What's wrong w/ protecting the environment?

anatta said:
yes it is -it's not called "getting rid of the EPA". WOTUS is a travesty against federalism,and economic growth.
When the feds start regulating pond water -no matter if it it's part of headwaters ( and ever water source is connected)-
you know the agency is out of control.

same thing with Ozone -trying to drive it into levels lower then even naturally occuring ozone on summer days
Click to expand...
Youre in right wing lala land without a clue on how environmental laws and regulations work, how they're enforced and the consequences from lack of enforcement.

But hey, have it your way. If Pruitt is successful I should have no problem dumping a barrel of MEK in your backyard.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You're wrong. Pruitt wants to end EPA's enforcement powers and return those to the States. That would not only have the net affect of ending EPA it would end environmental protections all together.

The point being is that hiring someone who is inimical to that agencies very existence pretty much guarantees you will not see competent governing from that agency.
Click to expand...
I can find no reference towards the blanket statement of "ending enforcement powers of the EPA" -by Pruitt.
There are certainly areas of enforcement that he (rightfully) calls federal over-reach into state affairs - but that's not an extremist position..

The EPA by administrative law need not concern itself with federalism,or practicality of decisions -and Obama has ridden that interpretation to the extreme.
Pruitt merely wants to re-instate some balance of priorities.
 
Death Watch said:
Nobody is against a clean environment you hysterical twat

We don't need the EPA.

You act as if we will run out of resources. They are renewable. Tell me again about "peak oil"

Is it Hysteria Sunday in JPP today?
Click to expand...
Oh we don't, do we? LOL LOL LOL

Hey I'll be right over. I've got some hexavalent chromium from my plating operation I need to dump into your water, and hey let's mix chlorinated pesticides with oil and use it for dust suppression in rural area and how about we build a mercury retort furnace with no splash condenser in its exhaust system and who gives a fuck if an elementary school is right down wind from it, right?
 
anatta said:
I can find no reference the blanket statement of "ending enforcement powers of the EPA" -by Pruitt.

There are certainly areas of enforcement that he (rightfully) calls federal over-reach into state affairs - but that's not an extremist position
Click to expand...
Jesus god help me. What an utterly clueless thing to say. You have no clue how federal environmental regulations work do you?

So please explain to me if federal enforcement is over reach how do we implement basic standards for compliance? Hmmm?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Youre in right wing lala land without a clue on how environmental laws and regulations work, how they're enforced and the consequences from lack of enforcement.

But hey, have it your way. If Pruitt is successful I should have no problem dumping a barrel of MEK in your backyard.
Click to expand...
They vary in enforcement by administration. Obama has taken them to an outlier point where only science of pollution is considered by theEPA.
Real world that doesn't work,and that is what Trump (Pruitt?) wants to mitigate
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Jesus god help me. What an utterly clueless thing to say. You have no clue how federal environmental regulations work do you?

So please explain to me if federal enforcement is over reach how do we implement basic standards for compliance? Hmmm?
Click to expand...
that statement makes little sense. It is the boundaries of the standards that are in dispute. Do you have any clue about WOTUS?

In some cases it is the actual numbers too -like Ozone -which is so estrictive even a dry cleaners ona city block on a summers day violates the new standards.
 
anatta said:
I can find no reference towards the blanket statement of "ending enforcement powers of the EPA" -by Pruitt.
There are certainly areas of enforcement that he (rightfully) calls federal over-reach into state affairs - but that's not an extremist position..

The EPA by administrative law need not concern itself with federalism,or practicality of decisions -and Obama has ridden that interpretation to the extreme.
Pruitt merely wants to re-instate some balance of priorities.
Click to expand...

The absurdity of a so-called "nationalist" being obsessed with states rights. Nationalism and states rights are inherently opposed ideology - in fact, in the federalist papers, Hamilton uses the word "nationalism" simply to refer to a unified governmental system. The absurdity of the extreme, divisive ideology of modern nationalism, which simply seeks nothing else but to divide humans from one another by any means necessary.
 
