Aw screw it! You deserve a negative. There was no way the mine could have been unaware that they were killing all the plant life around the town or killing the fish in the river. No way in hell! It was right there for them to see. You have no idea what it is that I clamor for Sir.
quote
Originally posted by dratts:
Thanks for mentioning me furgal. I can see that you are defending what happened in my home town before the epa. I don't give out a lot of negs but I'm seriously considering one for you. epa isn't perfect by any means but it is vastly better than what we had before. Creating jobs does not justify pollution to the degree that I have witnessed.
And like I said, a liberal will hear nothing but he wants the epa killed off, and nothing else..
let me ask you.. Are you ok with the fact that the EPA has to answer to no one.. not the white house, not congress, not the courts.. It baffles me that people don't find this to be a huge problem..
And as far as the job's go, I guess you have that stance as it won't or can't effect your job.. but if it did, I'm sure you'd have the same, reply.. "welp, I'm unemployed, but that company can't pollute, " oh,snap, they moved and now have no environmental rules to live by, ya, you showed them..
Trying to silence those you disagree with. How typically Leftist / Liberal
Someone (or two someone's) posts that "abolishing the EPA is not an option", expecting it to be read as "eliminating the EPA altogether, and stopping right there, without any further considerations, is not a realistic option."
So, one of those famously tolerant "conservatives"--now who would that be?--responds with:
quote
You are mistaken. I have a better idea. But I won't describe my better idea or try to explain how it works, because I am too busy coming up with new ways of insulting you. You're one of them [fookin'] LIBERAL LEFTISTS. You're a [fookin'] PROGRESSIVE. You simply CANNOT CONCEIVE of any solution that does not involve MORE GOVERNMENT. You have a CHILDLIKE mind.
So, one of the someone's says:
quote
This really goes against my nature, but [that was so personally insulting that] I almost feel like I should "neg" you.
--> Neg' me? Neg' me? It's LIBERAL INTOLERANCE, I tell's ya'. LIBERAL INTOLERANCE..!!!
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-13-2015).]
Trying to silence those you disagree with. How typically Leftist / Liberal
A neg from me or anyone else is not going to silence anyone. You have to really really screw up here to get banned and that's a good thing. It's just a formal acknowledgement from me that I'm tired of you always twisting every thing I try to say and ignoring anything that you don't agree with. Go ahead and defend the horrendous thing that bunker hill did to my hometown. I don't usually like labels but when it comes from you I'm starting to like leftist/liberal.
I spent most of my career dealing with the EPA at the Region, State and National level.
Several practices that were accepted and legal have been found to be detrimental to the environment, and came under regulation. As a result, the air is cleaner, the water is cleaner and long term depositories of wastes (think landfills) are better designed and operated.
All of these are pluses for current and future generations.
Most of the people I dealt with were rational minded and willing to work with the regulated community to find solutions to pressing problems wi5hin the structure of the regulations. They didn't want to shut down the community, rather they wanted to make the regulated community a partner in their efforts to clean up the mistakes of the past.
Then the envirofreaks started graduating from college and going to work for the Agency. The EPA administration was gradually replaced by the new generation, and the mindset of the Agency changed from a partner to a proactive police force. The timelines for compliance became unreasonable, fines came quicker and were beyond punishing, and the scope and breadth of new regulation became nonsensical. The scientific rationale was replaced with emotional activism at not only the Inspection level, but also infiltrated the Administrative level.
Most generators of waste have by now, realized that good environmental stewardship is a profit center, as less generation of waste byproduct equals lower costs. The glaring issues today are municipal waste and agricultural runoff, both areas that are very difficult to make significant impact on, and for different reasons.
The Agency does need to be reigned in, but not dissolved.
It has been a pathway and driver to better environmental conditions. Unfortunately, the Agency has become too activism driven to find partners within the regulated community, one of the drivers of their early successes.
I'll try to answer you. I have posted before that the person or persons responsible should have to pay for their acts. I do and so do you. I don't know the law so I have absolutely no idea how this works with epa or their employees. The jobs? There are jobs that should not be done if they can't avoid destroying the environment. Either do it right or don't do it. This applies to all things. cricket, cricket I guess.
