a reply to:
Tempter
I guess it's a matter of opinion, really. To me, I think cutting funding for things like this will only HELP minority communities as without a Big
Brother they will need to focus on their own surroundings much more.
I am sorry, I think you are under some sort of misapprehension here. First of all, the EPA and those organisations besides who are attempting to keep
businesses and individuals alike from destroying the land, exist for one simple reason. Local people do not have the power or resources to prevent
large businesses, many of them global concerns, from being able to get away with polluting the land. They lack the money to take these firms to court,
the power in law to shut down companies and sites that do not meet minimum standards, not to mention being less able to act in matters where much of a
local population is employed at a site which is causing problems.
There are very good reasons that these matters have to be dealt with by a large organisation with a lot of power, namely that a large organisation
with a lot of power has a greater ability, not a lesser one, to actually take large companies to court, enforce rulings against them, and make them
come to heel on environmental matters. That the system is not perfect at the moment, does not mean that its basic elements are not correct, or that
destroying the EPAs ability to do what little it has shown itself capable of, is going to improve matters. I will guarantee you that when the first
little pisspot town tries to take big oil companies to court for polluting streams, rivers, killing wildlife and destroying habitats, you will see
just how important a larger more powerful organisation than a towns legislature is, when fighting this sort of thing.
When you subsidize things like this, especially things which focus on racial makeup, you ostracize the people being "helped".
Absolutely irrelevant to the actual issue though, is it not? The issue is that the EPA cannot be replaced or its position in the mechanism of keeping
the environment secured for the future, unless local legislatures and law enforcement powers are going to be VASTLY better funded, because at present
central government is the only power large enough to be able to fund and fight legal battles against mega corporations with near unlimited resources
of their own. The thought process which leads one to reason otherwise, contains no actual reason at all. Its a matter of finances, and simply put,
local lawmakers have nothing like the necessary resources to fight the good fight.
These people can handle their own environments. They are human, after all. Let's stop treating people as if they can't do it themselves and encourage
them to create a better world to live in.
Who are you talking about, exactly? Show me an example of a local area having trouble with an environmentally damaging company, and successfully
getting the owners prosecuted, fined, plants closed, sites abandoned or made right on the companies tab? Show me. I will bet you will find that it has
proven in times past, and will again, that local power is NO WHERE NEAR enough to do these things effectively. Unless your locality has Chuck bloody
Norris in it, going to legal war with the big companies that destroy biodiversity is going to be like trying to headbutt the teeth of an active
woodchipper. You might be able to land a blow, but you will get eaten.
Again, until we can come up with a better idea than taking from someone else in order to help another, I just can't get behind the Democrats.
Until you come up with better reasoning than that, with some idea of how to stay on topic, then matters such as the biodiversity of the land beneath
your feet, the production of the oxygen you breath, the habitats that support the quality of the atmosphere, not to mention the food chain that
supports your ability to take on nutrition, is going to be under extreme threat. Which is the bigger problem here? Its the part about the oxygen and
the food, not the wallet they came out of, I think you will find.