GOP plans to slash funding to EPA and cut environmental rules.

[krashkart]

I don't know if they have an axe to grind, but if that's the best they can do to cut the deficit then they're not trying hard enough. Slash environmental funding and we lose how many decades of progress and the money spent on making that progress happen? Hrm... There must be another way. How about they all go without pay for a few years? That would help.

[Armistead]

Well, if you study it, looks like more corporate giveaways. Certainly some items need to be cut, but when this crap happens it's just a political sell out. We've already seen corporate profits soar and no trickle down effect and they won't to keep lowering corporate taxes. In reality, it's not taxes they care about, it's buying regulation and the GOP is a big sellout. Dems aren't far behind. Our government nothing but a bunch of sold out criminals.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Our government nothing but a bunch of sold out criminals.

What the heck do you mean by this?

We have absolutely the best government that special interests and corporate donors can buy, thank you very much.

[August]

And meanwhile the Obama administration is going to cut off funding for the new US Earthquake Warning System, putting potentially millions of Americans lives at risk.

Go figure.

[mookiemookie]

Funding for these sorts of projects are such a small piece of the pie. It's clear that this isn't about budget concerns - it's pure politics.

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by August

US Earthquake Warning System,

That made me laugh!! Thanks August.

Sounds kinda like the same sorta of severe weather system I've seen in the back country.







Is the ground shaking?

Yup? Earthquake.

Can you stand up?

Nope? Bad Earthquake.




I'm all for making a safe and reliable prediction system, but I highly doubt it will end up being accurate enough to make a reliable Early Warning system. Psuedo Science Pork FTW!.


This is exaclty what Bush did in his first few months in office. He revoked/repealed the majority of the huge environmental gains that Clinton made, all so his Oil Cronies could make more money. I sat there and fumed as I saw law after law being repealed all in the sake of money. Then a few years ago, I saw this documentary which details the affects of the Bush "environmental" legislation on a personal level.

[GoldenRivet]

Our lives are overly regulated by these EPA a-holes

They shut down a local construction site for a whole day because they had the wrong style of gas cans for christs sake.

The gas can the EPA recommends is a pure POS and has resulted in me accidentally dumping at least a half gallon per fill up into the local lake.

In most cases- I think the morons at the EPA cause more harm than good.

And face it... Virtually every aspect of your life is regulated by these turds. These sub-human pieces of trash mandate everything from the type of light bulbs you buy to the type of gas cans you can store fuel in within your own GD garage.

If we don't strike back they WILL regulate us right into extinction.

They shut down a local construction site for a whole day because they had the wrong style of gas cans for christs sake.

That happens everywhere, its normal. There are damn good reasons why there is legislation concerning the storage of chemicals in the workplace.
Sure everyone tries to get away with using any old drum thats lying around.
But when something does go wrong then you are responsible and liable, and if you get caught even if nothing has gone wrong then you are still responsible and liable.
People who complain about getting caught have no grounds to complain.

The gas can the EPA recommends is a pure POS and has resulted in me accidentally dumping at least a half gallon per fill up into the local lake.

That probably reflects your own abilities rather than the quality of the container

These sub-human pieces of trash mandate everything from the type of light bulbs you buy to the type of gas cans you can store fuel in within your own GD garage.

If we don't strike back they WILL regulate us right into extinction.

You sound like Skybird

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Our lives are overly regulated by these EPA a-holes

They shut down a local construction site for a whole day because they had the wrong style of gas cans for christs sake.

The gas can the EPA recommends is a pure POS and has resulted in me accidentally dumping at least a half gallon per fill up into the local lake.

In most cases- I think the morons at the EPA cause more harm than good.

And face it... Virtually every aspect of your life is regulated by these turds. These sub-human pieces of trash mandate everything from the type of light bulbs you buy to the type of gas cans you can store fuel in within your own GD garage.

If we don't strike back they WILL regulate us right into extinction.

