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.
The EPA is perfectly in their rights... especially if they are NOT firing them. If you work for any business and have a dissenting attitude, the company can exercise the right to dismiss you. I don't see the issue with this.
How can you work for a company and be anathema to their vision?
Isn't their mission to protect the environment? If it is, then the couple should stay.
If their mission is to create new taxes and bigger gov't and more control of private business by coming up with economic schemes based on imperfect scientific theory.. then the couple should be fired.
One of the most annoying things about being employed by someone is if you don't have an INDEPENDANT fortune you have to tow your employer's party line both at work and in public. Employer’s use their monopoly power over their employees to control as much of the workers entire life as possible. Contrarian opinions are not appreciated as they dilute managements’ power.
“If you take the King’s shilling, you are the King’s man”. This is just as true now as ever.
PS: I think that the globe will get warmer and storms will get more intense as a response to the warming. I also believe we humans cannot do anything to stop this trend. That die was cast over 100 years ago. The best we can do is figure out how to keep our civilizations and economies functioning during the change.
The EPA is perfectly in their rights... especially if they are NOT firing them. If you work for any business and have a dissenting attitude, the company can exercise the right to dismiss you. I don't see the issue with this.
How can you work for a company and be anathema to their vision?
Only one flaw in your argument. EPA is not a private institution. EPA is a public owned government organization and is SUPPOSED to represent the whole US, not just a small group of individuals. Therefore, different standards apply here.
The Weather Channel tried to do same thing, Heidi Cullen, you should remember, is the Global Warming Guru at the Weather Channel who called for the firing of Meteorologists who publicly disagree with AGW
Only one flaw in your argument. EPA is not a private institution. EPA is a public owned government organization and is SUPPOSED to represent the whole US, not just a small group of individuals. Therefore, different standards apply here.
Well, it is a fine line there. It can be hard to distinguish.
Somewhere, on paper, the EPA has their goal/vision for how to handle global warming. All their employees are supposed to carry that out.
Take the IRS. Their goal is to collect tax revenues following the US tax code. If IRS employees were publicly stating that "income taxes are illegal" they would be dismissed, no?
While public institutions are different from the private sector, there is common ground in that respect.
I haven't read their reasons they gave but it's pretty simple to understand why. This will raise energy costs and in certain cases like the cement industry they will be taking it from both ends since the process for making it produces so much CO2. They'll move their operations to countries like China... In fact it could make things worse as the environmental laws there are pretty much non existent and you'll have increased mercury and other nasty stuff that is truly detrimental.
All those emissions are already controlled and regulated here. For example the US accounts for about 3% of the global pool of Mercury emisssions, 1% of that is from coal fired power plants. Asia accounts for 50% with a majority of it coming from China followed by India.
Even if those industries didn't move their operations from this country at the rate China and India are going they would quickly overtake any reductions we make.
I never thought someone would would seriously answer a rhetorical question
Well, it is a fine line there. It can be hard to distinguish.
Somewhere, on paper, the EPA has their goal/vision for how to handle global warming. All their employees are supposed to carry that out.
Take the IRS. Their goal is to collect tax revenues following the US tax code. If IRS employees were publicly stating that "income taxes are illegal" they would be dismissed, no?
While public institutions are different from the private sector, there is common ground in that respect.
There are plenty of police officers who disagree with keeping drugs illegal, and it doesn't stop them from doing their job. The trick is to keep it a secret and work outside the community in hiding to de-program the AGW whackjobs.
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.
