Stop the epa
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
At the risk of being both political and religious (God forfend!), all good people said "amen.
On the other hand, we could just turn the rabid, money hungry businesses who destroy our environment loose and we could all be living in our own Love Canal cancer-causing swamp, courtesy of all those who want to eliminate the only organization that stands between power/money hungry corporations and the health of various population concentrations.
Blind hatred can lead to some very misguided, short-sided actions...if the shoe fits, wear it.
Doug
Blind hatred can lead to some very misguided, short-sided actions...if the shoe fits, wear it.
Doug
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
Sounds like there are those that would throw the baby out with the bathwater. I am confident in saying the world, and our environment, is vastly better off due to EPA activities versus depending on our Congress to pass laws contrary to the bidding of their campaign donors.
'Not the POINT, gentlemen. The POINT is the EPA is drunk with power it isn't authorized by the constitution to HAVE in the 1st place. It does as it pleases. And "what it pleases" usually involves HUGE FINES generated by absurd levels of dictatorial regulation IT GENERATED...with the goal of shutting down whatever industry/industries IT ALONE decides "need/needs to go". Can you say "COAL INDUSTRY"?
'Local example right here in my back yard: A construction company's track hoe left a 'track imprint' on the shoreline of a local fresh water lake...an imprint that the FIRST WIND/RAIN STORM would i-n-s-t-a-n-t-l-y remove. EPA hits the company with a $10K FINE. 'Care to 'splain to me how that "track imprint" created ANY KIND of a negative impact on the environment?
And THEN there's the asinine level of absurdity found within the "wetlands" regulations! 'Ever looked at what/how that Nazi outfit defines a "wetland"?
My blood pressure is going up. I'm done for a while...
You're 'spinning', Doug. The examples I cited happened/have been happening looooooooong before Obama showed up (coal industry aside).
My comment(s) had n-o-t-h-i-n-g whatsoever to do with whomever might have been in the White House at the time. The EPA has been playing 'dictator' for decades.
Last edited:
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
To some degree I get where you come from. Enforcement of the extreme fine would only be understandable to a person that enjoys what is increasing rare; which is a parcel of land or body of water that has not yet been changed by human activity. The builder of the house next to me destroyed about 15 feet of trees and shrubs on my property, and couldn't understand when I blew up about his explanation of "collateral impact in any construction site". To him, my undisturbed property was just some woods next to his money-maker. To me, it was a green boundary between my house and the one he was building.
Coal is cheap and plentiful, but dirty and obsolete. Outside of the economics of it, there is no other benefit as a fuel when compared to other options. We also need to be candid about the EPA coal power plant issue. Power companies are choosing to install more and more gas plants due to the cheap gas prices these days. This was happening way before the EPA mandate. It's an economic decision for them. They also have the option to reduce emissions, which would add a very small but acceptable increase in my electric bill. But again they make the choice to not do so.
That's a civil matter more than an environmental one...although I'm sure the EPA would have something to say about it...like a big 'fine', or something. (Never let a good opportunity go to waste.)
So...the EPA should be able, by implementing its regulations alone, to shut down all coal-fired power plants as well as all coal mines...putting how many people out of work both in the power plants and mines as well as the factories that manufacture the coal mining equipment...not to mention engineering a big hike in everyone's power bills at the same time?
Shouldn't the EPA also, then, dream up some regulation(s) or another that would wipe out all industries involved in the export of coal? You know, the R.R.s that deliver coal to shipping ports, the ships that take it across the pond, the companies that make the equipment that loads/unloads the coal at the port, etc.? How about all the 'middle men' involved? Oh, wait a second...the mines have already been shut down. 'No coal to export. 'Killed several birds with one stone there...
How about all the garbage puked into the air - unfiltered, BTW - by volcanoes and undersea methane gas 'springs' and the like? How about the bazillions of tons of garbage puked into the air by forest/grass fires? Any one of the aforesaid pollutes more in a day than man does in a decade. What do we do about those?
The bottom line to all this environmental extremism is eventually we'd all have to go back to living in caves (located only in tropical climates because we couldn't burn coal/wood to keep warm...'pollution, you know). That is what everything would boil down to if the "green" agenda were played out to its logical end. How so? Because ALL industries pollute. ALL forms of transportation pollute. ALL types/methods of farming pollute. ALL methods of mining and smelting pollute. Everything man does "pollutes" in one way or another.
The 'final pollution solution', then? Remove all humans from the planet. 'Problem solved.
:chug:
Good work, Gents!
"Since that time, many supporters of the sport chimed in by writing a letter to their representative in congress. SEMA made it easy by providing this link www.sema.org/rpmletter. Because of this outpouring of support, some members of congress are beginning to speak up and take the fight directly to the EPA."