The problem is proper regulation. Running a paint contracting business, I'm set up as a small quanity generator of haz. waste. The cost, paperwork, visits and fines for writing a label wrong is amazing. I refused to dump 1000's of gallons of chemical on the ground, so guess who the EPA only checks on...guys like me that signed up to do it right. Meanwhile, 100's of illegal mexicans dump tons of chemicals on the ground, backyards, dumpsters, sinks, etc....never bother them.

With government it's either too much or too little.

Read a story not long ago in Alaska where the water cleaning plant is, they applied for federal funds like all. They needed to reline or something. The problem was their water wasn't dirty enough by standards. In order to get the funds they were required to lessen standards to make the water dirty.
They did and were approved.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Gargamel

Then a few years ago, I saw this documentary which details the affects of the Bush "environmental" legislation on a personal level.

That's a good film. Sometimes environmentalists talk about what chemicals are in our water without considering if they're at dangerous levels or not, but I think everyone can agree that you should not be able to set your tapwater on fire as it's coming out of the faucet.

And Bush exempted these gas companies from the Clean Water Act so they could do whatever they want, public health be damned.

[August]

Originally Posted by Gargamel

I'm all for making a safe and reliable prediction system, but I highly doubt it will end up being accurate enough to make a reliable Early Warning system. Psuedo Science Pork FTW!.

Well from what I read it's an improved version of the system they have already installed in Japan and that did save some lives. I think your calling it "pseudo science pork" without even checking into it, sort of belies your claim that your "for a safe and reliable prediction system".

[GoldenRivet]

@ Tribesman...


these little POS EPA Gas Cans that are not vented, and require you to tip the gas can with one hand, while pulling back and twisting the sheath on the pour spout with the other hand... they SUCK and are a horrible idea.

the reality of it is that 5 gallons of gas weighs about 30 lbs, they pour at a rate of about one gallon per 2-3 minutes and it requires considerable effort to operate such an awkward device for 10-12 minutes in such a twisted half assed manner as they recommend.

thus, you get people who say to hell with it, pop off the spout, up end the container and pour the fuel freely into the tank. on a rocking boat, this can result in some spillage unfortunately.

with the old style gas cans that the government didnt have their hands all over, i could unscrew the vent cap, tip the gas can up with both hands (adding substantial stability) placing the ENTIRE pour spout into the fuel tank and just hold it there... the whole can would be empty in 1.5-2 minutes flat.

on the subject of the EPA regulating things in general.

yes... some regulatory items are important.

NO.. i don't think it makes a hell of a lot of difference what sort of gas can a construction company uses to fuel up their bulldozers and chain saws and weed eaters.

and i especially dont think the government should have its say on every little thing people can or cannot go to the store and buy.


shut down the EPA? no

Trim the fat and tell them to chill the F out? absolutely

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Funding for these sorts of projects are such a small piece of the pie. It's clear that this isn't about budget concerns - it's pure politics.

It seems we share some opinions. Just replace "funding" with "executives" and you pretty much have one of the points of my argument against regulating corporate salaries.


However, this EPA funding business is not just politics, though they indubitably play a large part. What GR was trying to say and that probably didn't come across clearly was that the EPA often grossly misuses the funds allocated to them and their regulations are often unnecessary and/or damaging to the economy. I can understand his obvious frustration; he is trying to run a business in a system where it seems like the government is out to control everything you do, charges you for doing so, and then penalizes you if you fail to follow rules so complicated that no human could possibly comprehend all of them. That's in addition to the normal penalties for profitability and creating employment opportunities, if you ever get that far.

Notwithstanding the fact that the EPA's budget for FY2011 is over 10 billion dollars in capital that could be used to do something productive but is instead largely wasted (I'll cover that in a moment), you're not taking into account the unintended consequences that accompany such regulation. As I said, the rules are so complicated that nobody understands them, including the EPA, which is why they sometimes have regulations that are mutually exclusive or otherwise conflict each other. I'll spare you the lengthy description of the three big ones in the railroad industry unless someone really wants to hear them. But think about it - even one incidence of conflicting regs in one industry is an obvious sign that the rules are overly complex. Now think about it from the perspective of a small business owner. You've put everything you have into your venture, and assumed a comparitively large amount of debt in doing so. Now you have to hire a specialist (read: expensive)just to avoid being fined out of existence or jailed outright, and even then you are not immune because the regs are changing or some agent decides to enforce some obscure one your specialist missed or misinterpreted.

