valley of the Drums? Time Beach Missouri?

Nor do you understand how environmental regulations, has done the exact opposite of what naysayers have predicted. It's stimulated economic growth, created new industries and prioritized eliminating waste and inefficiency in manufacturing that has driven profits.

So what you and Pruitt and essentially arguing is eliminating standards that have been spectacularly successful and rolling back all the technological gains that have been made to secure the vested interest in old obsolete technologies?

That's probably not going to happen simply cause the direction that our markets are going simply won't allow it. Certainly not because some politician is a lap dog to obsolete industries like coal or because the uninformed, like you, have ideological reasons to blindly support rhetoric for which you haven't that first clue as to what the consequences would be.

So good luck with that. You want your candidate out of office quicker than shit through a goose. Go ahead and support these incredibly bad ideas and see what happens.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

What's wrong w/ protecting the environment?



No one wants or condones dirty water or air or dirty anything else....when you start off with
a foolish premise, your entire argument becomes a joke...You, yourself mentioned climate change could not be proven,
so why punish ourselves with ridiculous regulations over something we have no control over. We don't call water collected in your yard from heavy rain wetlands....
Even the EPA poisons rivers(https://patriotpost.us/posts/36896), accidents happen, no one is spilling oil in the ocean on purpose....
The EPA should be a watchdog of the environment but they should not have the power to dream up regulations that have the force of law on their own...they are not the
lawmakers ....they can show cause and present their case to Congress just as others do.

The foolish predictions of the 70's should have taught us a lesson about believing every nut that comes along saying millions will die of famine by 1990 and the oceans will flood 100 miles inland if we don't change our ways, as they did then...some fossil fuels may not be infinite but it'll be hundreds of years before we have to panic about it....the ocean is not dying nor is the air un- breathable. The trees are growing and food has never been more plentiful....the climate will change and storms will destroy the landscape and people as they have for millennia....

That is not to say we will allow just anybody to do anything they wish without regard for the environment...we don't shit in the streets and don't throw our
garbage in our back yards as we did in the past....we learn, we grow, we recycle. and we don't jump to foolish conclusions and swear by every rumor we hear as
the liberals tend to do all too often......above all, we use common sense....

The sermon is over.

stop making sense......you'll embarrass all the liberals.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You've been watching Fox news far too much. I've worked in the environmental industry for nearly 30 years. Obama has been a moderate who has implemented regulations that other developed industrial nations adopted a long time ago. So trying that line of bullshit on someone else. It simply isn't true. You're just another ideologue rationalizing on a partisan basis what some propaganda outlook has told you regardless of the facts.

You want to deregulate as Pruitt intends, which would end national standards and delegating those standards to the States would be equivalent to ending these management standards all together, don't bullshit yourself there, that's an indisputable fact, as that's how pollution was managed prior to EPA. Want some reminders of what that was like? Burning rivers? Love Canal? Valley of the Drums? Time Beach Missouri?

Nor do you understand how environmental regulations, has done the exact opposite of what naysayers have predicted. It's stimulated economic growth, created new industries and prioritized eliminating waste and inefficiency in manufacturing that has driven profits.

So what you and Pruitt and essentially arguing is eliminating standards that have been spectacularly successful and rolling back all the technological gains that have been made to secure the vested interest in old obsolete technologies?

That's probably not going to happen simply cause the direction that our markets are going simply won't allow it. Certainly not because some politician is a lap dog to obsolete industries like coal or because the uninformed, like you, have ideological reasons to blindly support rhetoric for which you haven't that first clue as to what the consequences would be.

So good luck with that. You want your candidate out of office quicker than shit through a goose. Go ahead and support these incredibly bad ideas and see what happens.

my advice to you and all the other TARDs....you've already fucked up your reputation by crying wolf over global warming........wait till somebody actually proposes something before you start bitching......that way its less likely people will ignore you if you really need to do something........

 

[Mott the Hoople]

that statement makes little sense. It is the boundaries of the standards that are in dispute. Do you have any clue about WOTUS?

In some cases it is the actual numbers too -like Ozone -which is so estrictive even a dry cleaners ona city block on a summers day violates the new standards.

