Great Lakes Scientist says, “If We Lose The EPA, We Lose Lake Erie”

[DougB]

One has to take the big picture...not a narrow, personal one.

Typical leftist - needs to label the person or their opinion.

As I see it, climate change is the ultimate control / taxation scheme ever invented. You can't be sure, but what if.... hogwash.

This control, in the name of global warming - no - now climate change (for the sake of our planet - give me a break) extends world wide - this is the seed for global fascist government.

 

[Kreemoweet]

The notion that our current environmental (and other) regulation scheme is based on "science" is pure hogwash.
Science by itself does not mandate any regulation at all. Although any regulation should certainly be
informed by verifiable scientific fact, what it is truly based on is "values". So, exactly WHO gets to determine those values?
In the past, it has been unaccountable, biased, and sometimes fanatical bureaucrats forcing their version of
"truth" on everybody else, frequently at enormous expense. The rationales for these regulationst are often works of unsubstantiated
speculation and blatantly phony cost analyses . They force bizarre leftist dogma on us all, and punish folks trying to exercise a little ordinary
common sense (such as daring to consider a prospective empoyee's past criminal history). This sort of thing must
stop, and I for one am glad to see some politicians in control who seem willing to take back control from
our bureaucratic masters. The values being put in effect should be determined by the People's duly elected
representatives, not government hirelings.

 

[Sponsor]

 

[DougB]

Texas rancher caught in regulatory web after rare spider found on land

..... he’s been stuck with land he can’t really use due to concerns about how environmental regulations protecting the spider now affect the property.

Regulations like this:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tory-web-after-rare-spider-found-on-land.html

 

[Stuff]

The plan is working. 99.9% of us are distracted and arguing about what we don't control while the .1% are getting even more treats from Washington.

 

[Stuff]

Texas rancher caught in regulatory web after rare spider found on land

I'm not going to worry much about the millionaire rancher. In the story he says he doesn't need the land.

 

[Dana]

Clean air & water is not a partisan issue, though some on both the right & left seem to think so. Same with climate change.

The ability of the new administration to slash EPA regulations is pretty limited, since there is both legislation and judicial findings supporting most of it. Trimming around the edges, halting new programs (where deemed warranted) is the most they can do without the legislative & judicial branches weighing in, and whether Congress sits on their hands or not, you can bet the enviro-lobby will keep any hack-jobs from going down fast.

The US Supreme Court has already ruled that the EPA can, (and is obligated to) regulate greenhouse gases, and the DC District Court has already blessed the CPP. Making that go away requires legislative action (or the US Supremes overruling the DC District Court decision.)

Nobody is going to "Lose the EPA" overnight, handwringing notwithstanding. But there will be erosion of the cultural memory of the public servants who have been running the place if it's allowed to stagnate for 4+ years.

People can and should (and do) argue about what regulations do & don't make sense, and new data informing the arguments usually causes evolution to the regulations (in both directions.)

State and local agencies will pick up some of the slack on particular issues relevant to their state if the EPA fails to act or is neutered. Pruitt is actually a big fan of letting states control most of it, and would have to reverse course in his prior arguments to turn that around to allege that the feds should have sole or primary jurisdiction.

But we're not going to lose the EPA (nor are we going to lose Lake Erie), even if some within the current administration think that would be the right policy. It's not that easy.

 

[Jadnashua]

Man, on his own, looks out for himself. Society, when operating well, tries to look out for society. Government wouldn't be needed if everyone had similar moral compasses. IF there weren't thieves, we may not need police, or locks, or insurance, or maybe that gun many seem to covet. Short-term gains often do not take into account long-term consequences. Certainly, not all rules and regulations are ideal, but they do serve a purpose. You may or may not agree with that purpose. SOmeone brought up seatbelts...getting flung out of a car during an accident might save your life in a one in a million situation, but staying in there would save you 999.999 times out of that million. What is the cost to society if you die or are severely injured? It's more than just the individual's cost...society pays from supporting you, your family for maybe the rest of your life. And, over time, as research and history discovers new trends, we find that what we thought we knew was not correct (look at the plumbing or electrical codes that have changed, and why over the years). I would have no problem rescinding a rule or regulation that history has proven is no longer valid for its original justification. But, if that was written to support some special interest group at the expense of the majority, IMHO, it should go. That can get quite controversial when the risk/cost is long-term. Then, one must evaluate what that actual expense is; is it a convenience, or an actual outright cost. What is the heart of some of these issues is the phrase "inalienable rights" as stated in our founding documents. Over time, those are changing in ways some do not agree with, at least in their world-view. What is a real cost to society? All heady thoughts, with some significant ramifications. One needs to try to evaluate them from all viewpoints and try to reach a consensus. Our country was founded partly on the grounds that we didn't want to be persecuted for our religious practices...we need to extend that to all, not just Christians. Similar 'rights' can be applied to other things as well.

The 'me' attitude is taking over, when the 'we' one needs to apply. And, that includes not only the 1%ers, but the rest of us, too. Defining 'fair' to all is really difficult...one often has to give up something for the benefit of us as a whole. The key is compromise and discussions, not trying to ram it down the throats of the rest of us without that. You think that the gerrymandering of districts is fair? Only if you want to retain control!

FWIW, the issue is, that if a state controls things, verses the federal, while something may not affect that state, it affects other adjoining states (like air pollution or water pollution that does not know borders). Put a dirty power plant near the border, and its pollution doesn't affect that state, but does the one next to it. Without some federal control, things could get messy, and fairly quickly. From the world viewpoint, cleaning up the air is a major problem all have to consider...the pollution in China is affecting the western US, and is a measurable component of their current pollution levels. Without both a national and international agreements, there will be little change. We need both national and international cooperation...leaving it to the states is potentially problematic.

 

[Craigpump]

Hydric acid, the new killer....

 

[Jadnashua]

Water can absorb most anything, given enough time. Just look at our oceans...most keeps getting recycled and fed with supposedly fresh water, but it wouldn't be filled with minerals if they didn't dissolve along their path - the oceans just tend to concentrate it based on our water cycle of weather. In fresh water supply systems, depending on the water chemistry, you can limit how aggressive it is by putting in some chemicals or otherwise treating it, and that's what was being done in Flint's water system prior to the takeover when they decided it cost too much, and they weren't needed...the water dissolved the coating on the interior of the pipes, letting it then dissolve some of the lead (and probably other things as well).

Actions have consequences...we just have to try to understand what they are, and how important they are. Society needs to understand the costs and deal with it. A short-term gain may in fact, not be worth the long-term harm it creates.

Current budget proposals want to significantly defund NOAA's operations. Guess where we get the info on upcoming hurricanes, storms, etc. in the oceans that also affect land as well as shipping and aviation? They say they can get some of that from commercial satellites...that might be true, but do they dole it out for free, or at the same resolution, and do they look at the Arctic or Antarctic or barren Africa or Asia? Do they cover areas that are important to do early detection of a developing storm, or address it once closer to land? They also find and help warn of tornadoes, and lightning. But, (IMHO), because they also provide a lot of the raw research to both predict whether climate change is real or fiction...best to stifle them so they can't give us some warning as to whether it is true or false...blinders, so to speak. That lets things just continue on, with big oil, coal, etc., doing their thing with nothing to substantiate making changes...big business as usual.