Biden Presidency Will Be The Best Thing For The Environment

PoliTalker said:
Hello T. A. Gardner,

But we can only exist when our environment is sustained.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do directly with where government regulations are set. The real question here is What is the allowable amount of some type of pollution in our society? The answer to that question is virtually NEVER None. To have the society we live in we have to accept some level of pollution as a result. The EPA is trying hard to push regulations that say NONE!

We have individuals in our society who are so greedy that they don't care about anyone else, don't care about leaving a healthy planet for those who will come after us. They just don't care about the environment at all. Not one little bit. Their all consuming greed would ignore all of that in the quest for more wealth.
Click to expand...

That includes people in government bureaucracies like it or not. There are also people that do care about the environment and want a balance between pollution and wealth generation. They are sensible. Zero tolerance and no rules are radical extremists at opposite ends of the spectrum.

It is only logical that our government maintains a regulatory agency to ensure that such greedy individuals do not spoil the planet for everyone else.
Click to expand...

It is also logical that we put very strong checks on government to ensure that regulations are absolutely necessary, that the set points are clearly justified and reasonable and in most cases any attempt to move towards zero tolerance rules is smacked down not just with saying "No!" to such regulations but that the bureaucracy is penalized and those pushing them are fired. That keeps bureaucrats in their place.

We simply must have responsible environmental regulation.
Click to expand...

Agreed. What we've been getting from the EPA lately though are unreasonable regulations, overly zealous regulations, unnecessary regulations, and all the other hallmarks of a bureaucracy out-of-control that needs a serious smackdown and probably mass terminations of employees doing this crap. They are not irreplaceable and a thorough housecleaning from time-to-time keeps bureaucrats in check as they know the public is watching and will fire their worthless asses if they step out of line.

If any part of the government that we, the people, created is not functioning adequately then the responsibility for that lies with we, the people, to correct it.
Click to expand...

With the EPA that means lots of firings, a thorough review of every regulation, and chopping of those that make no sense, cost too much, or don't do anything. The EPA has lots of those.

Simply arguing that it shouldn't exist in the first place is ridiculous, and a non-starter.
Click to expand...

I've never argued the EPA shouldn't exist. When Nixon created the EPA it was really needed. Back then, there were no controls on pollution and it was a major problem. Today, pollution is mostly well in check and the problem is an overreaching nanny state EPA doing more than it should.

Because it just comes back to basic logic:

We simply must have responsible environmental regulation.
Click to expand...

And to get it we need to smack the EPA down hard and good because right now they aren't pushing responsible environmentalism, they're pushing zero tolerance.
 
Hello T. A. Gardner,

T. A. Gardner said:
What does that have to do directly with where government regulations are set. The real question here is What is the allowable amount of some type of pollution in our society? The answer to that question is virtually NEVER None. To have the society we live in we have to accept some level of pollution as a result. The EPA is trying hard to push regulations that say NONE!



That includes people in government bureaucracies like it or not. There are also people that do care about the environment and want a balance between pollution and wealth generation. They are sensible. Zero tolerance and no rules are radical extremists at opposite ends of the spectrum.



It is also logical that we put very strong checks on government to ensure that regulations are absolutely necessary, that the set points are clearly justified and reasonable and in most cases any attempt to move towards zero tolerance rules is smacked down not just with saying "No!" to such regulations but that the bureaucracy is penalized and those pushing them are fired. That keeps bureaucrats in their place.



Agreed. What we've been getting from the EPA lately though are unreasonable regulations, overly zealous regulations, unnecessary regulations, and all the other hallmarks of a bureaucracy out-of-control that needs a serious smackdown and probably mass terminations of employees doing this crap. They are not irreplaceable and a thorough housecleaning from time-to-time keeps bureaucrats in check as they know the public is watching and will fire their worthless asses if they step out of line.



With the EPA that means lots of firings, a thorough review of every regulation, and chopping of those that make no sense, cost too much, or don't do anything. The EPA has lots of those.



I've never argued the EPA shouldn't exist. When Nixon created the EPA it was really needed. Back then, there were no controls on pollution and it was a major problem. Today, pollution is mostly well in check and the problem is an overreaching nanny state EPA doing more than it should.