It makes perfect sense. You have no idea how environmental regulations are created or how they are implemented at the State and Federal level. You're glomming onto something like ozone depletion, a well recognized hazard, and using a small industry like dry cleaning with out understanding that ozone aside that HOC's used by the industry have far more health and safety and ecological impact than just for ozone. You're clueless. Why don't you try reading an SDS on TCE and then come back and tell me that nonsense.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The absurdity of a so-called "nationalist" being obsessed with states rights. Nationalism and states rights are inherently opposed ideology - in fact, in the federalist papers, Hamilton uses the word "nationalism" simply to refer to a unified governmental system. The absurdity of the extreme, divisive ideology of modern nationalism, which simply seeks nothing else but to divide humans from one another by any means necessary.

Exactly. It's an over 200 year old argument that proved unworkable (article of confederation) and was put to rest forever by the Civil War. No matter how you spin the argument delegating regulatory standards to the States is, in terms of outcomes, identical to eliminating them all together. Only ideologues and those ignorant of history and cold hard fact.

I know that Annata's arguments would make it impossible for proffesionals in my industry to protect human health and the environment. It would create a regulatory climate of the least common denominator in which whatever State has the least or no environmental standards would establish national standards by proxy. It may sound great to someone who is the pitchman trying to secure some industries vested interest but the over all outcome would be to undermine all relevant regulations as you'd have a race to the bottom.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Exactly, the EPA has turned into something more akin to a single issue pressure group under Gina McCarthy. There is already one Greenpeace you don't need another. The US has cut back its CO2 emissions to 1990 levels and that is due to CCGT power stations fuelled with fracked gas. Not that you will ever see anyone on the Left acknowledge that simple fact.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk

Look I have no love loss for EPA but the U.S. is not the U.K. and you're just factually wrong. Virtually all regulations that come out of the industry are vetted multiple times for public feedback and proposed regulations written and revised multiple times based on public feedback long before they ever come even close to being implemented and when that does happen the U.S. EPA establishes national standards that set a baseline standard for compliance that all States use as MINIMUM standards. The States are quite free, and most do so, to have their own set of standards that are just as stringent or more so than the federal standards.

This notion that US EPA just waves it's wand based on its ivory towered ideology and coerces all to comply regardless is just divorced from reality. It aint the way it works and it never has been.

 

[anatta]

It makes perfect sense. You have no idea how environmental regulations are created or how they are implemented at the State and Federal level. You're glomming onto something like ozone depletion, a well recognized hazard, and using a small industry like dry cleaning with out understanding that ozone aside that HOC's used by the industry have far more health and safety and ecological impact than just for ozone. You're clueless. Why don't you try reading an SDS on TCE and then come back and tell me that nonsense.

you are going to have to define terms for a layman here. No i'm definately NOT talking about depleting the ozone layer.
I'm talking about EPA ground level standards where the EPA tried to drop acceptable values from 75 ppb ( parts per billion) to 65 ppb.
The reasoning was it's a health hazard for pre-existing conditions of bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma.

Excess ground level ozone is a health hazard, but the attempts to drop it to 65 ppb were very costly and put businesses at risk
"The Chamber of Commerce, along with a wide range of industry groups, state and local chambers, state governments,
and members of Congress, urged the EPA to retain the current 75 ppb standard.
On October 1, 2015, under a court-ordered deadline, the EPA finalized the ozone NAAQS standard at 70 ppb."
https://www.uschamber.com/issue-brief/ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standards

Look at this insanity over restricting ozone to such low levels -it caused lawsuits/congressional petitions/and even the 70 ppb
has vastly increased non-compliance.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

What I don't get is people that approach science with a religious zeal and fervour. I listen to scientists not Scientologists like Michael Mann and James Hansen.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk

Yea well do I and then those facts are promulgated into laws and those laws vetted through public vetting and regulations written and re-written multiple times before they are implemented as standards and even then those standards are phased in over time and often revised based, once again, on public vetting, until implemented nationally. It isn't life in a bell jar as your proposing and it never has been. It certainly hasn't been for the 27 years I've been working in the regulated community. If what you were saying was true then there would be no market for the industry I work in and it simply wouldn't exist. You're kidding yourself if you don't understand that these regulations are largely driven by market forces.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

my advice to you and all the other TARDs....you've already fucked up your reputation by crying wolf over global warming........wait till somebody actually proposes something before you start bitching......that way its less likely people will ignore you if you really need to do something........