Though most of this post is intended to address everyone, I want the people who are quick to assume that the state is inherently good or moral or at least better than big business to consider the above and what I am about to say carefully. In a system that is so complex that specialists are needed to navigate it and failure to comply results in hefty penalties, who do you think is going to consistently come out on top, or even endure? I'll give you a hint: It's not the small businesses we all love because it's politically "A-OK". They're practically DOA, even if they arrive to begin with. Many more prospective small businesspeople just say "to hell with it" and don't even bother trying. Don't believe me? Try filing an environmental impact statement sometime if you can come up with the capital. Call me back in a few years when you get the results and let me know how it worked out.

I doubt anyone here needs the point to be spelled out for them but I'll do it anyway for the sake of completeness. Those greedy big businesses you love to hate and the rich investors that back them - you eliminated a major part of their problems, namely competition from small business. And should you decide to change the regulations to reign them in, they'll simply lobby to have the regulations changed to exclude more prospective competitors, or they'll go somewhere else. Pretty much everything the left has to complain about when it comes to big business is their own damn fault for thinking that the government was an effective agency for implementing their desired results.

Alright, that part I asked some to carefully consider is now over, but it segues nicely into my next point, which is the effectiveness of the EPA itself. The only parts of the moniker "Environmental Protection Agency" that are true is that it is indeed and agency and it has something to do with the environment.

I can understand why people would think that they need some kind of protection from the ravages of brutal corporate exploitation of the environment. I, too, was raised on a public school diet with a healthy serving of environmental awareness. For years I thought that the EPA and the active efforts of young people like myself were necessary to combat the grevious harms inflicted on our planet by soulless corporations that cared only about profit. Ironically, I discovered that it is the fact that corporations care only about profit that makes them good for the environment. Sure, they'll try to cut corners where they can, but they also have to sell a product. If they cause some major disaster or are caught engaging in practices that are actively destructive, they have a PR nightmare on their hands, not to mention the catastrophic results their activities have on sales and investment. In a world where quarterly results can mean the difference between employment and unemployment, you can be damn sure that corporations are keeping a close eye on anything that might negatively affect their image. Yes, from time to time they screw up, but they pay for it when they do, and are forced to adopt new practices. Sometimes, they pay for it so heavily that they cease to exist. Problem solved.

The EPA, on the other hand, does not pay for its mistakes. On the contrary, it requests more funding to prevent such incidents from occuring in the future. I can't make the point that the EPA hasn't ever actually prevented a disaster because we'd never know about it if they did, (though given their record I'm sure they would trumpet it in the media) but I can certainly make the point that they have allowed entirely too many environmental disasters to occur for the price we are paying. I could also make the point that the environmental impact of industries capable of making an impact has simply shifted elsewhere, but why bother when we can boil it down further?

The EPA is a reactive entity, as is any government agency. It only exists because people got pissed off enough about the environment to make the issue political, and even then, it took years to effect. It is not driven by profit and it is not accountable for its failures because the political motivation to keep it around remains. It lives and dies on the effectiveness of its cause, not results. Business, on the other hand, has to be proactive if it is to survive, save where it gets the opportunity to co-opt the state to mandate its existence, directly or indirectly.

If you really look at what the EPA is, and the system it is built upon, the mountains of regulations and non-corresponding number of environmental accidents that were not prevented should be telling. To be fair, EPA initiatives have probably helped increase environmental awareness to the point where the private sector must acknowledge that they are going to have to deal with it if they want to sell products and avoid negative attention. Credit where credit is due. But do we really need to spend ten billion dollars per year on an agency whose primary goal has largely been accomplished? Not unless they can convince you that they still have an essential role to play.