And to get it we need to smack the EPA down hard and good because right now they aren't pushing responsible environmentalism, they're pushing zero tolerance.
Click to expand...

Do you think the EPA went over the line in regulating the amount of lead in the Flint Michigan tap water? Is this part of the EPA that is going too far?
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello T. A. Gardner,

Do you think the EPA went over the line in regulating the amount of lead in the Flint Michigan tap water? Is this part of the EPA that is going too far?
Click to expand...

The lead regulations are fine as they are. Flint's problem, was two-fold, one of which was the same idiot mistake Tucson made, the other is having old plumbing infrastructure. Many older parts of cities (pre 1960's roughly) are constructed using leaded steel, galvanized pipe and either terracotta or cast iron drain systems. The problem with leaded steel is it contains lead that leaches into the water into the pipes. This isn't new and the immediate solution for a homeowner is to install a filter, usually in the kitchen, to filter the water for lead and possibly other contaminants.

The second problem is that Flint changed water sources. This was their major problem that they share with other cities that did this, like Tucson. What happens when you change the pH in water shifting sources like Flint did is that leaded steel pipes also build up a layer of hard water scale inside them bound to the rusted inside layer of the pipe. With a change in acidity of the water this layer comes loose in whole or part creating what is known in the business as a "crud burst." This results in your water being full of nasty solids like rust, dirt, lime scale, and biologics (aka slime). This occurs naturally as part of the pH change. It should have been expected. All of this comes out of your tap if you have no filtration system.

None of that was caused by EPA regulations. That was caused by plumbing systems grandfathered in because they were installed decades ago, idiot bureaucrats who either didn't listen to local experts or didn't bother to consult them, and people who took no personal responsibility for having what I'd say is a necessary (but shouldn't be government mandated by any degree) filtration system on their own water supply.

The EPA doesn't need to tighten lead content in water as this will eventually take care of itself as leaded steel pipe goes away in water systems as it has been doing for decades now.
 
Hello T. A. Gardner,

T. A. Gardner said:
The lead regulations are fine as they are. Flint's problem, was two-fold, one of which was the same idiot mistake Tucson made, the other is having old plumbing infrastructure. Many older parts of cities (pre 1960's roughly) are constructed using leaded steel, galvanized pipe and either terracotta or cast iron drain systems. The problem with leaded steel is it contains lead that leaches into the water into the pipes. This isn't new and the immediate solution for a homeowner is to install a filter, usually in the kitchen, to filter the water for lead and possibly other contaminants.

The second problem is that Flint changed water sources. This was their major problem that they share with other cities that did this, like Tucson. What happens when you change the pH in water shifting sources like Flint did is that leaded steel pipes also build up a layer of hard water scale inside them bound to the rusted inside layer of the pipe. With a change in acidity of the water this layer comes loose in whole or part creating what is known in the business as a "crud burst." This results in your water being full of nasty solids like rust, dirt, lime scale, and biologics (aka slime). This occurs naturally as part of the pH change. It should have been expected. All of this comes out of your tap if you have no filtration system.

None of that was caused by EPA regulations. That was caused by plumbing systems grandfathered in because they were installed decades ago, idiot bureaucrats who either didn't listen to local experts or didn't bother to consult them, and people who took no personal responsibility for having what I'd say is a necessary (but shouldn't be government mandated by any degree) filtration system on their own water supply.

The EPA doesn't need to tighten lead content in water as this will eventually take care of itself as leaded steel pipe goes away in water systems as it has been doing for decades now.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm glad we agree on the importance of the EPA's part in establishing regulated levels of allowable lead in city tap water.

Of course, the Flint water was just fine until the Republican-installed city manager switched the water supply to the Flint River. He was told this would happen. This was also a usurpation of local government by a higher centralized authority which was not responsive to the needs of the local people. And all of this to make up for what capitalism did to a once-thriving community by pulling out and leaving thousands without jobs nor income to pay taxes.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello T. A. Gardner,



Well, I'm glad we agree on the importance of the EPA's part in establishing regulated levels of allowable lead in city tap water.

Of course, the Flint water was just fine until the Republican-installed city manager switched the water supply to the Flint River. He was told this would happen. This was also a usurpation of local government by a higher centralized authority which was not responsive to the needs of the local people. And all of this to make up for what capitalism did to a once-thriving community by pulling out and leaving thousands without jobs nor income to pay taxes.
Click to expand...