I'll try to answer you. I have posted before that the person or persons responsible should have to pay for their acts. I do and so do you. I don't know the law so I have absolutely no idea how this works with epa or their employees. The jobs? There are jobs that should not be done if they can't avoid destroying the environment. Either do it right or don't do it. This applies to all things. cricket, cricket I guess.
still waiting, try answering the question, not a statement that doesn't apply to the asked question.
Guess I was answering the wrong question. What was the question?
And like I said, a liberal will hear nothing but he wants the epa killed off, and nothing else.. #1 let me ask you.. Are you ok with the fact that the EPA has to answer to no one.. not the white house, not congress, not the courts.. It baffles me that people don't find this to be a huge problem.. #2 And as far as the job's go, I guess you have that stance as it won't or can't effect your job.. but if it did, I'm sure you'd have the same, reply.. "welp, I'm unemployed, but that company can't pollute, " oh,snap, they moved and now have no environmental rules to live by, ya, you showed them.. right, r-I-g-h-t!!!!!![/b]
--> Neg' me? Neg' me? It's LIBERAL INTOLERANCE, I tell's ya'. LIBERAL INTOLERANCE..!!!
I honestly DO NOT CARE what you are "offended" about or how you *FEEL* in any of that. If you *feel* that Leftist / Liberal is somehow a personal insult to you, but every one of your posts and your own words lead any rational thinking adult to the inescapable conclusion that is *precisely* your ideology, then you simply lack the courage of your own convictions.
THAT is what you should be "offended" about. You should FEEL disgusted with yourself that you lack the courage to admit what you really believe.
You PRESUME that I am under some false obligation to offer an *alternative* to someone else's ridiculous definitive statement, ("abolishing the epa is not an option"). The hard *reality* is that I have no such imaginary "obligation" at all. NONE.
"Abolishing the EPA is not an option" is as logically erroneous and childlike as saying: "It's settled science".
You chafe that I use the term "childlike", and claim offense from it, but that is PRECISELY the sort of juvenile thinking required to make such statements. Such statements are common shibboleths of Leftist Liberals. They are *intended* to be thought and discussion stopping.
I refuse to play that children's game.
THINKING ADULTS realize that *abolishing* something IS an option, ....along with many other possible OPTIONS.
When the childlike Leftist Liberal "logic" says: "Abolishing the EPA is not an option", that serves to *confirm* my position that he *cannot conceive* of anything other than GOVERNMENT solving or handling his problems. he literally sees NO OTHER OPTION.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-13-2015).]
no you haven't, try looking it again... part labeled #1
What part of my statement that those responsible should be have to pay for their acts don't you get? Plus this was an epa accident. The industrial pollution was no accident. Just sayin'
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 08-13-2015).]
I spent most of my career dealing with the EPA at the Region, State and National level.
Several practices that were accepted and legal have been found to be detrimental to the environment, and came under regulation. As a result, the air is cleaner, the water is cleaner and long term depositories of wastes (think landfills) are better designed and operated.
All of these are pluses for current and future generations.
Most of the people I dealt with were rational minded and willing to work with the regulated community to find solutions to pressing problems wi5hin the structure of the regulations. They didn't want to shut down the community, rather they wanted to make the regulated community a partner in their efforts to clean up the mistakes of the past.
Then the envirofreaks started graduating from college and going to work for the Agency. The EPA administration was gradually replaced by the new generation, and the mindset of the Agency changed from a partner to a proactive police force. The timelines for compliance became unreasonable, fines came quicker and were beyond punishing, and the scope and breadth of new regulation became nonsensical. The scientific rationale was replaced with emotional activism at not only the Inspection level, but also infiltrated the Administrative level.
Most generators of waste have by now, realized that good environmental stewardship is a profit center, as less generation of waste byproduct equals lower costs. The glaring issues today are municipal waste and agricultural runoff, both areas that are very difficult to make significant impact on, and for different reasons.
The Agency does need to be reigned in, but not dissolved.
It has been a pathway and driver to better environmental conditions. Unfortunately, the Agency has become too activism driven to find partners within the regulated community, one of the drivers of their early successes.
