E.P.A. Chief Changing Rules

[u1299]

All I know is it's a good thing folks like Ben Lamb exist with their knowledge and historical recall of this and so many other issues. I'm very opinionated and have a pretty good understanding of issues and experience on issues that lead me to those opinions and conclusions, but I'm definitely not in the same league as Mr. Lamb and others.

I wish some of these appointed Department Heads actually believed in the mission of what these Agencies they are in charge of are. It is the Environmental " Protection" Agency, correct?

 

[shootbrownelk]

Yes, but to some degree that's looking in the past not the present. I can mainly speak to my home state as that's basically all I know. While WA was forced into regulation, much like the rest of the country, it has since taken it a step further. WA now has environmental and health and safety regs that are significantly more stringent than the national standards (while individual municipalities sometimes even have another more stringent layer).

Your home state may have taken extra measures and a step ahead of the Feds, while Wyoming if given the chance will take a step backwards. The flaring off of natural gas at oil wells is a nasty, dirty, polluting practice. It also costs the states millions in lost revenues.

 

[cgarner]

A clean environment isn't a state by state problem or fix. It is a National scale.

 

[u1299]

A clean environment isn't a state by state problem or fix. It is a National scale.

Exactly, unless a State has a way to keep the air and water inside their State border!

 

[cgarner]

Exactly, unless a State has a way to keep the air and water inside their State border!

I guess to be accurate it is global, but any.

 

[3855WIN]

NYT article. No thanks.

We all need to think about our impact and usage of the environment. Unless you live on a farm or ranch you work, Americans need to live on nearly zero lot line places. That would preserve much wild habitat.

 

[3855WIN]

I guess to be accurate it is global, but any.

A one world government would handle that.

 

[MTGomer]

It's almost like governing by executive fiat from administration to administration is a bad idea or something...

 

[JWP58]

NYT article. No thanks.

We all need to think about our impact and usage of the environment. Unless you live on a farm or ranch you work, Americans need to live on nearly zero lot line places. That would preserve much wild habitat.

This has to be sarcasm, correct? Same as the "one world government" post below?

 

[3855WIN]

This has to be sarcasm, correct? Same as the "one world government" post below?

Somewhat. But why does a family need to take up a five or ten acre lot? As these estate lots get duplicated around the country, wildlife gets pushed out. Why not live in a smaller area and leave us all with more wild lands to enjoy?
Each citizen needs to think about their individual impact on the world. Do you need that poor performing 4 wheel drive?
Look at the carbon footprint of Obama in recent days. He's flown around the world with a fighter escort. That's a large impact from one who will lecture us on warming. Plenty of example on both sides. It's just easy to point fingers at others and not do the right thing ourselves.
And what happens when your pursuit of happiness steps on your pursuit of happiness?

 

[JWP58]

Somewhat. But why does a family need to take up a five or ten acre lot? As these estate lots get duplicated around the country, wildlife gets pushed out. Why not live in a smaller area and leave us all with more wild lands to enjoy?
Each citizen needs to think about their individual impact on the world. Do you need that poor performing 4 wheel drive?

Apparently you missed....."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Just saying, to think the Government has the right to tell someone what they can and cant live in or on, is insane. If you want to make a personal choice to not have children, live in a 100sqft shoe box and sleep in drawers, that's fine. But don't force that on sane individuals.

I am not in anyway trying to be hostile, but the thought process that someone doesn't have a "right" to live on ten acres (that probably supports and holds wildlife) is completely crazy. One might as well move to North Korea.

 

[Zach]

Somewhat. But why does a family need to take up a five or ten acre lot? As these estate lots get duplicated around the country, wildlife gets pushed out. Why not live in a smaller area and leave us all with more wild lands to enjoy?
Each citizen needs to think about their individual impact on the world. Do you need that poor performing 4 wheel drive?
Look at the carbon footprint of Obama in recent days. He's flown around the world with a fighter escort. That's a large impact from one who will lecture us on warming. Plenty of example on both sides. It's just easy to point fingers at others and not do the right thing ourselves.
And what happens when your pursuit of happiness steps on your pursuit of happiness?

Kinda like the Gore family owning tobacco farms.

Ironic the EPA came out of the Nixon administration.

 

[cgarner]

A one world government would handle that.

A think a global approach might be more realistic. Of course some countries will never get on board, but we have to start at home and then branch out. If we want a clean environment we need to start with a national approach, instead of a state by state approach, and work on a global approach concurrently.

 

[3855WIN]

Apparently you missed....."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Just saying, to think the Government has the right to tell someone what they can and cant live in or on, is insane. If you want to make a personal choice to not have children, live in a 100sqft shoe box and sleep in drawers, that's fine. But don't force that on sane individuals.

I am not in anyway trying to be hostile, but the thought process that someone doesn't have a "right" to live on ten acres (that probably supports and holds wildlife) is completely crazy. One might as well move to North Korea.

Kind of like all the rules the EPA has, right?

 

[Zach]

A one world government would handle that.

This has got to be the scariest thought I've read on this forum....

 

[Ben Lamb]

Kinda like the Gore family owning tobacco farms.

Ironic the EPA came out of the Nixon administration.

There are several schools of thought regarding Nixon and his environmental record. The most salient is that Nixon was facing even stronger action by congress than what came through the clean water act, creation of the EPA, ESA, etc and so he negotiated for the best deal he could get. Bipartisanship can work, and create good things.

I don't think anyone would disagree that all gov't agencies can suffer from bloat and bureacratic ridiculousness, but the plans Pruitt & his corporate lobbyists are pushing forward swing the pendulum pretty far back towards allowing companies to self-police - which history has proven not to work.

 

[noharleyyet]

....can't see the ditch for the weeds.

 

[Big Fin]

Add something of value or don't post at all. Keep this on track.

None of us will be swayed about the supposed models of governance, the personal opinions of how others should live their lives, or other off-topic tangents.

This thread is about the rule changes at the EPA. Post on that topic, or risk getting your password changed.

 

[Ben Lamb]

All I know is it's a good thing folks like Ben Lamb exist with their knowledge and historical recall of this and so many other issues. I'm very opinionated and have a pretty good understanding of issues and experience on issues that lead me to those opinions and conclusions, but I'm definitely not in the same league as Mr. Lamb and others.

I wish some of these appointed Department Heads actually believed in the mission of what these Agencies they are in charge of are. It is the Environmental " Protection" Agency, correct?

That's very kind, but there are a lot of very informed folks here who know a lot more about the EPA than I do. We've got an amazing hodge-podge of engineers & environmental professionals both on the corproate side and the civil service side who have yet to weigh in.

 

[Ben Lamb]

....can't see the ditch for the weeds.

Under the EPA rules change, ditch weed is now classified as a terrorist agent, but they've cut all the funding for interdiction.