EPA Muzzling Scientists on Climate Change

#26
#26
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because the amount of damages can be beyond what Corporation X can ever payout, furthermore, money really isn't a replacement for death and sickness. Remove the corporation and now we have something to work with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#27
#27
LSU-SIU said:
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.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the EPA is much more than that and we don't even need them for that. The courts are for interstate commerce, not the EPA. When there is a dispute between KY and TN, the EPA is not the ultimate authority, the courts are.
 
#28
#28
LSU-SIU said:
Because the amount of damages can be beyond what Corporation X can ever payout, furthermore, money really isn't a replacement for death and sickness.
Click to expand...

Problem now is government steps in and limits the liability of the corporation. See BP oil spill.
 
#29
#29
n_huffhines said:
Unfortunately, the EPA is much more than that and we don't even need them for that. The courts are for interstate commerce, not the EPA. When there is a dispute between KY and TN, the EPA is not the ultimate authority, the courts are.
Click to expand...

Literally, talking to you is like talking to a rock on these issues. The EPA is the regulatory body for enforcing environmental law - the court simply judicial review the determinations/orders from the EPA see Administrative Procedures Act. The court does not "determine", they "judicial review".

5 U.S. Code Chapter 7 - JUDICIAL REVIEW | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#31
#31
LSU-SIU said:
Literally, talking to you is like talking to a rock on these issues. The EPA is the regulatory body for enforcing environmental law - the court simply judicial review the determinations/orders from the EPA see Administrative Procedures Act.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is the courts ARE the ultimate authority?

So if I want to sue a co. For pollution, who do I go to? The EPA or the courts?
 
#32
#32
n_huffhines said:
So what you're saying is the courts ARE the ultimate authority?

So if I want to sue a co. For pollution, who do I go to? The EPA or the courts?
Click to expand...

No, the courts only "judicial review" the "determinations/orders" of the lower agency, in this case the EPA. If you go to the EPA for a determination or they have issued a determination, that normally, or generally can be "judicial reviewed". That does not mean you don't have remedy elsewhere as well, depends on the situation and the context.

The courts generally do not "determine", they "judicial review" the determinations of the EPA, if no determination has been made which only the EPA can make - the court can send it back to the agency for further "adjudication".
 
#33
#33
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...

Ok. The regulations on diesel engines and the adoption of the use of diesel exhaust fluid. Not only has the new diesel emission standards raised the cost of new heavy duty trucks $10,000 to $20,000 per the use of DEF is causing another another environmental crisis that will cost the transportation industry billions. That crisis is the de-oxenegination of the water and bacterial/algae blooms.

DEF is basically in it's simplest form is aqueous urea, basically chicken piss/****. Which is high in ammonia, and when injected into the diesel exhaust system it produces nitrogen. Now what do you have when you introduce ammonia and nitrogen into water? You have a candy store for bacteria and algae which deplete the oxygen levels withing the water column.

We are seeing customers all over the country that have never had an issue with the BOD or COD levels in the discharge from their stormwater or separators until DEF dispensers were installed. Right now the regulatory agencies are refusing to recognize the problem and are mandating hugely expensive remedies that are not working, those costs are being passed down to, you guessed it, us consumers. Eventually the problem will be acknowledged and the fix will be either no discharge locations or extremely expensive on-site treatment systems. Either way the costs will be astronomical.

So in short they took a non existent air pollution problem and made one in our water.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#34
#34
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...

Nuclear is the cleanest form of energy available to us on a mass scale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#36
#36
LSU-SIU said:
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.
Click to expand...

We have this thing called the federal courts for matters such as these. Hell, even when the EPA gets involved it usually ends up in federal court.
 
#38
#38
LSU-SIU said:
No, the courts only "judicial review" the "determinations/orders" of the lower agency, in this case the EPA. If you go to the EPA for a determination or they have issued a determination, that normally, or generally can be "judicial reviewed". That does not mean you don't have remedy elsewhere as well, depends on the situation and the context.

The courts generally do not "determine", they "judicial review" the determinations of the EPA, if no determination has been made which only the EPA can make - the court can send it back to the agency for further "adjudication".
Click to expand...

You're missing my point. Ultimately the courts are the mechanism for enforcement. Take away the EPA and you still have the ability to enforce environmental law. Take away the courts and you do not have a mechanism for enforcement.
 
#40
#40
Huff, maybe this will help, please note the statutes have somewhat changed from 1947, so the numbers do not corresponds but it should help explain the situation.

1947 Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act (note there is a next button at the bottom)

1947 Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act (judicial review)

Obviously, the clause does not purport to empower a court to substitute its discretion for that of an administrative agency and thus exercise administrative duties. In fact, with respect to constitutional courts, it could not do so. Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 261 U.S. 428 (1923)); Postum Cereal Co. v. California Fig Nut Co., 272 U.S. 693 (1927); Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., U.S. 464 (1930). However, as in Safeway Stores v. Brown, supra, a court may require an agency to take action upon a matter, without directing how it shall act.
Click to expand...
 
#44
#44
n_huffhines said:
You're missing my point. Ultimately the courts are the mechanism for enforcement. Take away the EPA and you still have the ability to enforce environmental law. Take away the courts and you do not have a mechanism for enforcement.
Click to expand...

No, you don't - the federal courts are of limited jurisdiction... they generally only review the orders of the lower agency following adjudication. If the EPA is eliminated there is no agency from which the court can judicial review.

1. EPA makes a determination/order as to an issue
2. There is an aggravated party
3. Generally, aggravated party can ask for "judicial review" of the agency's order to a federal court, generally

Federal courts only "judicial review" the orders of the EPA, but in your example no order would exist.
 
#46
#46
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
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.
Click to expand...

I understand what you’re saying but you need some form of framework to define “foul up”. Something has to be codified that says X ppm of Y is the bright line. Otherwise you are asking a judge or jury to decide what qualifies as pollution.
 
#47
#47
LSU-SIU said:
No, you don't - the federal courts are of limited jurisdiction... they generally only review the orders of the lower agency following adjudication. If the EPA is eliminated there is no agency from which the court can judicial review.

1. EPA makes a determination/order as to an issue
2. There is an aggravated party
3. Generally, aggravated party can ask for "judicial review" of the agency's order to a federal court, generally

Federal courts only "judicial review" the orders of the EPA, but in your example no order would exist.
Click to expand...

You have no ****ing clue how this works so just stop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#48
#48
LSU-SIU said:
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.
Click to expand...

Gen IV small modular power plants will reduce the possibility accidents.

As for nuclear waste, the materials can be powdered and combined with inert compounds to produce a dry mixture with a low criticality. This mix which includes silica can then be heated to produce glass beads with such a low fissile geometry as to be negligible. The glass beads now have a higher criticality than the uranium ore extracted from the ground, but their close packed fissile geometry is insignificant. Long term storage of spent fuel has been solved.
 
#49
#49
Huff, go through all the cases in the Nolichucky situation.
Save the Nolichucky

Maybe you will see that its is said agencies that are in charge of regulating and making determinations - you can force agency to do something or change something via judicial review.
 
#50
#50
Orangedogsrule said:
Gen IV small modular power plants will reduce the possibility accidents.

As for nuclear waste, the materials can be powdered and combined with inert compounds to produce a dry mixture with a low criticality. This mix which includes silica can then be heated to produce glass beads with such a low fissile geometry as to be negligible. The glass beads now have a higher criticality than the uranium ore extracted from the ground, but their close packed fissile geometry is insignificant. Long term storage of spent fuel has been solved.
Click to expand...

Are they doing those things today in mass?

You are talking "will" or "can"... until that time they should be decommissioned. imo
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top