GOP rage against the EPA.

Prove it. >>>

 

I didnt say that protective measures werent passed before the founding of the EPA. My point is that the EPA was not made with the intention of being a weapon used by corporate america or the government to squash competition. It has simply been co-opted like the rest of government.

 

Well what did you think was going to happen when you create a government institution designed for regulation?

 

Your the one who challenged.. I already posted several incidents that were premeditated disasters caused by unregulated pollution and destruction by industry. I even posted one (Hyrdraulic Fracking) that happening right now because the EPA is essentially nuetered when it comes to regulating the pollution caused by it.

You prove it didnt happen.. I'll prove the did.

 

For it to regulate on the behalf of the people that it governs....?

Or do you mean that since corruption is inbedded in our political system and we should expect regulators to be corrupt, everything should be a free-for-all survival of the fittest..

What was your point?

 

The best of intentions usually turns out badly. That's all.

 

Of course there has been environmental impacts caused by industry, that's the price you pay for living in a "modern" world. The EPA hasn't changed that and being the political beast it is, it certainly favors it's political friends more than it's enemies. This is why BP got off the hook, their oil spill is still affecting the Gulf coast but the EPA is doing nothing.

EPA is government and government is useless.

 

This is exactly where conservative opposition to environmental regulation should remain. I have no problems with the idea that regulation is either ineffective or overbearing. Unfortunately, this is not where the conservative movement tends to focus its energy when it comes to environmental policy.

Unfortunately, conservative opposition to the EPA translates in to opposition to the mere idea that the environment is a finite resource which is being gradually destroyed for future use. Thus, fervent opposition to the idea that man could be so powerful as to influence the climate.

 

The oceans influence climate and climate is always changing.

Let me ask you this, do you think CO2 is a "greenhouse gas?"

 

I understand that a good percentage of our pollution comes from cows farting too much. I'll need to see just what the EPA plans to regulate when it comes to controlling the bowel movements of the cow. Whatever they do and whatever the price, it won't go over too big with the farmers...I'm sure.

 

It doesn't really even make logical sense to me. Pure ideology is good, but we live in a real world. If the EPA is abolished then industry will either self-regulate or it will begin pumping vastly higher amounts of pollution into the atmosphere. History says very few industries will self-regulate, so we can conclude that they will be pumping higher amounts of pollution into the atmosphere. If higher amounts of pollution are present, then that will increase the number of diseases people get, such as asthma. This will in turn cause more people to need medical care, which the price thereof is already skyrocketing anyway. If more people need it because of the extra pollution, then either people are going to have to go without medical care or the government will end up spending almost all of the resources on medical care. And either one of those alternatives would be undesirable. Therefore it seems most prudent to suggest that industry should support more stringent standards, because lives are on the line, as is the federal budget.

 

Only radical libertarians want to abolish the EPA. I personally want the EPA to stop it's crusade against Global Warming, becuase that crusade is just a cover for economic warfare against Obama's political opponent's donor base. That is what I want.

 

I thought they wanted to reduce Carbon Monoxide, not Carbon Dioxide, CO2 is what you exhale and what plants turn into 02, CO is what traps greenhouse gases. Atleast I'm pretty sure that's what the problem is.

 

Why would you want them to stop their attempts at curbing global warming? The National Academy of Sciences, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 98% of climatologists, and the American Meteorological Society all say it is man made and going to cause us severe problems. Perhaps some on the left see it as a way to turn us all into socialists, but that is not why I support curbing it. Aside from the medical argument, our living conditions could be severely reduced. If there is no hospitable planet, there are no humans. There is no legitimate reason to question the integrity of all the scientific bodies that have reached the same conclusion. Please investigate what the scientists are saying, and then determine whether it is a hoax or not. You don't have to take my word for it.

 

Sun Tzu warned against underestimating one's enemies. The American left does so at its peril. There are a host of conservative intellectuals capable of meeting any leftist. The line of conservative intellectuals I find most interesting is the network of conservative law school professors. Start with Glenn Reynolds, Ann Althouse, and don't forget the TaxLaw Prof.

 

Here's where I get to break your heart and demoralize you. Let's assume that everything you have posted is absolutely true. It doesn't matter what happens in the West. Why? Because China and India will never sacrifice economic development to soothe the concerns of Western dilettantes.

 

Now you are onto a real problem. And this is quite depressing. But your logic is flawed, assuming I am interpreting you correctly, which I may not be. You are saying that since we cannot stop global warming on our own and other countries are not likely to change, we should not worry about it either. This is similar to saying, well I can never be a perfect moral person, so I am not even going to try and just go with my instincts and what I can get away with without being arrested or beaten. If the scientists are correct, the moral thing to do is to act and do everything we can to stop it. Would you say that since murder can never be completely eradicated, we should just stop punishing people for it?

 

Sorry, you're wrong about just radical libertarians wanting to abolish the EPA. Anyone who understands the constitution, and respects it, would find the EPA repugnant. It is not an enumerated power granted to the federal government. As long as you support unconstitutional big government programs like the EPA, you'll have to endure with the overreaches that ensue, like the promotion of the global warming scam.

