What's wrong w/ protecting the environment?

[cancel2 2022]

good link - i thought it was "interstate waters" but it's "navigable waters" that Congress intended to come under the Clean Water Act (CWA)
look at this hubris fr. link:

Repeated rebukes by the High Court have made no difference

Repeated rebukes by the High Court, including the last two initiated by our Foundation, have made no difference. In 2001, the Supreme Court rejected the agencies’ regulation of isolated, non-navigable waterbodies that read the term “navigable waters” out of the Act. In 2006, the Court also rejected the agencies’ sweeping assertion that it could regulate any water with a hydrological connection to a downstream navigable-in-fact water. And, in 2012, the Supreme Court unanimously condemned the EPA practice of issuing crippling fines and threats of criminal prosecution to homeowners without providing proof the CWA was violated and without affording the homeowners a judicial hearing to dispute EPA’s jurisdiction over their property. As Justice Alito observed: the “reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear” under EPA’s expansive reading such that “any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year” may be covered by it, “putting property owners at the agency’s mercy.”

Instead of accepting those pronouncements and demonstrating some restraint, the agencies’ current rule redefining “waters of the United States” greatly exceeds jurisdictional claims the High Court has already rejected. Compared to the draft we criticized last fall, the final rule made some cosmetic changes for political consumption, as well as some substantive changes, but the jurisdictional interpretations not only go well beyond any authorized by the CWA, they would be unconstitutional if Congress tried to confer such authority. For example, the final rule purports to exempt “puddles,” which is politically savvy. But even this concession is undermined since the rule expressly covers some water-filled depressions many people think of as puddles, including isolated “prairie potholes” in the Midwest, “vernal pools … located in parts of California” and various other small ponds if they meet certain conditions.

Mott always go offline when confronted with this type of egregious behaviour by the EPA. It needs to have its wings clipped and forced to concentrate on its primary role, not start inventing new roles and responsibilities.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk

 

[Darth Omar]

There is nothing wrong with protecting the environment...there is a great deal wrong with "politicizing" it in order to garner political power. In other words.....moral people dislike liars and con artists. Its total Bull Shit to suggest that the economy don't suffer when you attempt to give energy the bums rush and shut down the majority of energy production and jobs before any type of "viable" competitive alternative can be gradually put into place. Green Energy the way the left wants to practice it...is nothing but a job killing, energy deleting danger to both our economy and national defense.

Bingo.

What they tried to do is create an artificial demand for Green energy via government policy. Which would be ok if the replacement technology existed in the first place. The fact is it doesn't: there is no viable replacement for fossil fuels and there won't be for at least another decade or so. It's a fact: we cannot run our economy on Green energy.

The happy news is there's sufficient supply to get us there. Peak oil, turned out to be mythological.

A common sense approach would be to lift the most onerous jobs killing regulations; particularly, those dealing with the man made climate change *hypothesis*, at least till we know it's not as mythological as Peak oil was.

And in the meantime, encourage the use of Green energy via tax breaks or what have you.

 

[tsuke]

this is the exact same argument with the GOP and cutting social security or minimum wage being a state thing. There will still be environmental studies and other things in the EPA's original mission. The EPA will just have to act within the bounds of the powers given to it by congress and cant interpret things as they wish.

If congress, you know the elected people, wish to give them more powers then they very well can.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

There is nothing wrong with protecting the environment...there is a great deal wrong with "politicizing" it in order to garner political power. In other words.....moral people dislike liars and con artists. Its total Bull Shit to suggest that the economy don't suffer when you attempt to give energy the bums rush and shut down the majority of energy production and jobs before any type of "viable" competitive alternative can be gradually put into place. Green Energy the way the left wants to practice it...is nothing but a job killing, energy deleting danger to both our economy and national defense.

Straw man. Any issue can be politicized and if anyone is politicizing the issue it's the coal and petroleum industries as viable alternatives are being developed and the markets are traveling away from these energy sources, particularly coal, as cleaner, more efficient, less dirty and renewable sources become available.

This is why they attack the science or anyone who threatens their vested interest and to sit here and tell me that the major oppositions to our markets moving on to new forms of energy isn't being opposed by these industries to protect their vested economic interest is a naïve fool.

 

[tsuke]

Straw man. Any issue can be politicized and if anyone is politicizing the issue it's the coal and petroleum industries as viable alternatives are being developed and the markets are traveling away from these energy sources, particularly coal, as cleaner, more efficient, less dirty and renewable sources become available.

