Big Cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency

[richstadiumowner]

 

 

Name one

 

 

This is the second, I started with one, but I'll put and it down to reading comprehension?

 

2. Ethanol

 

You're welcome.

Edited March 16, 2017 by richstadiumowner

[GG]

Why do people ignore the reality that the countries who are the biggest polluters of the environment happen to be the places where government intrusion into private industry is the highest?

[Azalin]

 

 

Name one....ONE....EPA regulation that stifles the economy, that disrupts your daily life, that is not beneficial...

 

EVERY time we pollute - we have to go back and clean it up

EVERY time we clean it up it costs 100's of times more than prevention

in spite of that EVERY time we go back and clean something up it is worth it...

 

I

 

As with any federal bureaucracy, the EPA can be made more efficient and less intrusive. Having an agency that sets and enforces reasonable standards on industry is one thing, but it's another thing altogether when they begin classifying privately owned property as havens for endangered species or proclaiming them as wetlands because they have standing water on them, without at the very least providing the landowner with monetary compensation equal to the potential value of the property.

 

The notion that conservatives and libertarians are okay with pollution is a fallacy. Nobody wants dirty air or water, but neither do they want their land taken or it's use unfairly restricted by any government agency. It won't do the EPA any harm at all to have their budget reduced.

[grinreaper]

Trump still needs more wall money?

Why are people upset with Trump doing what he said he would? He got voted into office based on such things as reducing regulations and building the wall. It is the people's wish.

[Magox]

 

 

Name one....ONE....EPA regulation that stifles the economy, that disrupts your daily life, that is not beneficial...

 

EVERY time we pollute - we have to go back and clean it up

EVERY time we clean it up it costs 100's of times more than prevention

in spite of that EVERY time we go back and clean something up it is worth it...

 

I

 

 

I don't know why I waste my time with you.

 

But here you go.

 

Example 1 Many of the fracking regulations have been found to already exist at the state level.

 

A major study released last November by the University of Colorado Boulder found that the chemicals in fracking fluids were also used, to little fuss, in toothpaste, laxatives, detergent, and ice cream. These much-maligned “chemicals” are extremely diluted, with 99.95 percent of fracking fluid consisting of water and sand. Both a Halliburton executive and Colorado governor John Hickenlooper drank a glass of it, to no effect. The DOI’s redundant rules also represent the federal government’s first foray into fracking regulation, even though, in 2005, Congress explicitly reserved that authority for state governments. “Because the federal government is precluded from regulating [fracking] and it’s left up to the states, [Democrats] have been looking for any door to get a federal regulation,” Kish says, adding that the Obama administration may be hoping to market the DOI’s new regulations as a national standard, pressuring states to adopt similar one-size-fits-all rules.

 

 

Example 2

 

Example 3

 

 

ELIMINATING REDUNDANT REGULATIONS

When American drivers refuel their cars, vapors from the gas pump have the potential to release harmful emissions into the air. In the past, EPA has required gas stations to incorporate vapor controls on their pumps. Today’s generation of vehicles, however, already contains the technology for vapor recovery internally, making the requirement for gas pumps redundant. During Summer 2011, the EPA proposed to eliminate this mandate on gas station owners, providing cost savings that will add up to about $67 million every year.

 

 

 

There are tons of regulations that are in place at the state level that are not required by the Federal government to come down with additional top down measures that place additional costs and burdens on business that do next to nothing to what is already in place.

[GG]

 

 

I don't know why I waste my time with you.

 

But here you go.

 

Example 1 Many of the fracking regulations have been found to already exist at the state level.

 

Example 2

 

Example 3

 

 

 

 

 

There are tons of regulations that are in place at the state level that are not required by the Federal government to come down with additional top down measures that place additional costs and burdens on business that do next to nothing to what is already in place.

 

He didn't say name THREE. He said name ONE.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Trump still needs more wall money?

But he won't need an environmental impact study too! Should cut into cost.

 

LoL

[grinreaper]

 

 

I don't know why I waste my time with you.

 

But here you go.

 

Example 1 Many of the fracking regulations have been found to already exist at the state level.

 

Example 2

 

Example 3

 

 

 

 

 

There are tons of regulations that are in place at the state level that are not required by the Federal government to come down with additional top down measures that place additional costs and burdens on business that do next to nothing to what is already in place.

