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.
Wow just read the poll question and my answer is a resounding NO! Not because I think corporations will do it themselves or the free market will take care of it, but because I think our government is owned by these corporations so if we put the government in charge then we just increased pollution tenfold.
Good point, but it's the best we've got. I fail to see how it would increase pollution, unless power is taken away from some more legitimate governing body (ie states).
is it mentioned in the Constitution? I didnt think so, that is a right left to the state or the people of that state.
yes companies will regulate themselves. when they start to go broke from lawsuits and the fact that nobody is buying their product because of the mess they are making, then the company will clean it up.
The official position of the more vocal right seems to be pretty much, **** the environment, but I want to get the opinions of individual conservatives on this.
Let me preface this as well by saying that I believe that it is a legitimate role of the federal government to regulate pollution. Unlike many other issues, it serves no legitimate purpose that I can see to pawn this one off on the states, or disregard it all together.
I also believe that it discredits the "limited government" belief system to be so adamantly against environmental regulation on a federal level, while providing no argument that I can discern as to why. This only serves to make said belief system appear dogmatic and incapable of addressing individual issues.
And for the extreme wacko libertarian types, companies will not regulate their own environment impact. That's ridiculous. And a core tenet of libertarianism being to protect individual rights, I don't believe there is a conflict here, given that polluting public air and water etc directly infringes on the rights on everyone.
Unfortunately they don't know when to stop. Remember this story from 2011?
If you are already ticked off at the federal government's shenanigans, this should send you off the cliff screaming.
"The EPA gives millions to the environmental groups that sue it. “When the EPA settles or loses those suits, it then awards the groups millions more in attorneys’ fees,” notes legal commentator Walter Olson. “‘The EPA isn’t harmed by these suits,’ said Jeffrey Holmstead, who was an EPA official during the Bush administration. ‘Often the suits involve things the EPA wants to do anyway. By inviting a lawsuit and then signing a consent decree, the agency gets legal cover from political heat.’"
"The cap-and-trade bill is chock full of costly corporate welfare, and would have a “trivially small” effect on greenhouse gas emissions while imposing an enormous cost, according to a former Obama Advisor. It is supported by the same special-interests and corporate rent-seekers who supported the stimulus package’s green-jobs provisions, which used tax dollars to outsource American jobs, subsidizing foreign “green jobs” that replaced thousands of American jobs. Recent EPA rules will wipe out at least 800,000 jobs. Two economists say the stimulus destroyed 550,000 jobs.)"
The article goes on to say it isn't just the EPA in the federal government that pulls this kind of scam - that is settling lawsuits that give them everything they ask for including paying the legal fees because the administration/agency wants the same thing the suing group wants. They just need the political cover to pull it off that "losing" the lawsuit brings.
Unfortunately they don't know when to stop. Remember this story from 2011?
If you are already ticked off at the federal government's shenanigans, this should send you off the cliff screaming.
"The EPA gives millions to the environmental groups that sue it. “When the EPA settles or loses those suits, it then awards the groups millions more in attorneys’ fees,” notes legal commentator Walter Olson. “‘The EPA isn’t harmed by these suits,’ said Jeffrey Holmstead, who was an EPA official during the Bush administration. ‘Often the suits involve things the EPA wants to do anyway. By inviting a lawsuit and then signing a consent decree, the agency gets legal cover from political heat.’"
"The cap-and-trade bill is chock full of costly corporate welfare, and would have a “trivially small” effect on greenhouse gas emissions while imposing an enormous cost, according to a former Obama Advisor. It is supported by the same special-interests and corporate rent-seekers who supported the stimulus package’s green-jobs provisions, which used tax dollars to outsource American jobs, subsidizing foreign “green jobs” that replaced thousands of American jobs. Recent EPA rules will wipe out at least 800,000 jobs. Two economists say the stimulus destroyed 550,000 jobs.)"
The article goes on to say it isn't just the EPA in the federal government that pulls this kind of scam - that is settling lawsuits that give them everything they ask for including paying the legal fees because the administration/agency wants the same thing the suing group wants. They just need the political cover to pull it off that "losing" the lawsuit brings.
The article you are quoting is from a propoganda site: I wouldn't trust what it says.
Good point, but it's the best we've got. I fail to see how it would increase pollution, unless power is taken away from some more legitimate governing body (ie states).
