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.
We heard similar arguments that the EPA was over reaching regarding acid rain and leaded fuel. Water and air quality are issues, particularly drinking water. Loss of wetlands, pollution of aquifers and wells and contamination of water ways are most definitely going to have an impact down the road.
We heard similar arguments that the EPA was over reaching regarding acid rain and leaded fuel. Water and air quality are issues, particularly drinking water. Loss of wetlands, pollution of aquifers and wells and contamination of water ways are most definitely going to have an impact down the road.
When Mexico burns their croplands and the smoke drifts up to Texas the EPA fines us for the pollution.
Think that is fair ?
WHAT?? You mean the EPA is preventing all forms of cancer in America? Wow is my father in law gonna be pissed, he just went thru an aggressive cancer treatment process. When I let him know he didn't really have cancer (because the EPA is protecting us) he's not gonna be a happy guy!
You libbies are so extreme, it's either unlimitless power to the EPA to do anything they want, or else it's cancer for everyone. What drama queens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Strawman By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
*sigh*
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Driving up energy rates and losing the health benefits of those cheaper rates is perfectly acceptable to you even if it makes the problem worse?
If you want to attack mercury emissions you need to attack the major sources and that is Asian countries and gold mining in third world countries.
All 50 states already have their own departments of environment. Here's mine - MDEQ - Home
Just trying to remove redundant departments.
Environmental regulation on the state level is ineffective in many states, look at North Carolina and North Dakota. If it comes to a choice between money and the quality of life they choose profits.
I guess you'd prefer air pollution (and associated cancer rates and low lifespans) like urban China.
A great deal of that pollution is from residential heating, they are using a very low grade coal that emits a lot of soot. Do you think they prefer clean air or freezing to death? I'm not trying to minimize the pollution issues there but that is just the facts. Keeping more than 1 billion people warm in the winter without using fossil fuels is no easy task.
The GOP in their ongoing war on the environment and to make us more like developing countries will soon start their assault on environmetal regulations. Republican voters will soon get their wish for a new conservative agenda as laws regulating clean air and water will come under assault, which includes the dumping of toxins into the air, rivers and streams. You would think the so-called pro-life party would want to protect children and adults from cancer and abortion inducing toxins being dumped into the environment and the public domain, but go figure, they ostensibly have different priorities. Big donors need to be repaid.
Do you support the gutting of environmental laws or against?
I'm in favor of taking away the EPA's ability to write regulations!
I'd also take away the billions of taxpayer dollars they receive to hand out free government grants. Regulations have the power of laws, and only the US Congress should be writing laws, not partisan, agenda driven bureaucratic, Democratic Party hacks.
The GOP in their ongoing war on the environment and to make us more like developing countries will soon start their assault on environmetal regulations. Republican voters will soon get their wish for a new conservative agenda as laws regulating clean air and water will come under assault, which includes the dumping of toxins into the air, rivers and streams. You would think the so-called pro-life party would want to protect children and adults from cancer and abortion inducing toxins being dumped into the environment and the public domain, but go figure, they ostensibly have different priorities. Big donors need to be repaid.
Do you support the gutting of environmental laws or against?
The GOP in their ongoing war on the environment and to make us more like developing countries will soon start their assault on environmetal regulations. Republican voters will soon get their wish for a new conservative agenda as laws regulating clean air and water will come under assault, which includes the dumping of toxins into the air, rivers and streams. You would think the so-called pro-life party would want to protect children and adults from cancer and abortion inducing toxins being dumped into the environment and the public domain, but go figure, they ostensibly have different priorities. Big donors need to be repaid.
Do you support the gutting of environmental laws or against?
We like dirty water, dirty air, toxins in the soil, and contaminated food. Of course, we like nothing better than dumping toxic, industrial waste in rivers and streams. It is what we do!
Isn't it amusing to hear what liberals really believe? Only a child could be culled into believing such nonsense.
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.