You are not wasting your time with him. Just think of it as a service to the board here at PPP. He will without a doubt go run and hide until this thread dies down.

[Greg F]

Gas cans. I have lost more gasoline with one of the EPA mandated gas cans then I ever lost with the traditional can.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Greg F

[ExiledInIllinois]

Gas cans. I have lost more gasoline with one of the EPA mandated gas cans then I ever lost with the traditional can.

How so? I have a newer one, 5 gallon, for genset. But have old cans that I don't dear part with. New one is a PITA, but I still haven't lost fuel.

[GG]

How so? I have a newer one, 5 gallon, for genset. But have old cans that I don't dear part with. New one is a PITA, but I still haven't lost fuel.

 

That's because you probably never used it. I've never poured gas out of the new spouts without a spill

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

That's because you probably never used it. I've never poured gas out of the new spouts without a spill

I use it. Keep it for genset, but use it as a transfer to smaller cans for mower, etc... To keep the fuel fresh throughout year.

 

My one gallon two-cycle can is new style too... Just have to pour slooow!

 

It is a pain and chug-a-lugs slow.

 

I am also an OCD Fed worker. Maybe I just take my time... Even @ home. :-P

 

But yeah... Whatever brilliant lib scientist came up with those needs to be shot along side the inventor of the low-flow toilet.

[nkreed]

Nothing funnier than watching liberals pissing their pants the moment someone says "We need to cut staff and reduce costs" about anything other than military.

 

"We don't need to secure the borders! We don't need to protect our country. But how 'bout them grocery bags? Are they a problem or what?!?!"

 

Dumbasses.

 

When he's done with the EPA I hope he guts the DOE next.

 

Every organization can become leaner, yup I agree. What I don't agree with is the background to the cuts isn't to simply reduce the costs. The background to the cuts it to undermine the agency's ability to enforce the rules and regulations. While we can debate the rule and regulations all we want, this isn't a simple reduction of costs and it shouldn't be sold as such.

 

http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/has-the-epa-hurt-the-economy/#sthash.oBKR8GCT.dpbs

 

And these are just a handful of recent EPA rules. To most readers, that might sound like the agency is not exactly helping the economy — in fact, that the agency is doing quite the opposite. But never mind all of that. Because, according to the agency, the fact that the United States has grown since the EPA’s inception must be evidence that the EPA has done nothing but promulgate commonsense regulations; certainly, it cannot be the case that the economy has grown in spite of them. If you read any of the EPA’s regulatory impact analyses, you’ll see that their regulatory benefits are often those of job creation by regulation (i.e. their rules impose costs on one industry by requiring that industry to spend money, thereby spurring growth in another industry) — hardly a solid growth principle. If government-mandated expenses and restrictions created jobs and economic growth, we’d have regulated ourselves into prosperity quite effortlessly over the last six years. McCarthy’s logic makes just as much sense as saying that you’ve eaten Oreos for lunch every day for the last week while maintaining a healthy weight — therefore, Oreos have clearly had no negative impact on your health. The fact that growth has occurred in the face of overreaching regulations is hardly evidence that those regulations haven’t hurt the economy. According to a study published in the Journal of Economic Growth last year, federal regulation from 1949 to 2005 has cost the American economy an average of 2 percentage points of growth. Altogether, by year-end 2011, regulations since 1949 had reduced American GDP by $38.8 trillion. - See more at: http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/has-the-epa-hurt-the-economy/#sthash.oBKR8GCT.dpuf

 

Awesome, lets use the article's text justify the bold section:

 

 

If that’s the same type of analytical rigor that the EPA uses when churning out regulations

 

Research and analytical numbers can be used in many ways, deception being the most common. I'm not distrusting the Journal of Economic Growth's numbers (I haven't looked at them). I just find it funny that the article justifies their side with numbers, just as the EPA did.

 

This is the second, I started with one, but I'll put and it down to reading comprehension?

 

2. Ethanol

 

You're welcome.

