Go ahead and laugh at the EPA now. (attorney, activist, accuse)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In itself no. But when you consider all the ill effects of burning coal.... Biomagnification of mercury (yes it may not affect humans that greatly, but how about the rest of the ecosystem), sulfar, nox, and other pollutants... it adds up.
Few people complain about the EPA when it addresses things like is happening in China. The problem is we do not have that problem, granted in part because of EPA actions. The complaints come in now that they no longer have the big things to address and think they still have to do something new all the time.
When it comes down to telling people what kind of lightbulb they can use, they have done jumped the shark.
Few people complain about the EPA when it addresses things like is happening in China. The problem is we do not have that problem, granted in part because of EPA actions. The complaints come in now that they no longer have the big things to address and think they still have to do something new all the time.
When it comes down to telling people what kind of lightbulb they can use, they have done jumped the shark.
Promoting energy efficiency which better uses our natural resources is jumping the shark?
But I thought the solution to all of our problems was to simply let polluters pollute and there wouldn't ever be a health cost to anyone. That's what Republicans have been claiming for decades now.
rubbish pure and simple. what republicans have been pushing is a balance between what is good for the environment, and what is good for business. remember it was a REPUBLICAN that started the EPA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
No it hasn't.
yes it has. understand that in everything there is a point of diminishing returns where pushing for the Nth degree has excessive costs associated with it for very little gain. as pointed out cutting the amount of mercury in coal from 10% to 1% gains us virtually nothing compared to the costs associated with the removal of the extra mercury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Good deal. Let's also add sulfar to that list of why coal is generally bad.
actually sulfur has many good uses, one of which is in electrolyte in batteries. sulfur is also used in sulfa drugs. granted burning sulfur is bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretzelogik
Hey it's like SOCAL you can't trust that air if you can't see it.
actually sulfur has many good uses, one of which is in electrolyte in batteries. sulfur is also used in sulfa drugs. granted burning sulfur is bad.
I was hoping that people would assume I was referring to sulfur as a pollutant from combustion, since the thread is about the EPA and coal fired plants, not antibiotics or energy storage.
Not a valid function of federal government.
Dont you think the makers of the lightbulbs should promote them with their own money?
According to you. Who cares what you think, since you aren't a constitutional scholar nor a person in a position of actual power to determine what is constitutional or not. Neither am I for the matter. So either put your money where your mouth and enact change or continue to be some sort of Don Quixote of constitutional law.
Gosh I miss the rivers catching on fire in Cleavland.
I lived in the 60s, in which trash was all over the highways, rivers were filthy, and smog filled the air. I remember when the Cuyohoga (sp?) river caught on fire. I remember fishing in a local river as a kid which had oil slicks and garbage floating in it. Open dumps were common (we shot rats there for fun). Isolated rural roads were littered with old appliances, dumped from urban dwellers. The US WAS DIRTY.
The EPA DID DO SOME GOOD THINGS. However, they have overstepped their bounds. No conservative wants dirty water and air. The EPA has progressed from an organization that has done some tremendous things for the US to an overpowering entity which enforces "laws" which lack common sense.
Why cannot the actions of the EPA be guided by SOUND SCIENCE and balanced with ECONOMIC REALITIES? China is an example of industry gone amuck (we had a taste of that in the 60s). The EPA has done some very good things, but needs some restraint and a reality check.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
