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.
you realize the premise of this thread is to do away with said regulations, right?
no its not. its to reign in the EPA and get them to stop doing things without the approval of congress. they already have the approval to go after gross polluters, they just wont do it. they would rather add on new regulations than enforce the ones already on the books.
you realize the premise of this thread is to do away with said regulations, right?
No. We have an irresponsible and destructive EPA. They are writing their own laws, pronouncing the guilty, and handing out punishments, in other words they have taken on the powers of the legislative judicial and executive branch onto themselves. They need to be reined in.
that assumes they have the money to pay for that electricity. remember if you kill the coal and natural gas electric infrastructure, you kill jobs, and when you kill jobs people wont have the money to buy the electricity that is being produced by other methods due to the cost.
also remember that some areas of the country wont be able to replace shut down coal and natural gas power plants anytime soon, so there will be power outages and brown outs as part of the normal course of events. and because coal and natural gas plants produce a substantial portion of the electricity in this country, the outages and brown out will be quite widespread.
The EPA is out of control, it needs to be reformed.
Case in point, 250,000 job at stake as coal miners beg the EPA to back off from their war against coal
“During the rulemaking process our unions stated for the record that MATS and its short compliance timeline would result in the closing of 56 Gigawatts of coal-fired generation and the loss of approximately 250,000 jobs.
i disagree. the EPA has good reason to be in place, but it needs to stop making massive amounts of regulations, and get to the job of enforcing the regulations that are on the books now.
i disagree. the EPA has good reason to be in place, but it needs to stop making massive amounts of regulations, and get to the job of enforcing the regulations that are on the books now.
Except for the fact that the Federal Government has no Constitutional jurisdiction over the "environment".
waiting on a state to sue the EPA for violating constitutional boundaries.
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.