This is why they attack the science or anyone who threatens their vested interest and to sit here and tell me that the major oppositions to our markets moving on to new forms of energy isn't being opposed by these industries to protect their vested economic interest is a naïve fool.

part of the reason why these alternate energies are thriving is because the govt is pouring money into it and not into coal. If government puts its thumb that heavily on one industry over another and they are both US based then yes the coal industry has a right to complain.

 

[Darth Omar]

Straw man. Any issue can be politicized and if anyone is politicizing the issue it's the coal and petroleum industries as viable alternatives are being developed and the markets are traveling away from these energy sources, particularly coal, as cleaner, more efficient, less dirty and renewable sources become available.

This is why they attack the science or anyone who threatens their vested interest and to sit here and tell me that the major oppositions to our markets moving on to new forms of energy isn't being opposed by these industries to protect their vested economic interest is a naïve fool.

Attacking the science? What science lol.

This has less to do with science than simple supply and demand. In a perfect world, as the supply of fossil fuels constricts this would push the demand for alternatives. Demand for a product drives innovation. That principle has served us for well over a century.

Currently, there is no shortage of ANY fossil fuel, which turns out to be contrary to the accepted 'science' of a decade ago.

 

[Darth Omar]

part of the reason why these alternate energies are thriving is because the govt is pouring money into it and not into coal. If government puts its thumb that heavily on one industry over another and they are both US based then yes the coal industry has a right to complain.

We can put a man on the moon but we can't figure out how to burn coal cleanly lol?

I don't buy that for a minute. The whole energy issue needs a fresh look by someone who isn't wedded to an ideology.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Yet the EPA has now taken upon itself to preside over all stretches of water in the US regardless. I am sorry but the natural tendency of organisations is to empire build and that's what is happening here with the WOTUS rule.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...le-is-more-overreach-by-the-epa/#65f71ce66def

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk

Certainly government departments grow, they are inefficient and they do over reach but they also provide very valuable public services. I sure as hell don't want to go back to what it was like before Nixon signed the Environmental Protection Act into Law. In fact over the years, despite the claims of the far right or business interest more concerned about their profits than the public interest, the EPA has had wide bilateral support politically and broad support by the public. It has largely been a model of what a public agency can be despite the bitching of a handful of industries that are also our nations biggest polluters. Are you advocating that we should go back to pre-seventies era of pollution?

 

[anatta]

Mott always go offline when confronted with this type of egregious behaviour by the EPA. It needs to have its wings clipped and forced to concentrate on its primary role, not start inventing new roles and responsibilities.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk

it erodes trust in real EPA roles..
it 's an out of control agency that is too interested in glomming up powers wherever it can expand - even after being checked by SCOTUS

 

[anatta]

I do believe China and Asia are still growing demands for coal-China might be going into some economic contraction( at least by Chinese measures)
but Asia will certainly keep coal demands at least steady.
I'm far from an expert on this stuff, and defer to MOTT's/MILGRO's and others expertise, but i have heard of "clean burning coal"

Common sense tells me we need a diverse energy supply -even if renewables are an ultimate goal.
Unlike Clinton who declared coal dead-let the markets decide for export at least.

we are siting on alot of energy that could transform our economy into really cheap energy supplies that could fuel a real economic expansion.

 

[Darth Omar]

Certainly government departments grow, they are inefficient and they do over reach but they also provide very valuable public services. I sure as hell don't want to go back to what it was like before Nixon signed the Environmental Protection Act into Law. In fact over the years, despite the claims of the far right or business interest more concerned about their profits than the public interest, the EPA has had wide bilateral support politically and broad support by the public. It has largely been a model of what a public agency can be despite the bitching of a handful of industries that are also our nations biggest polluters. Are you advocating that we should go back to pre-seventies era of pollution?

That's a false dichotomy.

The only thing on the table is reigning in a rogue agency. Saying that means going back to the 50's and 60's in terms of the environment is fear mongering.

 

[Darth Omar]

I do believe China and Asia are still growing demands for coal-China might be going into some economic contraction( at least by Chinese measures)
but Asia will certainly keep coal demands at least steady.
I'm far from an expert on this stuff, and defer to MOTT's/MILGRO's and others expertise, but i have heard of "clean burning coal"

Common sense tells me we need a diverse energy supply -even if renewables are an ultimate goal.
Unlike Clinton who declared coal dead-let the markets decide for export at least.

we are siting on alot of energy that could transform our economy into really cheap energy supplies that could fuel a real economic expansion.

They still move coal out of WV, a surprising amount of it for a 'dead' industry. I have no idea where it goes lol.