FINALLY, a reasoned, fact based and knowledgeable opinion!
Having also spent a career lifetime dealing with Government Regulatory agencies,(FAA, DOE, EPA, FDA, CDRH, OSHA) I liken them to the Kudzu vine that grows wild down here in the South. It needs to be constantly cut and trimmed back, otherwise it will grow out of control and choke out everything else.
Unfortunately, big government bureaucracy, unlike Kudzu, once rooted in place has proven to be nearly unstoppable.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-13-2015).]
So you're talking about one mine and one river system. What about every mine like this dumping the waste, one day's amount at a time, every 24 hours, as a standard way of operating?
My point is that abolishing the EPA isn't an option. And the way that some posts are worded, it makes me think that some people have that idea in the back (or front) of their mind.
It seems like a no-brainer that a single massive release like this is more damaging than a drop-by-drop scenario, but the long term tradeoffs between the two scenarios may not be as totally one-sided as it looks to the naked eye.
I wonder if the EPA can levy a "dumping" fine on the EPA?
Stop your blind allegiance to the bureaucracy.
This isn't a constant dripping of chemicals over a period of decades. This is a massive toxic spill on a level never seen before.
Guarantee the chief and deputy chief of the department responsible for this both get promoted during the next performance cycle.
What part of my statement that those responsible should be have to pay for their acts don't you get? Plus this was an epa accident. The industrial pollution was no accident. Just sayin'
clearly you are not going to answer it, not surprising , have a good day..
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Stop your blind allegiance to the bureaucracy. This isn't a constant dripping of chemicals over a period of decades. This is a massive toxic spill on a level never seen before.
I said that "abolishing the EPA is not an option." I thought that would be read or understood as "eliminating the EPA altogether, and stopping right there, without any further considerations, is not a realistic option." It so happens that I am not alone here in this view. Someone else here has offered this:
quote
The Agency [EPA] does need to be reigned in, but not dissolved.
It has been a pathway and driver to better environmental conditions. Unfortunately, the Agency has become too activism driven to find partners within the regulated community, one of the drivers of their early successes.
Very discussable. I would not say "reigned in", but clearly what is needed is an extensive "autopsy" or review process, to examine every aspect of this sudden, massive release of mining waste. The EPA itself will have to be centrally involved in the internal aspects of this review process.
quote
This isn't a constant dripping of chemicals over a period of decades. This is a massive toxic spill on a level never seen before.
I fully expect that the EPA will address the environmental impacts of this in a public way, with publicly available reports based on analyses of surface and underground water samples, soil samples and biologist scrutiny of the species populations (including homo sapiens) in the affected regions. Not because I assume that the EPA is 100 percent an agency of responsible and dedicated government employees. Because I expect that there will be significant push back from people that reside, work or recreate in the affected regions to hold the EPA's feet very closely to the fire, in terms of systematically assessing all of the impacts.
I don't know of anything that precludes the possibility for any college student (or high school student) with an interest to collect a water or soil sample and have a laboratory analysis performed independently of the EPA. I just think of that (students) as the first possibility that comes to mind. Who else, outside of the EPA, could get involved in monitoring the EPA's monitoring of the affected river systems and lakes?
I don't think the EPA will be able to "bury" this one.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-16-2015).]
"Very discussable. I would not say "reigned in", but clearly what is needed is an extensive "autopsy" or review process, to examine every aspect of this sudden, massive release of mining waste. The EPA itself will have to be centrally involved in the internal aspects of this review process."
You are missing the wider point. The mine effluent spill is small potatoes relative to other programs they are pursuing. Regulating CO² emissions? Destroying a large portion of our energy resource system through bureaucratic rulemaking?
Consider the headlines regarding the Agency today. Its all about the mine spill, nothing about carbon regulation.
Deflection from the real issues?
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 08-16-2015).]
Pertinent, as a reference to the scientific basis for calling out human derived greenhouse gas emissions--and CO2 emissions in particular--as a significant cause of currently observed global warming.
In 2009, EPA determined – and courts upheld – that greenhouse gas pollution threatens Americans' health and welfare by leading to long-lasting changes in our climate that can have a range of negative effects on human health and the environment.