Yea well I"ll be right over to your place with a drum of MEK I need to get rid of.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Yea well I"ll be right over to your place with a drum of MEK I need to get rid of.

why, did Obama change the way you have to handle that now......I know Trump hasn't.......he hasn't even been inaugurated yet.....guess you should have been bitching about Obama instead of Trump......

 

[Mott the Hoople]

you are going to have to define terms for a layman here. No i'm definately NOT talking about depleting the ozone layer.
I'm talking about EPA ground level standards where the EPA tried to drop acceptable values from 75 ppb ( parts per billion) to 65 ppb.
The reasoning was it's a health hazard for pre-existing conditions of bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma.

Excess ground level ozone is a health hazard, but the attempts to drop it to 65 ppb were very costly and put businesses at risk
"The Chamber of Commerce, along with a wide range of industry groups, state and local chambers, state governments,
and members of Congress, urged the EPA to retain the current 75 ppb standard.
On October 1, 2015, under a court-ordered deadline, the EPA finalized the ozone NAAQS standard at 70 ppb."
https://www.uschamber.com/issue-brief/ozone-national-ambient-air-quality-standards

Look at this insanity over restricting ozone to such low levels -it caused lawsuits/congressional petitions/and even the 70 ppb
has vastly increased non-compliance.

Look them up yourself if you're going to argue with a professional in the field you ought to be informed and prepared. I mean that's fucking hilarious. You're quoting a reactionary group like the chamber of commerce on ozone regulation. How about a technical argument. CFC's and HOC's, the main culprits in ozone depletion, which were once widely used in refrigerants and aerosols solvents are easily replaced by chemicals that work analogously without presenting the health and safety or ecological impact.

When I started in my field used to make a lot of money disposing of both. Now I might have a customer with a CFC (chlorinated fluorocarbons) waste stream that you can contain in a 5 gal pail every other year. Same with HOC (halogenated organic compounds) aerosols. Their solvent applications, like degreasing, are easily replaced by solvents which don't have these issues. Now I rarely see HOC's as most industries don't use them any more because of the waste, inefficiency and long and short term cost they represent, particularly for safe disposal that analogous materials don't have.

Sound regulatory standards for managing these compounds have virtually eliminated them from use in large volumes and have provided easy to implement standards for emissions and disposal has virtually eliminated the problem...and you want to go back to the old way of doing things based on the whining of an organization uninformed on protecting human health like the chamber of commerce who a trying to protect a vested interest in a market that no longer exist cause knowledge and private/public technology transfer has affectively solved the problem? That's completely irrational.

 

[anatta]

Exactly. It's an over 200 year old argument that proved unworkable (article of confederation) and was put to rest forever by the Civil War. No matter how you spin the argument delegating regulatory standards to the States is, in terms of outcomes, identical to eliminating them all together. Only ideologues and those ignorant of history and cold hard fact.

I know that Annata's arguments would make it impossible for proffesionals in my industry to protect human health and the environment. It would create a regulatory climate of the least common denominator in which whatever State has the least or no environmental standards would establish national standards by proxy. It may sound great to someone who is the pitchman trying to secure some industries vested interest but the over all outcome would be to undermine all relevant regulations as you'd have a race to the bottom.

you're arguing a Strawman. No-one is saying the EPA doesn't have authority by the Clean Waters Act and Clean Air Act. Those are federal roles passed by Congress.

What is being argued is the REACH into normally recognized state purviews.
For ex. the Clean Water act has always been recognized to pertain to interstate waterways, and tributaries to interstate waterways.
But under WOTUS -the EpA sought to regulate even ephemeral water ways! ( so called pond waters).