Capitalism had less to do with Flint's manufacturing demise than regulation by government, taxation, and unions did. Regulation by government--in the early stages much of it necessary, made it too expensive to refit old factories with new machinery and upgrade them to new environmental and safety standards. It was simply easier and cheaper to build a new plant entirely that met those regulations. That was almost an inevitability. The same is true even today with old buildings. Many simply aren't worth retrofitting to modern standards. It's easier to demolish them and start over.

Why Flint and other Michigan sites weren't chosen for new construction was largely due to high taxes--mostly if not entirely Democrat politicians milking the cow to death so-to-speak. The other reason for moving elsewhere was unions. When you are paying somebody with an 8th grade education and very limited skills $75 an hour with benefits to do a simplistic job on an assembly line because the UAW has repeatedly forced higher and higher pay out of the company, moving where you can pay $20 an hour to someone with a high school level of education to do the same job without striking every six months, you do it. This is why the auto industry moved to Right to Work states. Or, they moved their plant to Mexico where they could pay a $1 an hour to a worker who would do an equally good job and be thrilled with what they saw as high pay.

This exact same thing killed off much of the British and French auto industry for the exact same reasons so it isn't an American thing or even a Capitalist thing (both the British and French industries were largely government owned like British Leyland), but rather sound economic choices because the company has a choice: Go out of business or reduce costs dramatically.

If it was a Republican government that switched water supplies in Flint they deserve a smackdown for not being aware of the consequences. Tucson, as I said, did the same thing and it was Democrats there. Stupid knows no single political party. Obviously with Flint in decline economically it would be hard to replace existing water piping and systems with modern equivalents in plastic or copper.

Where the EPA fails is things like their arsenic standard. It was 50 ppb and in the 1990's it was reduced to 10 ppb. At 50 it represented no appreciable health threat. At 10 it was still an equally non-appreciable health threat. But at 10 it was now costing many water companies hundreds of thousands of dollars a year more, if not millions, to meet the standard with increased filtration, far more expensive testing, and for no real health benefit.
Hexavalent Chromium is another. The EPA standard is now essentially zero. That dramatically raised the cost of water particularly in the rust belt region for essentially no appreciable increase in health benefits.

I mentioned ozone pollution. The EPA lied their asses off on their cost analysis to justify reducing allowable amounts from next to nothing to a tiny bit less of nothing.

That's where we are on vehicle emissions as well. We're reducing tiny fractions of a percent at dramatically higher costs per vehicle. The trade off simply has gotten to the point it isn't worth it. What we don't need are technically illiterate politicians who let these bureaucrats have free reign to introduce regulation after regulation with little oversight because they claim it will have some tiny benefit and who don't give a shit about the cost since they aren't the ones footing the bill.

This sort of nonsense gets even worse when the bureaucrats are given virtually unlimited power to enforce their regulations too. A growing version of that is in building code enforcement. In cities strapped for cash what they do now is hire "code enforcement" personnel whose job is to go around all day looking for the most minor code violations and cite property owners and businesses for them. Safety and environmental agencies have jumped on this too.
These agencies look for any violation much like a speed trap with cars would work. They cite the business, fine them, pay the code enforcement person out of the fines, and at the same time generate revenue for their bureaucracy. They then use their reduced tax burden to show their superiors and politicians what a great job they're doing saving taxpayers money.
Mostly what happens is they drive business out of their city and then the city wonders why businesses are leaving. Of course, it isn't any one state but those most strapped for cash are more likely to participate in this sort of legal shakedown.

https://ij.org/report/the-price-of-taxation-by-citation/
 
Hello T. A. Gardner,

T. A. Gardner said:
Capitalism had less to do with Flint's manufacturing demise than regulation by government, taxation, and unions did. Regulation by government--in the early stages much of it necessary, made it too expensive to refit old factories with new machinery and upgrade them to new environmental and safety standards. It was simply easier and cheaper to build a new plant entirely that met those regulations. That was almost an inevitability. The same is true even today with old buildings. Many simply aren't worth retrofitting to modern standards. It's easier to demolish them and start over.
Click to expand...