The Clean Air Act—under section 111—authorizes EPA to set emission standards for air pollutants emitted by new and existing industrial sources. Section 111d creates a partnership between EPA, states and tribes for regulating existing sources – with EPA setting the standards and states and tribes choosing how they will meet it.
So, court decisions have upheld the EPA's determination that greenhouse gas emissions--and CO2 emissions in particular--are "air pollutants".
Upon that legal foundation, the EPA cites Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as its legal authorization to regulate greenhouse gas emissions--and CO2 in particular--from both proposed and already established "industrial sources", which is a term that has long been interpreted as inclusive of electrical power generation plants.
The Clean Air Act was first legislated in 1970, and underwent significant revisions in 1977 and 1990.
"Very discussable. I would not say "reigned in", but clearly what is needed is an extensive "autopsy" or review process, to examine every aspect of this sudden, massive release of mining waste. The EPA itself will have to be centrally involved in the internal aspects of this review process."
You are missing the wider point. The mine effluent spill is small potatoes relative to other programs they are pursuing. Regulating CO² emissions? Destroying a large portion of our energy resource system through bureaucratic rulemaking?
Consider the headlines regarding the Agency today. Its all about the mine spill, nothing about carbon regulation.
Deflection from the real issues?
???
I am unable to track the direction in which you are moving.
I am having difficulty decoding your logic, from one message to the next message.
I am not "getting" you.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-20-2015).]
EPA releases info about regulating carbon emissions - huge impact on energy costs and future of american power, negligible impact on "climate change" - people in uproar.
EPA releases info that they spilled some contaminated water - brief impact on pretty river, lots of media coverage, Colorado gov drinks some water, people can't canoe for a few days, huge media coverage - people in bigger uproar - then its gone, washed away, everyone is happy.
EPA is the big bad guy for spilling some water, but now it's all good!
Carbon regulation is still going to impact everyone for years, but who cares? The river is clean now, and the spotlight is off of the real story.
Deflection, much?
Pay attention.
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 08-21-2015).]
I fully expect that the EPA will address the environmental impacts of this in a public way, with publicly available reports based on analyses of surface and underground water samples, soil samples and biologist scrutiny of the species populations (including homo sapiens) in the affected regions. Not because I assume that the EPA is 100 percent an agency of responsible and dedicated government employees. Because I expect that there will be significant push back from people that reside, work or recreate in the affected regions to hold the EPA's feet very closely to the fire, in terms of systematically assessing all of the impacts.
I don't think the EPA will be able to "bury" this one.
Right... let me know how that works out. I'm sure it'll be a priority for the Secretary of the Interior and the EPA.
University researchers report heavy metal contaminants scattered along a 60-mile stretch of the affected river, partly in Colorado and partly in New Mexico.
The same researchers have asked the Natural Resources Conservation Service, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to fund a three-year study that would closely monitor five or six sites along the river, incorporating the three states and two tribal reservations affected. He estimated it would cost $750,000 to $1 million.
An EPA spokeswoman has said the agency will review these researchers' findings. She said the EPA plans its own long-term monitoring project and has asked the affected states and indigenous American tribes for their inputs.
I wish that you could have seen my home town in the fifties. The worlds largest lead and silver mine along with it's smelter polluted the air so bad that nothing grew on the hills around town. They piled up millions of tons of slag from the smelter right in the middle of the valley and poured their waste into the Coeur ' d Alene river turning it into a chalky grey color that nothing could live in. The river flowed into the lake turning it into a lead polluted lake that there is no way to clean. I used to rescue swans across the road from my house that would get fatally leaded when the planes that they used to chase them off failed to do the job. It is still a super fund site with no end in site. The Bunker Hill mine and smelter did it because they could and because it was more profitable to just dump their waste. The epa screwed up here. I've screwed up a few times in my life too. We pick ourselves up analyze what went wrong and try to improve. We don't pollute just because we can get away with it. Yes the epa screwed up and someone should have to answer for it but to call for ending the spa is not a sane response.
I agree with you. Take a look at a picture of the Beijing skyline on a calm day and you will see what our cities would look like with no epa. The only time the Beijing skyline is clear is when the government orders car traffic off the streets and factories shut down.