Because when they create the laws, they create the loopholes. Look at Obamacare (what is the real name of that bill). I told my husband the first day I heard it proposed that they will drop the public option before it is passed and that that was just a tactic to drum up support. At the time we were uninsured but making too much at 50-60K to qualify for NYS insurance. Our daughter was five, it was a nerve wracking time. To purchase private insurance it would have cost us something like $1200 a month. So we were really hoping for a feasible public option.
But I told him on the day it was proposed that it would pass and would only benefit the insurance companies. At the end the major change would be a law requiring all individuals to have health insurance. The same would happen with environmental regulations. At the end would be a law with enough loopholes for companies to increase pollution while taking away our ability to fight against it.
Because when they create the laws, they create the loopholes. Look at Obamacare (what is the real name of that bill). I told my husband the first day I heard it proposed that they will drop the public option before it is passed and that that was just a tactic to drum up support. At the time we were uninsured but making too much at 50-60K to qualify for NYS insurance. Our daughter was five, it was a nerve wracking time. To purchase private insurance it would have cost us something like $1200 a month. So we were really hoping for a feasible public option.
But I told him on the day it was proposed that it would pass and would only benefit the insurance companies. At the end the major change would be a law requiring all individuals to have health insurance. The same would happen with environmental regulations. At the end would be a law with enough loopholes for companies to increase pollution while taking away our ability to fight against it.
Trust me I know what you mean, my point is this - what's the alternative? Do nothing?
Unless you're saying that we should push it down to the states which are arguably less corrupt.
Honestly I think its a symptom of a deeper problem in our nation and the solution starts with banning lobbying. And separating laws for corporations from laws for individuals.
The official position of the more vocal right seems to be pretty much, **** the environment, but I want to get the opinions of individual conservatives on this.
Let me preface this as well by saying that I believe that it is a legitimate role of the federal government to regulate pollution. Unlike many other issues, it serves no legitimate purpose that I can see to pawn this one off on the states, or disregard it all together.
I also believe that it discredits the "limited government" belief system to be so adamantly against environmental regulation on a federal level, while providing no argument that I can discern as to why. This only serves to make said belief system appear dogmatic and incapable of addressing individual issues.
And for the extreme wacko libertarian types, companies will not regulate their own environment impact. That's ridiculous. And a core tenet of libertarianism being to protect individual rights, I don't believe there is a conflict here, given that polluting public air and water etc directly infringes on the rights on everyone.
stop listening to the mainstream media and the wacko left in regards to what conservatives want. we dont want to eliminate environmental regulation, was just want to balance it with the needs of business, the people, and the environment.
its a risk/reward kind of deal. there is a point of diminishing returns with anything. you can eliminate 98% of the emissions from a vehicles tailpipe, and we have done so since the 60s, but getting that last 2% is going to be very expensive, to the point where small cars will even be priced out of the market for the average person.
as i have said repeatedly, i want to breath clean and and drink clean water, and the environment is far cleaner than it was in the 70s, but we cant get back to say the 1200s ever again unless we eliminate technology. even the mining and processing of the raw materials for making batteries for electric cars pollutes the environment. the best we can do is minimize the damage as much as is economically possible.
Charities are helping the U.S. keep Canada over a barrel
Ross McMillan, the CEO of the controversial charity Tides Canada, will speak Wednesday at the Economic Club of Canada on accountability and transparency in the charity sector. Perhaps Mr. McMillan will explain why the U.S. Tides Foundation (Tides USA) founded Tides Canada.
Tides USA is a co-funder of the Rockefeller Brothers Tar Sands Campaign, whose first goal is to stop or limit pipelines and refinery expansions. But of all the hundreds of pipelines in North America, the only pipelines that the Rockefellers single out in their multi-million-dollar campaign are the Mackenzie pipeline and the Enbridge Northern Gateway — pipelines that would export Canadian energy.
The Rockefeller Brothers also seek to ban oil tanker traffic, but again, they only oppose oil tankers on the strategic coast of British Columbia and in the far north — those export-bound to Asia.
The Rockefeller Brothers Tar Sands Campaign involves the World Wildlife Fund, the Pembina Institute, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Indigenous Environmental Network and other environmental groups funded through Tides USA. The annual budget for this campaign against Canadian oil is $7-million.
