EPA Muzzling Scientists on Climate Change

#2
#2
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#8
#8
hog88 said:
If only the EPA was studying ways for us to live with it instead of ways to ruin our economy.
Click to expand...

When one part shrinks another grows. Why does our economy have to be based on coal? Do we need to amend the constitution or something to ensure coal is constitutionally defined as fundamental and necessary to the economy of the US?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#9
#9
jvol1 said:
When one part shrinks another grows. Why does our economy have to be based on coal? Do we need to amend the constitution or something to ensure coal is constitutionally defined as fundamental and necessary to the economy of the US?
Click to expand...

If it was only coal they were going after that would be one thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#10
#10
hog88 said:
If it was only coal they were going after that would be one thing.
Click to expand...

Well, since there is no definition of "green energy" or "clean energy", how would one measure whether the technology is either? I mean even solar and wind are not clean energy sources. Coal has gotten significantly cleaner over the last 40 years, natural gas is fairly clean itself - which is why the story went to carbon output.

This is all about energy credits to control the world economy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#11
#11
jvol1 said:
When one part shrinks another grows. Why does our economy have to be based on coal? Do we need to amend the constitution or something to ensure coal is constitutionally defined as fundamental and necessary to the economy of the US?
Click to expand...

Exactly. People are too stupid to figure this out and just want to yell "they took our jobs" South Park style.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#13
#13
hog88 said:
If only the EPA was studying ways for us to live with it instead of ways to ruin our economy.
Click to expand...


I challenge you to show how EPA regulations are detrimental to our economy. You can't---it's the usual conservative/GOP nonsense that is ruining this country. Scott Pruitt and all other climate-change skeptics are just the worst sort of ideological hacks. It's a sad state when people with ZERO scientific background pretend to challenge scientistic consensus merely because, for some strange reason, they don't want to inconvenience big, billion-dollar energy companies. We need more environmental regulation, not less--and if we had it maybe millions of people wouldn't be dying of cancer every year. The polar ice caps are melting, the Alaska tundra is melting, the oceans are warming rapidly--and conservative boobs pretend there isn't a problem. "Gee, we'd hate to hurt the coal industry." Coal has been a dying industry for decades--barely employs 50K people. Or: "We'd hate for the Methane Unlimited Energy Company to lose a dollar off its stock price." Utterly dishonest, short-term thinking that imperils the planet. Scott Pruitt--a yahoo from Oklahoma who's been in the pocket of the energy industry for many years-- should be tarred and feathered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#15
#15
armchair said:
I challenge you to show how EPA regulations are detrimental to our economy. You can't---it's the usual conservative/GOP nonsense that is ruining this country. Scott Pruitt and all other climate-change skeptics are just the worst sort of ideological hacks. It's a sad state when people with ZERO scientific background pretend to challenge scientistic consensus merely because, for some strange reason, they don't want to inconvenience big, billion-dollar energy companies. We need more environmental regulation, not less--and if we had it maybe millions of people wouldn't be dying of cancer every year. The polar ice caps are melting, the Alaska tundra is melting, the oceans are warming rapidly--and conservative boobs pretend there isn't a problem. "Gee, we'd hate to hurt the coal industry." Coal has been a dying industry for decades--barely employs 50K people. Or: "We'd hate for the Methane Unlimited Energy Company to lose a dollar off its stock price." Utterly dishonest, short-term thinking that imperils the planet. Scott Pruitt--a yahoo from Oklahoma who's been in the pocket of the energy industry for many years-- should be tarred and feathered.
Click to expand...

I'm concerned about this story, but to claim regulations don't hurt the economy is just pure nonsense.

There are small and large costs to compliance. Of course it hurts the economy. Every dollar spent on compliance is one fewer dollar spent on wealth creating endeavors.

To flip your argument on itself, can you prove that the EPA makes our environment better in meaningful ways? The trends did not change with the inception of the EPA. The air and water was getting cleaner and there was no noticeable change in the rate of improvement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#18
#18
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Need to go ahead and shut the EPA down.
Click to expand...

I am fine with the EPA, cleaner water and air, and I freaking hate nuclear. With that said, all this carbon crap is just that - crap. Nothing wrong with cleaner air and local water supplies should be protected. However, to me all the people piling in on this "climate change" bs are actually hurting all environmental issues.
 
#19
#19
LSU-SIU said:
I am fine with the EPA, cleaner water and air, and I freaking hate nuclear. With that said, all this carbon crap is just that - crap. Nothing wrong with cleaner air and local water supplies should be protected. However, to me all the people piling in on this "climate change" bs are actually hurting all environmental issues.
Click to expand...

It's all bs. Just another way to bilk us out of money. Shut it down.

Then again, I'm for shutting down every government program. So there's that...
 
#20
#20
LSU-SIU said:
I am fine with the EPA, cleaner water and air, and I freaking hate nuclear. With that said, all this carbon crap is just that - crap. Nothing wrong with cleaner air and local water supplies should be protected. However, to me all the people piling in on this "climate change" bs are actually hurting all environmental issues.
Click to expand...

In detail, why do you hate nuclear?
 
#21
#21
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
It's all bs. Just another way to bilk us out of money. Shut it down.

Then again, I'm for shutting down every government program. So there's that...
Click to expand...

I am fine with that stance as long as "every government program" includes corporations which are created under State law. There is a think called pollution - if Corporation X has free right to dump whatever they want in your water supply and you find out what it is - you might just change your tune.

Corporations don't have a right to dump their crap on other people - they only exist at the privilege of the people of the State. There are no free lunch.
 
#22
#22
Orangedogsrule said:
In detail, why do you hate nuclear?
Click to expand...

The obvious. Nuclear accidents which can consume many square miles of land, endanger people and presently there is no solution for the waste. Its irresponsible at this stage, maybe one day it could be use but right now.
 
#23
#23
LSU-SIU said:
I am fine with that stance as long as "every government program" includes corporations which are created under State law. There is a think called pollution - if Corporation X has free right to dump whatever they want in your water supply and you find out what it is - you might just change your tune.

Corporations don't have a right to dump their crap on other people - they only exist at the privilege of the people of the State. There are no free lunch.
Click to expand...

The EPA is not the only level of regulation. It's a pre-emptive, federal-level regulator that has become overly politicized. Just because there would be no EPA doesn't mean you can pollute. There are state laws with state officials who check for compliance (and there would be more of that without an EPA), federal laws, and courts to punish bad behavior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#24
#24
LSU-SIU said:
I am fine with that stance as long as "every government program" includes corporations which are created under State law. There is a think called pollution - if Corporation X has free right to dump whatever they want in your water supply and you find out what it is - you might just change your tune.

Corporations don't have a right to dump their crap on other people - they only exist at the privilege of the people of the State. There are no free lunch.
Click to expand...

Sure, corporations are protected by the government. The determination should be made by property rights. If you foul up someone's property, that includes the health of people, you should be liable.
 
#25
#25
n_huffhines said:
The EPA is not the only level of regulation. It's a pre-emptive regulator that has become overly politicized. Just because there is no EPA doesn't mean you can pollute. There are state laws with state officials who check for compliance (and there would be more of that without an EPA), federal laws, and courts to punish bad behavior.
Click to expand...

The EPA is for interstate commerce purposes meaning State A could have corporations that put something say in a river from Kentucky to Tennessee. The State of Tennessee has not jurisdiction as to Kentucky, matter of fact, Kentucky could eliminate all of their environmental statutes. The EPA is generally for regulating larger commerce corporations which would or could effect intrastate commerce.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top