WOTUS also sought to sought to regulate intrastate waterways -clearly over-reaching into normally state matters.
It is this zealous over-reach that is the problem. You wind up with farmers/agricultural bypassing state standards in favor of more strict federal standards. Why should localized agriculture have to get permits from the EPA when the states are just as capable of permitting/regulating their locals ?

The EPA has turned in a federal monster with no limitations!!

 

[anatta]

Look them up yourself if you're going to argue with a professional in the field you ought to be informed and prepared.

well if you are going to be a jerk about it -forget it. It would be just as easy for you to provide a definition/link.
I gave you a lot of points to work with, but your dismissive snittiness means you are obviously not interested in discussions.
OK fine.
That's a reason Trump won the election, because of such elitistism. Let Pruitt do it from here.

 

[NOVA]

It makes perfect sense. You have no idea how environmental regulations are created or how they are implemented at the State and Federal level. You're glomming onto something like ozone depletion, a well recognized hazard, and using a small industry like dry cleaning with out understanding that ozone aside that HOC's used by the industry have far more health and safety and ecological impact than just for ozone. You're clueless. Why don't you try reading an SDS on TCE and then come back and tell me that nonsense.

And you're parroting the bullshit liberal line that every environmental regulation in the country is going to disappear when Trump is sworn in.
Thats just nonsense.....What should happen is that the EPA learns it has limits and can't just institute regulations on their own that has the force of law behind it....
regulations that should be debated as to what is intended and what effect they will have on the country as a whole....from school boards to the TSA regulations, its getting ridiculous....
They all have free rein over vast numbers of people and answer to.....nobody that has any power over them....

 

[Irish]

This is where I generally break with conservatives. I think we need to protect the enviorment. Climate change or not.

Cons tend to feel that Enviro regulations stifle business. And there are EPA overreaches. But I do see a need for enviro regulations. Companies will NOT regulate themselves when it comes to the environment.

 

[NOVA]

you're arguing a Strawman. No-one is saying the EPA doesn't have authority by the Clean Waters Act and Clean Air Act. Those are federal roles passed by Congress.

What is being argued is the REACH into normally recognized state purviews.
For ex. the Clean Water act has always been recognized to pertain to interstate waterways, and tributaries to interstate waterways.
But under WOTUS -the EpA sought to regulate even ephemeral water ways! ( so called pond waters).

WOTUS also sought to sought to regulate intrastate waterways -clearly over-reaching into normally state matters.
It is this zealous over-reach that is the problem. You wind up with farmers/agricultural bypassing state standards in favor of more strict federal standards. Why should localized agriculture have to get permits from the EPA when the states are just as capable of permitting/regulating their locals ?

The EPA has turned in a federal monster with no limitations!!

Friends of mine built a home on a 3.5 A lot, flat and bare, weeds and grass, with at least 30 feet of forest on 3 sides...and the EPA will not allow them to use 1/3 acre of that land, its to be left to nature, they can't even plant grass.....thats insane....there is no valid reason for that restriction....

 

[Darth Omar]

Youre in right wing lala land without a clue on how environmental laws and regulations work, how they're enforced and the consequences from lack of enforcement.

But hey, have it your way. If Pruitt is successful I should have no problem dumping a barrel of MEK in your backyard.

You're becoming Thing-like in your use of histrionics and hyperbole lol.

If Trump reigns-in the EPA it's their own fault. People are tired of not having a voice in how it is run.

 

[NOVA]

This is where I generally break with conservatives. I think we need to protect the enviorment. Climate change or not.

Cons tend to feel that Enviro regulations stifle business. And there are EPA overreaches. But I do see a need for enviro regulations. Companies will NOT regulate themselves when it comes to the environment.

What crap, 'break with conservatives".?....who the hell is demanding dirty water and smoggy air or pouring oil into the rivers....no one is , you idiot, no one.

 

[Darth Omar]

What crap, 'break with conservatives".?....who the hell is demanding dirty water and smoggy air or pouring oil into the rivers....no one is , you idiot, no one.

There's a distinction between environmentalism and conservation. We can pull off clean water and air without placing onerous regulations on businesses and energy producers.