But yeah, unleashing the energy sector will expand the economy. You can take it to the proverbial bank.

In fact, if it weren't for fracking the economy would be worse than what it is---imagine if gasoline prices stayed at $4/gallon or higher.

Fracking is a great example of a free market solution to a supply problem.

 

[anatta]

They still move coal out of WV, a surprising amount of it for a 'dead' industry. I have no idea where it goes lol.

But yeah, unleashing the energy sector will expand the economy. You can take it to the proverbial bank.

In fact, if it weren't for fracking the economy would be worse than what it is---imagine if gasoline prices stayed at $4/gallon or higher.

Fracking is a great example of a free market solution to a supply problem.

yep. I work from home and my gasoline bill is like $10-15 a week! It's like the cost of 1 restaurant meal. It's not even in my budget.

There is a glut for various reasons,but it need not stay that way forever. The world is in an economic slump - if we heat up economies again -then energy cost go up too -but this time without adding to our trade deficit.
Plus w could sell nat gas to Europe instead of russia...it's a good idea to get this sector moving

 

[Darth Omar]

yep. I work from home and my gasoline bill is like $10-15 a week! It's like the cost of 1 restaurant meal. It's not even in my budget.

There is a glut for various reasons,but it need not stay that way forever. The world is in an economic slump - if we heat up economies again -then energy cost go up too -but this time without adding to our trade deficit.
Plus w could sell nat gas to Europe instead of russia...it's a good idea to get this sector moving

You're lucky on the petrol lol.

$4/gallon gasoline is a budget buster for millions of working class families though. And when it's not busting the budget it causes them to not purchase that new car or what have you.

It has a dreadful ripple effect that affects the whole economy.

 

[leaningright]

yep. I work from home and my gasoline bill is like $10-15 a week! It's like the cost of 1 restaurant meal. It's not even in my budget.

That's nice. Most of the families around here drive 250-500 miles a week to go to work. I drove, as some still do, 900 miles a week to go to college the last two years. $4 gas is a killer for these folks.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Straw man. Any issue can be politicized and if anyone is politicizing the issue it's the coal and petroleum industries as viable alternatives are being developed and the markets are traveling away from these energy sources, particularly coal, as cleaner, more efficient, less dirty and renewable sources become available.

This is why they attack the science or anyone who threatens their vested interest and to sit here and tell me that the major oppositions to our markets moving on to new forms of energy isn't being opposed by these industries to protect their vested economic interest is a naïve fool.

Don't talk rubbish, you only have to look at the German Energiewende to know the dangers of over reliance on wind and solar.

http://notrickszone.com/2016/03/17/...y-and-senseless-failure/#sthash.txHYvCXd.dpbs

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk

 

[Rune]

Bingo.

What they tried to do is create an artificial demand for Green energy via government policy. Which would be ok if the replacement technology existed in the first place. The fact is it doesn't: there is no viable replacement for fossil fuels and there won't be for at least another decade or so. It's a fact: we cannot run our economy on Green energy.

The happy news is there's sufficient supply to get us there. Peak oil, turned out to be mythological.

A common sense approach would be to lift the most onerous jobs killing regulations; particularly, those dealing with the man made climate change *hypothesis*, at least till we know it's not as mythological as Peak oil was.

And in the meantime, encourage the use of Green energy via tax breaks or what have you.

What is your proof that peak oil mythical?
Link up fool.

 

[Rune]

They still move coal out of WV, a surprising amount of it for a 'dead' industry. I have no idea where it goes lol.

But yeah, unleashing the energy sector will expand the economy. You can take it to the proverbial bank.

In fact, if it weren't for fracking the economy would be worse than what it is---imagine if gasoline prices stayed at $4/gallon or higher.

Fracking is a great example of a free market solution to a supply problem.

Fracking has no effect on gasoline prices you fucking idiot.

 

[Rune]

yep. I work from home and my gasoline bill is like $10-15 a week! It's like the cost of 1 restaurant meal. It's not even in my budget.

There is a glut for various reasons,but it need not stay that way forever. The world is in an economic slump - if we heat up economies again -then energy cost go up too -but this time without adding to our trade deficit.
Plus w could sell nat gas to Europe instead of russia...it's a good idea to get this sector moving

Research fracking you ignorant cunt.

 

[Rune]

part of the reason why these alternate energies are thriving is because the govt is pouring money into it and not into coal. If government puts its thumb that heavily on one industry over another and they are both US based then yes the coal industry has a right to complain.

Bullshit retard.
Coal and especially oil still receive massive subsidies.