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.
Ok, how many jobs are being killed and where?
I personally think that reducing air and water pollution by 95% was a good thing. If it costs something for that benefit, it's worth it.
A steel producing firm might pump pollutants into the air. While the firm has to pay for electricity, materials, etc., the individuals living around the factory will pay for the pollution since it will cause them to have higher medical expenses, poorer quality of life, reduced aestetic appeal of the air, etc. Thus the production of steel by the firm has a negative cost to the people surrounding the factory--a cost that the steel firm doesn't have to pay.
But, I guess you are right, the EPA kills jobs. As people have fewer cases of lung cancer and emphysema, we need fewer medical personnel to treat people with lung cancer and emphysema and that hurts those jobs and the economy.
The theory that allowing industry to pollute to their hearts content may reduce the cost to industry but doesn't make the cost disappear, it just shifts it to the community at large. If I have the right to dump my trash any place that I wish, it doesn't make the trash disappear. It just shifts the cost to remove that trash from me to whoever I dump it on.
In many cases, EPA regulations create jobs. Before the 1970s, there were no need for catalytic converters. That's a big industry now -- JOB CREATORS!!!
The EPA is an unelected body, we don't allow other agencies to set policy, what makes them any different?
They say it is better not to say something and be thought a fool than to do so and dispel all doubt.
Agencies regulate all the time and that right is granted by Congress (an elected body.) The Federal Trade Commission makes regulations. So does the Food and Drug Administration. Ever hear of the Agriculture Department? They do it too. So does the Federal Communications Commission. In the interest of time, my time, I won't state more but you get the idea.
If you would have read my post above yours, you would have seen the closing of three power plants, and the loss of all those jobs, not to mention the reverberations of jobs losses to the communities and businesses that support those workers and the power plants operations. The increase in the cost of electricity will also cause hardships and increased costs to businesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
I personally think that reducing air and water pollution by 95% was a good thing. If it costs something for that benefit, it's worth it.
I'm all for having clean air and water, but why force new costly regulations now?? We are in a serious economic slump, our debt is getting close to turning our country into Greece or Spain, this is not the time to jack up energy costs and increase taxes.
These EPA regulations are setting arbitrary numbers, 95% of what, using what as a baseline? Not all coal is the same, for example, some coal deposits have higher concentrations of sulfur then others, and not all coal fired power plants burn coal at the same rates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
But, I guess you are right. As people have fewer cases of lung cancer and emphysema, we need fewer medical personnel to treat people with lung cancer and emphysema and that hurts those jobs and the economy.
The theory that allowing industry to pollute to their hearts content may reduce the cost to industry but doesn't make the cost disappear, it just shifts it to the community at large. If I have the right to dump my trash any place that I wish, it doesn't make the trash disappear. It just shifts the cost to remove that trash from me to whoever I dump it on.
We already have fairly new EPA regulations that mandated reductions of pollutants coming from power plants. The power plants across the nation just got done installing tens of millions of dollars of modifications to the smokestack scrubbers.
You just saw one company simply close power plants, because the EPA demands are unrealistic. 0bama is a wrecking ball.
They say it is better not to say something and be thought a fool than to do so and dispel all doubt.
Agencies regulate all the time and that right is granted by Congress (an elected body.) The Federal Trade Commission makes regulations. So does the Food and Drug Administration. Ever hear of the Agriculture Department? They do it too. So does the Federal Communications Commission. In the interest of time, my time, I won't state more but you get the idea.
It would be wise of you not to question my intelligence, I'm quite familiar with this topic. The Clean Air Act was not intended to regulate CO2, the EPA gained this right under the current act only after a protracted court battle that eneded up at the Supreme Court. It was a split decision. This power can be stripped by amending the act.
If we wanted to make an analogy this would be like the FDA classifying salt as toxic and justifying it because they can regulate lead in food.
These regulatory agencies work for us under the direction of Congress hence the reason the Democrats had language in their climate change bill that would have amended the Clean Air Act stripping them of this power. CO2 regualtions will impact everyone in this country and touch every facet of our economy, it's not a decision to be left the EPA.
It just shifts the cost to remove that trash from me to whoever I dump it on.
In many cases, EPA regulations create jobs. Before the 1970s, there were no need for catalytic converters. That's a big industry now -- JOB CREATORS!!!
Who do you think pays for the catalytic converter? The cost is shifted right back to the consumer.
Practical and sane regualtion of pollution is not the issue here, it's the EPA overstepping their bounds and we can see this many other agencies as well. It's time to put them on a short leash.
They say it is better not to say something and be thought a fool than to do so and dispel all doubt.
Agencies regulate all the time and that right is granted by Congress (an elected body.) The Federal Trade Commission makes regulations. So does the Food and Drug Administration. Ever hear of the Agriculture Department? They do it too. So does the Federal Communications Commission. In the interest of time, my time, I won't state more but you get the idea.
These agencies are a fourth branch of government, they create their own laws, their own punishments, and collect their own fines. Our federal laws are supposed to come from congress, and yet these unelected bureaucrats create new laws and regulations w/o any outside control. These news laws and regulations adversely affect the entire nation.
The EPA decided all on its own, w/o needing to confer with the congress, to regulate the entire energy industry, including energy exploration, and production. Then they decided to regulate the car manufacturing industry in this country. The FCC decided all on its own to regulate the entire internet.
No one elected these people, they are an entity all onto themselves, they are the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, all rolled into one. the have infinite power to regulate whatever their little hearts desire, and the left in this country is fine with this?? Sheep, freaking sheep.
I thought Nixon helped create the EPA and the Engangered Species Act.
Imagine that, a Republican who cared about the environment.
You thought wrong. The Democrat controlled Congress created the EPA and the Endangered Species Act. Or do you not know how your own government functions? Congress creates Executive Branch agencies and enacts the laws, not Presidents. This is basic civics. You really need to get a clue.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
0bama and his administration, and especially his EPA, are destroying jobs and running up the costs of day to day living in America. 0bama places more importance on pushing forward with his ideological agenda, then he does on the economy, jobs and the people.
So, you'd welcome being 1/2 mile downwind of a coal fired generating station with no emission standards or are you just another whiny NIMBY?
Not all coal is the same, for example, some coal deposits have higher concentrations of sulfur then others,
Here is where the "law of unintended consequences" enters the picture. One way they have reduced sulfur emissions is by using more coal from the Powder River Basin which has a low sulfur content. It's a bit of joke because you'd have a train going one way with high sulfur coal and another going the other way with low sulfur coal so they could mix it at the different plants because it's cheaper to transport it than install the pollution controls. Net sulfur reduction is 0, matter of fact it's more emissions because of the transportation.
Coal from the powder river basin also has significantly less BTU value than your tyical high sulfur coal so you have to burn a lot more of it. You have also have a substantial increase in CO2 emissions.
Congress creates Executive Branch agencies and enacts the laws, not Presidents. This is basic civics. You really need to get a clue.
Basic civics will also tell you the President is very influential on these decisions and can bring legislation to the table. The Clean air Act which we are discussing here was proposed by Bush1, the only thing Congress had to do with it was pass it.
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.