These groups say they would stop pipelines and tanker traffic by “raising the negatives,” “raising the costs,” “slowing down and stopping infrastructure development” and “enrolling key decision-makers.”
In tax filings, Tides USA has reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service that Tides Canada and the Endswell Foundation are related. Indeed, for many years, all three organizations had Drummond Pike and Joel Solomon at the helm. Pike is the founder of Tides USA and was CEO for 34 years, until he stepped down in 2010. Pike has been on the board of Tides Canada since 2000 and is its “founding chair.” Joel Solomon is the former chair of Tides USA and is the vice-chair of Tides Canada. Pike and Solomon are also Endswell’s long-time chair and president, respectively.
During the 1990s, Endswell was the largest funder of environmental groups in B.C. Between 2003 and 2009, Endswell made grants for a total of $8.7-million. Of that, 99% went to Tides Canada, tax returns show. Given that the senior leadership at Tides Canada and Endswell is the same, these organizations are, in essence, two pockets in the same pair of pants and have been simply transferring money from one pocket to the other.
For more than 10 years, the treasurer of Tides Canada and Endswell was the same person, James Morrisey, a senior accountant at Ernst & Young, so one would think that it would have been fairly straightforward for Endswell to grant funds to Tides Canada. Why, then, did Endswell need to spend $11.4-million on overhead (2003-09) so that Endswell could grant $8.7-million to Tides Canada? Why did Endswell’s annual overhead nearly triple from $797,183 to $2.2-million, even though Endswell didn’t make a single grant to any organization other than Tides Canada? For several years in a row, Endswell’s overhead exceeded grants.
Between 2000 and 2010, Tides Canada’s assets increased from $2-million to $39-million, but where that money came from is a bit of a mystery. Over the same years, Endswell’s assets went from $26-million to $196,557. Did Endswell transfer assets to Tides Canada? If not, then what happened to Endswell’s assets?
According to the announcement for Wednesday’s event, Mr. McMillan will talk about the work that Tides Canada is doing across the country. It would be interesting to hear what Mr. McMillan has to say about why Tides Canada has focused so much of its grant-making on the north coast of B.C., Canada’s strategic gateway to Asia.
According to my analysis and calculations based on Tides Canada’s U.S. tax returns, during 2008, 2009 and 2010, Tides Canada made grants to 236 organizations for a total of $56-million. Of that, $28-million went to First Nations on the north coast of B.C., $8-million went to environmental groups and $12.5-million was for Tides Canada’s internal projects, most of which are on B.C.’s north coast. Only $7-million, 12% of the $56-million that Tides Canada granted between 2008 and 2010, went to organizations outside of a core group of B.C. First Nations, environmental groups and internal projects.
As far as I can tell, Tides Canada has funded no group that supports the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline; all of the First Nations and environmental groups funded by Tides Canada are opposed.
It would be interesting to know what Mr. McMillan defines as charity and how it provides a measurable benefit to the public — which is what charities are supposed to do — to support campaigns that block trade and let special interest U.S. Lobby groups keep Canada over a barrel. Canadian pipelines targeted by U.S. funds | FP Comment | Financial Post
Thing that gets me is why are theRockefellers the ones funding the whole thing and making choices and influencing both Canadians an Americans that would from jobs and other economic spin offs of building the Keystone XL and when did Tides call the shots on what happens between our two countries and where does all the money go since someone is getting rich off this and it is hurting our trading relationship which pretty sad that Tides and Greenpeace are calling the shots we just do not have that type of lobbying up here so it really is messed up that people support these groups that work against both our countries best interests.
I mean anyone seen the smog in China yet Tides and Green Peace target Canada but yet both our countries both happen to mine and export massive amounts of Coal to china to power their energy needs and no one says a thing from either organization is pretty evident that the this all about Making Rich people even money off Green energy that turns out to fail after the get Billions in taxpayer subsidized funding and then never deliver on their promise but tend to leave with CEO won get huge bonus for running a company into the group.
I mean great to have the Lobby groups that bring the same type you have now that is causing a huge problem in terms of getting anything done type of policy where “raising the negatives,” “raising the costs,” “slowing down and stopping infrastructure development” and “enrolling key decision-makers” I mean sound like buying off people with any type of influence to pretty much sell out their own country and the best interests of the their citizens as well as costing the taxpayers more by doing those tactics.
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.
