It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EPA to be dismantled and gone by the end of 2018 "back to States".

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJesuit

Yeah, it's a great idea, let's do that! And in the name of people taking responsibility for their lives - which EVERYBODY is in favor of, right? - we can make just two simple requirements:

1) 0% of anything a land owner does is allowed to cross the boundaries of their land. This includes air, water, soil, insects, etc. Zero percent.

2) The land owner of record must live on the property. If said land owner owns more than one property, they must rotate their time equally among all owned properties. If the land owner of record is a corporation, this requirement applies to ALL officers of said corporation.

Should work out just fine.




posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Aazadan

Litigation.

If you poison people in Texas, the Texas state government would have right to sue for recompense.

The problem is, the EPA as a concept is valuable. But its a group of unelected officials that make decisions which are quite often completely baffling in logic. Which tells me that they aren't there for the environment insomuch as to meter out permits to the highest bidder.


sounds like you have no idea what the EPA does.....I think you should move your entire family right next to a fraking field to show good faith in your convictions, so as to enjoy the air and drinking water quality of those areas


I've lived my entire life there. My only health problems are genetic. I have no real health issues after living 40 years in West Texas, even playing in piles of frak sand from time to time.

Sounds like you over estimate what the EPA does. You should not make sarcastic suggestions without personal protection. S ometimes they blow up on you.


why would I need personal protection?....i'm trying to empathize with those people that have been harmed by unregulated business practices of large and small corporations......stateimpact.npr.org...
here's how the state of texas takes care of it....it ignores it
edit on 29-1-2018 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-1-2018 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Are you telling me that you believe states are incapable of regulating their own environment? Or are you saying that with the loss of the EPA there will be this enormous vacuum left behind because no one can think to do regulating on the state level?

Im lost here...what is it that you are asserting?



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJesuit

It sure is a good thing this OP is just wishful thinking and not even close to being true.



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Litigation.

If you poison people in Texas, the Texas state government would have right to sue for recompense.


I'm not so sure about that, based on the fact that before there was an EPA that wasn't the case. States that got polluted just had to deal with it.



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
A business that poisons people is bankrupted via litigation and penalty. Survival seems like a good reason to not screw up. Besides, why would a state not be able to regulate the industry within its borders? I'd much rather the State of Texas make decisions for Texans that DC.


Not always. In the town I moved from a couple years ago we have a few factories. It's a typical small town that's slowly dying. These factories are among the best jobs in the area. One of them is a chemical factory and the other is a steel factory, both produce toxic waste as a byproduct and bury the waste in huge vats in the ground. A few years ago it was found that the vats were leaking, and that it contaminated the groundwater of the town. The entire issue was swept under the rug because the companies who own the factories said they would leave, and take the jobs with them if they were prosecuted.

When it comes down to it, people will place their livelyhood (especially short term) over their long term health every single time. Personally, I would rather not face the decision of having a job, or living an extra 20 years and safety regulations help to fix that.



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

your entire post is vague rumour. I say proof or it didn't happen.



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Aazadan

your entire post is vague rumour. I say proof or it didn't happen.


Go look up Eramet and Solvay in Marietta Ohio, they have a long list of violations.



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Aazadan

Litigation.

If you poison people in Texas, the Texas state government would have right to sue for recompense.

The problem is, the EPA as a concept is valuable. But its a group of unelected officials that make decisions which are quite often completely baffling in logic. Which tells me that they aren't there for the environment insomuch as to meter out permits to the highest bidder.


I can't really agree with the idea of dismantling regulatory agencies because they're not 100% perfect.

In a regulation-less situation, the company would throw caution to the wind via all efforts to maximize profit, kill as many people as necessity would dictate to maximize profit, and then a nominally small cut (pay-off) to the victims families to sweep it under the rug.


I believe that the states would not allow it to be swept under the rug, and that we individually have far more sway over our state governments that that retarded monolith known as Uncle Sam.

A business that poisons people is bankrupted via litigation and penalty. Survival seems like a good reason to not screw up. Besides, why would a state not be able to regulate the industry within its borders? I'd much rather the State of Texas make decisions for Texans that DC.


I love your sense of optimism vis-a-vis state controlled government being the weapon that defends the little man, but my jaded ass can't help but think that with enough money (and what we're discussing here is given these companies the 'keys to the kingdom of cash') they can lobby/adjust/modify/control any level of government to their hearts content. See Ajit Pai and the FCC's repeal of net neutrality as an example of the Telecoms controlling government regulation of a service bought/paid for by you and I as an example.