Uncucked said:
The absurdity of a so-called "nationalist" being obsessed with states rights. Nationalism and states rights are inherently opposed ideology - in fact, in the federalist papers, Hamilton uses the word "nationalism" simply to refer to a unified governmental system. The absurdity of the extreme, divisive ideology of modern nationalism, which simply seeks nothing else but to divide humans from one another by any means necessary.
Click to expand...
it's nationalism vs. globalism. Not nationalism vs. "states rights" ( more correctly federalism)

Hamiltom was a Federalist long before the forces of economic globalism. Of course "nationalism" had a different meaning then
 
anatta said:
where did you come up with this idea?? He wants to roll back excessive/non-competative regs.
Click to expand...
Exactly, the EPA has turned into something more akin to a single issue pressure group under Gina McCarthy. There is already one Greenpeace you don't need another. The US has cut back its CO2 emissions to 1990 levels and that is due to CCGT power stations fuelled with fracked gas. Not that you will ever see anyone on the Left acknowledge that simple fact.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Rune said:
Can you even read idiot?
Trump's pick to run the EPA wants to end the EPA and you clearly know dangerously little about ozone.
Best if you just shutup about now.
Click to expand...
Sanctimonious claptrap as per usual. Pruitt wants to stand up to the Green Mafia and their incessant greenwash which is constantly spouted by a compliant media.

Climate sanity has been restored to the U.S. EPA. No longer do we have to hear otherwise intelligent people in charge in DC blather on about how EPA regulations are necessary to control the Earth’s temperature or storminess. I suggest you book your ticket to Norseland now, the game's up.



Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
anatta said:
find a quote Pruitt wants to "end the EPA"..:palm:

I understand ozone,and I understand it's naturally occuring, but aggravated by smog.
It's when the EPA calls for parts per billion in the mid 70's is where it becomes economically disadvantaged vs. returns.
Click to expand...
Yes and the English scientist James Lovelock, who first reported on the ozone layer hole over the Antarctic, has now stated that he was wrong and alarmist over warming in the past. Of course Ruin thinks he knows more than him about ozone, but then he is an ignorant berk!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10...ate-prediction-ive-grown-up-a-bit-since-then/



Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Milagro said:
Exactly, the EPA has turned into something more akin to a single issue pressure group under Gina McCarthy. There is already one Greenpeace you don't need another. The US has cut back its CO2 emissions to 1990 levels and that is due to CCGT power stations fuelled with fracked gas. Not that you will ever see anyone on the Left acknowledge that simple fact.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
really? cut back to 1990 levels?
how in the hell can we burn any fossil fuels and meet that draconian standard? Unfortunately i'm not all upon the technologies-
but it seems intuitively anti-growth standards
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You don't get it. It's because they have a religious devotion to private property. Theirs that is. Your property, public or private is meaningless to them as is your life and well being of pretty much everyone else.

Actually that's rather unfair of me as environmental enforcement has had bilateral support since a Republican President singned the Environmental Protection Act into law. It's pathological right wing ideologues who don't get it.
Click to expand...
What I don't get is people that approach science with a religious zeal and fervour. I listen to scientists not Scientologists like Michael Mann and James Hansen.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
anatta said:
really? cut back to 1990 levels?
how in the hell can we burn any fossil fuels and meet that draconian standard? Unfortunately i'm not all upon the technologies-
but it seems intuitively anti-growth standards
Click to expand...

Are you paying attention Anatta? Getting a little more senile are we? They switched from coal to natural gas, which produces less CO2, as natural gas prices fell due to fracking and coal became increasingly uncompetitive. Tom said nothing about standards.
 
anatta said:
it's nationalism vs. globalism. Not nationalism vs. "states rights" ( more correctly federalism)

Hamiltom was a Federalist long before the forces of economic globalism. Of course "nationalism" had a different meaning then
Click to expand...

Why is it an inherently good thing, that humans be divided from one another artificially?
 
anatta said:
really? cut back to 1990 levels?
how in the hell can we burn any fossil fuels and meet that draconian standard? Unfortunately i'm not all upon the technologies-
but it seems intuitively anti-growth standards
Click to expand...

Simple enough, cutting back on coal power stations and rolling out far cleaner CCGT ones using fracked gas instead. Gas produces half the CO2 of coal, is as cheap and far cleaner.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top