EPA Update: Members of Congress Joining Fight to Save Racecars
"Since that time, many supporters of the sport chimed in by writing a letter to their representative in congress. SEMA made it easy by providing this link www.sema.org/rpmletter. Because of this outpouring of support, some members of congress are beginning to speak up and take the fight directly to the EPA."
EPA Update: Members of Congress Joining Fight to Save Racecars
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
You've hit on the pivotal point. Though, I wouldn't take the all-or-nothing approach (which seems to be a mainstay of any political/environmental/religious discussion these days), and more accurately say that the shear volume of the human population has outgrown the earth's ability to absorb the impact. We were fine when we had about 1/2 to 2/3 of the global population that we have today. Imagine what the future impact will be if we continue to procreate unhindered as we are doing today. It will get much uglier, and it will be nature that wins, not us. I'll be long dead, but at what point does it become untenable to your children, grand, or great grand? Especially when they look back and wonder WTF were they thinking back then.
The problem, Dr. Mengele, is that the Third World isn't buying your scheme, re. "population control." Will you send in the Storm Troopers, or just put something in the water?
It is not the third-world countries that are the gross polluters, it is the industrialized countries, and we are obviously the most egregious violator.
Here is what I would do if it were up to me...let the rest of the world worry about themselves. That means "we" honor the ethical call to reduce greenhouse emissions (even if it requires the EPA to manage the changes), which will result in somewhat better pollutant content in our hemisphere's atmosphere, but those countries who continue without abatement will suffer.
OK...so I would anticipate there will be those from those continual violator
countries who will want to immigrate to take advantage of our good fortune...but part of our isolationism would be requirements that immigrants be accepted from only countries who joined the North American countries in the effort to reduce global pollution.
...or, we could continue to ignore the problem and pollute our atmosphere to the point that nobody would want to immigrate here...not my :idea: of a positive resolution!!
I just worry whether or not our progeny will have the ability to overcome the pollution problems we will leave them if we don't act decisively and now!
Not many options to cheer about if we don't do SOMETHING about the problem :thumbsdown:
Portions of the above rant were brought to you by your "tongue in cheek" department :laugh:
Doug
Doug, I was responding to Tox's population comment. A lot of US production goes to keeping the rest of the world running/surviving. That should be calculated in the mix. China and India couldn't care less about their pollution.
QUOTE=YerDugliness;490980]It is not the third-world countries that are the gross polluters, it is the industrialized countries, and we are obviously the most egregious violator.
Here is what I would do if it were up to me...let the rest of the world worry about themselves. That means "we" honor the ethical call to reduce greenhouse emissions (even if it requires the EPA to manage the changes), which will result in somewhat better pollutant content in our hemisphere's atmosphere, but those countries who continue without abatement will suffer.
OK...so I would anticipate there will be those from those continual violator
countries who will want to immigrate to take advantage of our good fortune...but part of our isolationism would be requirements that immigrants be accepted from only countries who joined the North American countries in the effort to reduce global pollution.
...or, we could continue to ignore the problem and pollute our atmosphere to the point that nobody would want to immigrate here...not my :idea: of a positive resolution!!
I just worry whether or not our progeny will have the ability to overcome the pollution problems we will leave them if we don't act decisively and now!
Not many options to cheer about if we don't do SOMETHING about the problem :thumbsdown:
Portions of the above rant were brought to you by your "tongue in cheek" department :laugh:
Doug[/QUOTE]
QUOTE=YerDugliness;490980]It is not the third-world countries that are the gross polluters, it is the industrialized countries, and we are obviously the most egregious violator.
Here is what I would do if it were up to me...let the rest of the world worry about themselves. That means "we" honor the ethical call to reduce greenhouse emissions (even if it requires the EPA to manage the changes), which will result in somewhat better pollutant content in our hemisphere's atmosphere, but those countries who continue without abatement will suffer.
OK...so I would anticipate there will be those from those continual violator
countries who will want to immigrate to take advantage of our good fortune...but part of our isolationism would be requirements that immigrants be accepted from only countries who joined the North American countries in the effort to reduce global pollution.
...or, we could continue to ignore the problem and pollute our atmosphere to the point that nobody would want to immigrate here...not my :idea: of a positive resolution!!
I just worry whether or not our progeny will have the ability to overcome the pollution problems we will leave them if we don't act decisively and now!
Not many options to cheer about if we don't do SOMETHING about the problem :thumbsdown:
Portions of the above rant were brought to you by your "tongue in cheek" department :laugh:
Doug[/QUOTE]