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.
Yes i know the epa did such great job especially when they polluted the colorado river...
You guys keep going back to this incident. Repeat after me. One incident does not define the purpose of a group.
Think back to a mistake you have made in your life. Any mistake would do. Is it fair for everyone to keep going back to that mistake and define you as a person by this mistake?
I speak as someone who has been in a constant fight against the EPA. Trust me, the EPA is not a friend of those in construction.
Yeah, when cleaning up a mining operation. The sort of mining operation that you want the EPA to be unable to regulate. Why do you think there were hazardous materials there to begin with?
Why didn't the EPA prevent that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
And how much pollution does the EPA prevent from private firms, cities, states, and other branches of the government? Do you have any clue?
States can do it better. Ever hear of lawsuits against a polluter? Do you have any clue?
Why should federal agency employees be permitted to pursue their own policies? Aren't they subject to the elected officials?
To a degree. Most elected officials don't actually know anything about science or economics or trade or really anything, so they delegate to agency employees. If you read the enabling legislation of agencies like the EPA or the FDA, they're granted a huge amount of leeway.
There's no question who is higher up in the hierachy, however some loud-mouth Congressman can't just scream how he/she doesn't like it and achieve results. Congress actually has to pass laws.
What happened to all the "they work for the people!" talk?
If that were truly the case, then "the people" could fire those employees for incompetence, or cut their pay since we "pay" their salaries. Can't have it both ways.
We're constantly told that government employees work for the agency they are employed by, not the taxpayers that pay their salaries, and that the "people's" opinions don't matter. In private business, an employer has every right to prohibit an employee from disclosing information of the business through social media. The President, as their boss, is doing just that.
It is because of completely idiotic crap like that, along with idiotic crap like the EPA pushing for 50+ mpg CAFE Standards on industry, causing it to completely re-engineer its vehicle line, regardless of what the consumer wants, and again, I just want to scream, WTF!!?? Sure, I would LOVE to have a four
Does carbon dioxide contribute to greenhouse warming? Absolutely it does. Does water and water vapor, H2O, contribute to greenhouse warming? Not only yes, but YES on a scale that is infinitely higher than carbon dioxide. So why didn't the imbeciles blame water or water vapor on greenhouse gas temperature when it clearly affects that temperature far greater than carbon dioxide? The reason is they know we wouldn't stand for it. They know we would recognize the idiocy of it. Yet because their GOAL is to ban the US's means of inexpensive energy and transportation, calling our use of energy "unfair", AND in order to effectively "redistribute" the wealth of this unfair nation to other nations while at the same time punishing the citizens of the US for having this supposed unfair advantage even though there has been NOTHING preventing other countries from building the very same energy sources, using the very same fuel resources we use in the US.
,
So we should ignore the amount of pollution generated by vehicles because the consumer may want a 2GPM gas guzzler, we should have ignored lead based fuel because it increased cost?
We can control CO2, how do we ban water vapor, do you understand how increased levels of CO2 interact with the atmosphere?
We have close to the highest energy consumption per capita, gas mileage standards are not a problem,
I have no problem with common sense good environmental regulations. Its when they start issuing ridiculous and insane regulations.
If your base doesn't care about the environment, thinks global warning is Chinese propaganda, your mandate is to stimulate industry at any cost, you put industry giants in charge of regulatory agencies, how do you think it's going to play out?
I think about the utter ignorance that came from the EPA when it declared carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring gaseous compound required by all plants to live... similar to oxygen required by all animals including humans to live, calling it a dangerous greenhouse gas, and the idiots in the Supreme Court agreeing with them, then setting industry killing regulations based on this nonsense that carbon dioxide is somehow CAUSING catastrophic man made global warming... and I just want to scream WTF!!??
Hi there. Iron is a naturally occuring substance that is found in all living things. Why don't you go and eat some iron rebars for breakfast?
Too much of anything is a bad idea. Water is life. We depend on water to live. 70% of your body is made of water. Why don't stick your head into a bucket of water and never take it out? After all, water is a naturally occuring substance that is found in all living things and is the main sustenance for all living things.
You guys keep going back to this incident. Repeat after me. One incident does not define the purpose of a group.
Think back to a mistake you have made in your life. Any mistake would do. Is it fair for everyone to keep going back to that mistake and define you as a person by this mistake?
I speak as someone who has been in a constant fight against the EPA. Trust me, the EPA is not a friend of those in construction.
It's not about one mistake and it is dishonest to make it about one mistake.
just 2 examples of many EPA over reach
A rancher who obtained the state permits he needed for a stock pond on his acreage near Fort Bridger, Wyoming, then received approval from the state when it was finished now is facing the possibility of fines totaling millions of dollars because he didn’t get a permit from the federal government.
me Court criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Monday for heavy-handed enforcement of rules affecting homeowners after the government told an Idaho couple they can’t challenge an order declaring their future home site a “protected wetlands.” Justice Antonin Scalia assailed the “high-handedness” of the environmental agency when dealing with private property, and Justice Samuel Alito described some of the EPA’s actions as “outrageous,” arguing that most people would say “this kind of thing can’t happen in the United States.”
The EPA said that Mike and Chantell Sackett illegally filled in most of their 0.63-acre lot with dirt and rocks in preparation for building a home. The agency said the property is a wetlands that cannot be disturbed without a permit. The Sacketts had none.
Did North Carolina do a good job in it's oversight of Duke power.
Did North Carolina do a good job by lawfully leaving it to the EPA? Why did it take so long?
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.
