Republican's Assault on Clean Water and Democracy

Bfgrn said:
And you can't answer the question? I even gave you the answer...

The 28 major environmental laws are crafted to return 'personal responsibility' and free market capitalism to the environment, make polluters responsible for their waste and internalize their costs, instead of internalizing their profits and externalizing their costs on US.
Click to expand...
He'll continue to evade your question. You know why? Anyone with any sense know that environmental laws are based on two criteria. #1. Protecting human health and environment and #2. Protecting private property.

Here's the problem conservatives have with that rational. They don't have a problem with protecting human health and the environment. hell, who isn't for protecting those? What they oppose is protecting private property rights. They only want the law to protect THEIR private property rights and FUCK YOU!
 
Liberty said:
I just don't understand why we have to be mandated to buy a light bulb that contains mercury just to have them end up in our landfills.

I don't care how small of an amount each have in them.

All this because GE bought off politicians, and for all I know they have a monopoly in these bulbs. Not to mention that these jobs are going to China, or Asia.

Why aren't you unhappy with all this?
Click to expand...

Me thinks you've been bit by the paranoid fairy. LOL

This regulation was agreed to as part of national energy strategy and well as a legitimate means of source reduction.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
And what specifically is that executive order and how specifically is it's implementation over reach?
Click to expand...

Nixon created the EPA by executive order. You knew that, didn't you? :palm:

Its overreach because it circumvents the legislative process, not to mention the constitutional illegality of the whole thing.
 
Damn Yankee said:
:lol: If metals are your issue, then regulate them. Don't try to hide behind CO2.
Click to expand...

Ah, no they don't.

cpi_project-cpilogo.gif


Toxic Mercury From Coal Plants Unregulated

12-NPS.jpg


The Bush Administration’s regulatory approach to toxic mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants was struck down by a federal court that concluded the government flouted health law in a manner reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland. The National Academies’ National Research Council has found that some 60,000 newborns a year are at risk for neurological problems such as impaired motor function due to mercury—the largest source of which is coal-fired power plants. The Food and Drug Administration urges pregnant women to limit fish intake due to widespread contamination with mercury that made its way into the food chain. In its waning days, the Clinton administration listed mercury as a toxic substance subject to strict regulation as a health threat, but the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under President Bush, proposed a rule to reclassify mercury from coal-fired plants under a different section of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA’s rule would have set an overall limit on mercury, while giving coal plants flexibility to meet the goal or purchase “emissions rights” from other plants—known as a “cap-and-trade” program. The EPA said it would have cut the mercury being released in the air by 70 percent by 2018 — an improvement, but less strenuous than the 90 percent reduction by 2008 that was hoped for under the Clinton administration determination. In issuing the new rule and reclassifying coal plant mercury, the EPA used language lifted — in some cases verbatim — from utility industry law and lobby firm Latham & Watkins, as well as West Associates, a research and advocacy group. It was subsequently revealed that the EPA’s own air policy administrator was unaware of the private firms’ involvement, and that insertion of the language had actually been pushed by the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Energy. Critics, including the EPA’s own Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee, said the plan could help create “hot spots” around power plants that would disproportionately hurt communities living in the shadow of smokestacks, because mercury emissions do not disperse evenly. Allowing dirtier power plants to purchase additional pollution credits would add to that burden. EPA’s own inspector general found that the agency’s approach “was compromised.”

More
 
Liberty said:
What about the new light bulbs we have to use?

The ones with mercury in them.

They're ending up in landfills all across the nation.

I don't see the dems, or reps reversing this dumb mandate.

Why don't the dems actually propose legislation to stop this.

Could it be because GE get's more representation than the people?
Click to expand...

Next time, think then post. If a "new" light bulb uses 1/5 the amount of electricity we are putting less mercury in the air.
 
Liberty said:
I guess you're alright with any small amount of mercury.

We don't have to put these light bulbs in the ground, but I guess you're ok with it.

I guess this is what you're saying.

What's the chart suppose to do for me?

Does it say massive amounts (in time) of mercury in the ground is a good thing?

Does it say that my water is going to taste better, and it's good for me and my family?

:confused:
Click to expand...

Don't put the light bulb in a landfill, retard.
 
Liberty said:
I just don't understand why we have to be mandated to buy a light bulb that contains mercury just to have them end up in our landfills.

I don't care how small of an amount each have in them.

All this because GE bought off politicians, and for all I know they have a monopoly in these bulbs. Not to mention that these jobs are going to China, or Asia.

Why aren't you unhappy with all this?
Click to expand...

Even if all the bulbs went into a landfill (which is both illegal and immoral) there would still be less polution from mercury. Stop being a moron. By the way, GE is not the largest bulb maker.

http://veoliaes-ts.com/resource.php?id=986
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top