Easier still to just walk away. Why incur the expense of demolishing old buildings and infrastructure when it's cheaper to simply relocate somewhere else? After all, there is absolutely no dedication to community, workers, State or country found in pure capitalism. The only concern is producing profits. Any products or jobs created along the way are merely coincidental. The ideal capitalist organization would produce no products, no jobs. Nothing but profits by taking advantage of some leverage.

T. A. Gardner said:
Why Flint and other Michigan sites weren't chosen for new construction was largely due to high taxes--mostly if not entirely Democrat politicians milking the cow to death so-to-speak. The other reason for moving elsewhere was unions. When you are paying somebody with an 8th grade education and very limited skills $75 an hour with benefits to do a simplistic job on an assembly line because the UAW has repeatedly forced higher and higher pay out of the company, moving where you can pay $20 an hour to someone with a high school level of education to do the same job without striking every six months, you do it. This is why the auto industry moved to Right to Work states. Or, they moved their plant to Mexico where they could pay a $1 an hour to a worker who would do an equally good job and be thrilled with what they saw as high pay.
Click to expand...

Bingo. That is the one factor which outweighs all the rest. Cheap labor. After all the regulations and taxes, labor is still the largest expense in manufacturing. He3nce, so much effort put into union busting and the goal of reducing the power of labor to absolute zero. Slavery is the best situation for capitalism. No worker rights at all, no obligation to workers whatsoever.

T. A. Gardner said:
This exact same thing killed off much of the British and French auto industry for the exact same reasons so it isn't an American thing or even a Capitalist thing (both the British and French industries were largely government owned like British Leyland), but rather sound economic choices because the company has a choice: Go out of business or reduce costs dramatically.
Click to expand...

Under the precepts of capitalism, what other choices do companies have? It's not their fault. It's because of unregulated capitalism. What part of capitalism demands any dedication at all to society?

T. A. Gardner said:
If it was a Republican government that switched water supplies in Flint they deserve a smackdown for not being aware of the consequences. Tucson, as I said, did the same thing and it was Democrats there. Stupid knows no single political party. Obviously with Flint in decline economically it would be hard to replace existing water piping and systems with modern equivalents in plastic or copper.

Where the EPA fails is things like their arsenic standard. It was 50 ppb and in the 1990's it was reduced to 10 ppb. At 50 it represented no appreciable health threat. At 10 it was still an equally non-appreciable health threat. But at 10 it was now costing many water companies hundreds of thousands of dollars a year more, if not millions, to meet the standard with increased filtration, far more expensive testing, and for no real health benefit.
Hexavalent Chromium is another. The EPA standard is now essentially zero. That dramatically raised the cost of water particularly in the rust belt region for essentially no appreciable increase in health benefits.

I mentioned ozone pollution. The EPA lied their asses off on their cost analysis to justify reducing allowable amounts from next to nothing to a tiny bit less of nothing.

That's where we are on vehicle emissions as well. We're reducing tiny fractions of a percent at dramatically higher costs per vehicle. The trade off simply has gotten to the point it isn't worth it. What we don't need are technically illiterate politicians who let these bureaucrats have free reign to introduce regulation after regulation with little oversight because they claim it will have some tiny benefit and who don't give a shit about the cost since they aren't the ones footing the bill.

This sort of nonsense gets even worse when the bureaucrats are given virtually unlimited power to enforce their regulations too. A growing version of that is in building code enforcement. In cities strapped for cash what they do now is hire "code enforcement" personnel whose job is to go around all day looking for the most minor code violations and cite property owners and businesses for them. Safety and environmental agencies have jumped on this too.
These agencies look for any violation much like a speed trap with cars would work. They cite the business, fine them, pay the code enforcement person out of the fines, and at the same time generate revenue for their bureaucracy. They then use their reduced tax burden to show their superiors and politicians what a great job they're doing saving taxpayers money.
Mostly what happens is they drive business out of their city and then the city wonders why businesses are leaving. Of course, it isn't any one state but those most strapped for cash are more likely to participate in this sort of legal shakedown.

https://ij.org/report/the-price-of-taxation-by-citation/
Click to expand...