 

So we are agreed that China, India and the rest of the non-western world will not do anything about AGW. Good.

Let's assume that you are correct that the moral thing to do would be for the West to impose unilateral measures to cut AGW. The problem you face is that the Western Dominated Era of history is over. That means the peoples of the West will be receiving a reduced slice of the world's economic pie.

So to take unilateral measures during a transitional era of history when the West is becoming relatively poorer would mean that Western peoples would have a diminished standard of living because they would bear unilateral costs not shared by non-Western peoples. Sorry for the turgid sentence.

Do you see how the political enemies of AGW theory will sand bag you? It will be easy considering the educational level that prevails in America.

This is the part which is really heartbreaking for environmentalists. There is quite literally nothing they can do because the political enemies they have made are now in a position to characterize all environmental actions as job killers. JOB KILLERS. People will be told they have a choice to make between fighting AGW or providing for their children. How do you think this is going to turn out?

 

Man I have worked with the EPA on a wide range of issues. They are not a bunch of environmenal whackjobs and thugs. They do important work. The National EPA however shouldn't be the huge monstrous organization that it is, it should be a stripped down umbrella organization allowing State EPA's to more easily coordinate environment studies, evaluations and cleanups. That was it's orgininal intended purpose. Not to regulate our lives into obvlion, to assist State EPA's in interstate issues and make cooperation easier.

 

You may be right if we have no alternative technology. But the technology is out there, it just needs to be made more efficient and cheaper. Also if there is a better way to curb global warming than a cap and trade system, I would be in favor of that. And a lot of other European nations are doing this, so it's not like the United States would be the ONLY country taking such action, just that China and India would not be following suite. We could have markets in those countries for our green products, and if they are all going green, China and India might have some incentive to do the same in order to take advantage of the emerging markets. It could be a temporarily painful transition period, but in the long run I don't see any other options.

If you are right and there is nothing we can do and our living standards will be drastically reduced, that will happen anyway if the scientists are correct. Sea levels will rise, storms will be worse, and summers and winters will be more extreme and it will become increasingly more difficult to adapt to our changing environment and decreasing oil supply, which will spike prices even more. It just doesn't seem like a practical policy to delay action on something that is potentially so catastrophic. In the words of Thomas Friedman, "“Because the warming that humans are doing is irreversible and potentially catastrophic, let’s buy some insurance — by investing in renewable energy, energy efficiency and mass transit..."

 

Environmental problems were caused by lack of respect for private property. They are essentially a tragedy of the commons.

Setting up a monopoly of so-called regulators to enforce arbitrary, one-size-fits-all a priori restrictions is an unworkable strategy that only empowers the corporations "progressives" pretend that they hate so much.

You could elect saints to run the outfit (not that you ever will) and it still won't work. The method is inherently, fundamentally dysfunctional. It expects a monopoly with no economic incentive or risk/benefit mechanism to run itself efficiently, it expects arbitrary one-size-fits-all rules that restrict behavior with no proof of harm to be workable and equitable, and it inevitably imposed greater burdens on smaller, newer, weaker, more unconventional, and less influential firms, thereby creating the big corporate cartels you fuss and fret about the need to "regulate."

That's why the big corporate cartels are always lobbying for more regulations, even designing the very legislation to create the bureaucracies, like bootleggers supporting Prohibition. Even as "consumer advocates," economic leftists, and other useful idiots blithely go on, decrying the very corporate special interests they empower and destroying the small businesses they claim to support, the Baptists in this prohibitionist equation.

Electing incorruptible angels to run your monopoly should be the easiest of all your problems to solve, and it is totally impossible.

 

Thomas Friedman was in favor of the Second Iraq War, so I pretty much dismiss whatever he says.

There will tremendous opportunities in the development of green, alternative, renewable and cleantech solutions...in China. The subsidies for such solutions that were contained in Obama's Stimulus legislation are expiring. As a result investment is drying up in the USA for cleantech, etc.

Your post presumes that the left and right in America can work together. They can't under any circumstances. The necessary subsidies will not be renewed.

Besides, solar farms and wind turbine plantations will be tied up in litigation for the next ten or so years. They require land. Land is habitat to endangered species. The Endangered Species Act will be used as the lever to make cleantech, etc. ineffective from a cost/benefit standpoint.

 

I hate the EPA too, but for very different reasons. They are one of the most corrupt agencies in the world. They let oil companies get away with cutting corners in safetly all the time. In fact, that is what led to the oil spill in the gulf a few years ago, BP bribed EPA agents and agents of the Mineral Resources Managment agency to allow them to use less safety features and it led to the explosions that caused the leaks and the deaths of a number of workers.

Personally, I think that government agent that take bribes should be brought up on charges for the death of anyone who dies because of that bribe. This includes agents in the EPA, MRM, and FDA.

 

Lincoln said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. I don't think that's true. When a house is divided against itself it's time to do a condo conversion and create separate units.