 

This response won't fit with my perceived "liberal" thinking. The Ethanol force into gasoline was a result of the governments large subsidization of the corn industry in the US. Ever wonder why High Fructose Corn Syrup as an "evil ingredient" in foods is rarely brought up anymore? I wonder where all the extra corn went? This was a payout to the corn industry. It's a pretty obvious outcome of the lobbying efforts that can poison our legislative branch.

[Tiberius]

Why do people ignore the reality that the countries who are the biggest polluters of the environment happen to be the places where government intrusion into private industry is the highest?

This is such a silly point.

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

Every organization can become leaner, yup I agree. What I don't agree with is the background to the cuts isn't to simply reduce the costs. The background to the cuts it to undermine the agency's ability to enforce the rules and regulations. While we can debate the rule and regulations all we want, this isn't a simple reduction of costs and it shouldn't be sold as such.

 

 

Awesome, lets use the article's text justify the bold section:

 

Research and analytical numbers can be used in many ways, deception being the most common. I'm not distrusting the Journal of Economic Growth's numbers (I haven't looked at them). I just find it funny that the article justifies their side with numbers, just as the EPA did.

 

 

This response won't fit with my perceived "liberal" thinking. The Ethanol force into gasoline was a result of the governments large subsidization of the corn industry in the US. Ever wonder why High Fructose Corn Syrup as an "evil ingredient" in foods is rarely brought up anymore? I wonder where all the extra corn went? This was a payout to the corn industry. It's a pretty obvious outcome of the lobbying efforts that can poison our legislative branch.

And yet... Ethanol uses A TON of water. Go figure.

[nkreed]

 

That's because you probably never used it. I've never poured gas out of the new spouts without a spill

HA! I agree with that. Not to mention the awkward handle setup.

 

However, as I understand the basis of the new design is to prevent the buildup of gasoline fumes in a confined space after the pouring is completed. Gone are the days of the vent on the back to help with pouring. Leave that open in a hot confined space and you are asking for an airspace in the explosive range. If you are pouring the gasoline, you should be smart enough to have fresh air during the pour.

[ExiledInIllinois]

This is such a silly point.

It is. But, humor him. He's on a roll.

 

At least in America we got used to not schitting where we eat. I just dillute it and send to some other poor sap. ;-)

 

We in American gov't have always valued the environment a little better than other gov'ts. :-)

HA! I agree with that. Not to mention the awkward handle setup.

 

However, as I understand the basis of the new design is to prevent the buildup of gasoline fumes in a confined space after the pouring is completed. Gone are the days of the vent on the back to help with pouring. Leave that open in a hot confined space and you are asking for an airspace in the explosive range. If you are pouring the gasoline, you should be smart enough to have fresh air during the pour.

Pour it slow and pre-vent from the nozzle.

 

But then again... I transfer it to a 50 year old safety can that handle most of the more routine pouring... LoL

[Magox]

 

Every organization can become leaner, yup I agree. What I don't agree with is the background to the cuts isn't to simply reduce the costs. The background to the cuts it to undermine the agency's ability to enforce the rules and regulations. While we can debate the rule and regulations all we want, this isn't a simple reduction of costs and it shouldn't be sold as such.

 

 

 

It's a political document, nothing more. Basically it is to accentuate their priorities, I would expect the real budget to take not such a blunt approach to it.

[Benjamin Franklin]

Why do people ignore the reality that the countries who are the biggest polluters of the environment happen to be the places where government intrusion into private industry is the highest?

Not sure your point or that it's valid. India has the least effective government on the planet and they pollute like MFers.

 

Most of Europe is clean because they have intrusive government.

 

I'm a free market guy but it's hard to totally trust the market to adequately punish Exxon if it cuts corners. The EPA needs to be less intrusive agreed. But it also needs better ammo.

[richstadiumowner]

Not sure your point or that it's valid. India has the least effective government on the planet and they pollute like MFers.

 

Most of Europe is clean because they have intrusive government.

 

I'm a free market guy but it's hard to totally trust the market to adequately punish Exxon if it cuts corners. The EPA needs to be less intrusive agreed. But it also needs better ammo.

 

East Germany - West Germany

North Korea - South Korea

 

And one small gubment regulated sprout farm in Germany killed more people than Fukushima, the Gulf Spill, and the Exxon Valdez combined.

Edited March 16, 2017 by richstadiumowner