If there are overburdensome regulations they should certainly be identified and rooted out. Our society relies on the right to identify and document these costly burdens on budgets. If they have a valid argument then modifying our system is certainly justifiable. If governments are well-run and taxes are sufficient for them to operate they would have no reason to try to fleece the public for bogus enforcement. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

Of course, the right, if left to it's own devices, would take advantage of this type of process to eliminate regulations that do protect the public, so that is why we need the left just as much as we need the right, to balance out extreme views and socially hurtful efforts on both sides.

We need good balanced leadership to ensure that the most powerful capitalists of our nation show concern for workers and communities. It can't be only about generating profits for investors. There has to be dedication to community, society and country.

Joe Biden is the best man to oversee this needed balance between capitalist power, labor and government. The three institutions must work in coordination with one another to make a vibrant great country.

(queue shameless plug)

That's why I plan to

VOTE JOE BIDEN PRESIDENT OF THE GREAT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
 
President Joe Biden will immediately have the USA rejoin the rest of the world in the Paris Climate Accord.

THANKFULLY!
 
Phantasmal said:
Thanks and smoochie woochie, kitty litter and to think, at one time, I was concerned about you. I go high while you go low.
Click to expand...

I don't want nor need your concern.

It's not a matter of high, low, or in-between. I simply don't give a fuck about you and your family. You aren't worth the concern.
 
CFM said:
I don't want nor need your concern.

It's not a matter of high, low, or in-between. I simply don't give a fuck about you and your family. You aren't worth the concern.
Click to expand...
Yes, you’re a awful human being and a brain dead racist. It’s why you support Trump, you have a lot in common

Huggy buggy, kitty litter
 
Eagle_Eye said:
We need to destroy all cattle as cows produce methane gas which causes global warming.
Click to expand...

Nah... You turn all the cows into Zeppelins...

cow-fart-backpacks.jpg
 
We have lots of challenges; but we must always strive to continue improving our science and understanding.

One thing is clear. If we extract and burn all the oil, gas and coal we destroy our own habitat.

If we need to change how we produce food we will do it.

If we need to reduce our population levels, we can do that too.

We have to preserve humanity.

We simply cannot assume we will always be here.

The world is not ours to use as we please.

An attitude like that will create the end of humanity.

We have to think smart and look at the big picture, the long range picture.
 
Good post.

Trump has so many shiny objects in his Presidency - it has kept his assault on the environment under the radar.

But that will likely be the most lasting legacy of his Presidency. He has set us back years - another term would be a disaster for our planet.
 
Hello BartenderElite,

BartenderElite said:
Good post.

Trump has so many shiny objects in his Presidency - it has kept his assault on the environment under the radar.

But that will likely be the most lasting legacy of his Presidency. He has set us back years - another term would be a disaster for our planet.
Click to expand...

Trump has been a disaster for the environment.

He thinks that because he issued an executive order to ban drilling off of Florida that makes him the most environmentally sensitive president since Teddy Roosevelt.

That is total BS.

Here's why.

An EO is not law. It can be reversed with the stroke of his sharpie.

Notice the timing. Notice the political situation.

He is in the middle of a struggle to save his presidency. He absolutely must have Florida to win. He has to have every swing state he can manage to get. He has to do everything he can to get votes in swing states like Florida. This sudden offshore drilling ban (which could be reversed the day after the election at his discretion) is the only thing he has done for the environment. It goes against everything else he has done. It is surprising. Why would he do that? Think about it. There is a reason.

If he really felt like saving the environment from drilling he could have stopped it in plenty of places. Alaska. The Arctic. Why no bans there? Because those places don't have votes that he needs to get reelected.

Rejoin the Paris Accord.
Ban all drilling.
Commit to green energy with the Green New Deal.
Modify whatever parts of it to ease the economic impact, whatever. We have to cut emissions to save humanity from itself.
Commit to an efficient new grid.
Commit to saving the national monuments from exploration and extraction.
Commit to efficient new energy projects.
Create green jobs.
Become a world leader in fighting climate change.
Save the endangered species.
Protect wildlife.
Protect the oceans. End the plastic pollution. Clean up the mess.
Strive for clean air.
Strengthen the EPA.

That's how you become the most environmentally sensitive president since Teddy Roosevelt.

Even Biden won't do all that but he is going to be a far cry better than greedy selfish uncaring Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top