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

This is really a job for the judicial branch. If one state is polluting another then the state being polluted needs to do a study with peer review then take the offending state to court.

In general the federal government creates these departments to 'standardize' the nation, and what ends up happening is that local conditions are ignored in favor of produced government standards, standards that may have been developed for entirely different circumstances.

Edit: This is why developers in western states have to go through years of permitting for dry washes because they are classified as 'navigable waterways' and thus fall under the jurisdiction of either the EPA or the Corps of Engineers. Even though they flow intermittently during seasons of rain.




edit on 29-1-2018 by SkeptiSchism because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a statement that Bristol Bay fisheries deserve protection and that the proposed Pebble Mine may pose an "unacceptable" risk. In the announcement, Pruitt said, "any mining projects in the region likely pose a risk to the abundant natural resources that exist there."

Pruitt said the agency would gather more information on the project's impact on fish and natural resources. "Until we know the full extent of that risk, those natural resources and world-class fisheries deserve the utmost protection," he added.

Last year, the EPA began reconsidering restrictions that were first proposed in 2014, based on its Bristol Bay watershed assessment. The report determined that mining on the scale of the proposed Pebble Mine would have "unacceptable adverse effects" on the watershed.

NPR.org, Jan. 28, 2018 - In Reversal, EPA Suspends Alaska Mining Proposal To Preserve Watershed Protections.

Well, that is one big ball of confusion! Is it state's rights or Big Brother's right as protector? In all honesty, most people do not think that the promise of jobs is worth the risk of the mine in the first place. I see it as "business as usual" where terms are dictated back to Alaska from DC, with or without an EPA.

As an Alaskan, I haven't seen the opera houses, world class edumacation, lower gas prices (in fact they are higher here!), or Alaskan jobs (there are people who fly in to work for a couple weeks from Texas, then out for a couple of weeks), etc., that was all promised from 70's oil. Sure there is wealth sharing until some jackhole just takes money (done deal, as the governor raided the PFD to use it for what it was specifically not intended for, more government).

Anyway, why does it have to be all one thing or the other!?! No EPA and states rights; or, big government oversight and TLAs with little or no oversight? You would figure that in the year 2000 we'd have evolved past such wild, stupid, swinging from one extreme to another.

I don't think the EPA (or any TLA for that matter), is going away anytime soon. At some point, the national outlook needs step in and tell greedy, short-sighted people, "No!". Until we can live in such long term goal of our own best interest with a view towards national goals (greed is always the enemy), which is probably a fantasy as naïve as Red vs. Blue state if there is one, then it can't go away. In the meantime, we swing from extreme to extreme as our modus operandi.



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 02:27 PM
link   
The day the EPA fined regular people thousands of dollars a day for building a fish pond and yet they refused to touch mining companies that polluted the entire water table in an area, is the day they became useless and obsolete.



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: jimmyx

Are you telling me that you believe states are incapable of regulating their own environment? Or are you saying that with the loss of the EPA there will be this enormous vacuum left behind because no one can think to do regulating on the state level?

Im lost here...what is it that you are asserting?


corporations pit states against other states, when it comes to state laws that affect their bottom line, these can end up hurting state and local tax revenues, employee displacement, reliability of consistent corporate state laws regardless of state elections in any give year...also, you can have 50 different sets of regulations, which is not cost affective for the company......this has been going on for some time



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Sounds like the states need to create a regulatory compact, then.


The point being: everything you want to see can happen rather easily without the Federal Government making absurd and arbitrary decisions.

I am an anti-Federalist all the way. If it weakens the Fed and strengthens the states, im not likely to see it in a poor light.



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: jimmyx

Sounds like the states need to create a regulatory compact, then.


The point being: everything you want to see can happen rather easily without the Federal Government making absurd and arbitrary decisions.

I am an anti-Federalist all the way. If it weakens the Fed and strengthens the states, im not likely to see it in a poor light.


Would you be for a state re-introducing slavery or something else violating the bill of rights then (should a plurality of its constituents lawfully vote for such a thing)?



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

No.

But that has nothing at all to do with this discussion. The Civil War didn't end slavery. It would have ended on its own for simple economic reasons (most southerners were unemployed since, like Rome, all the jobs were filled by slaves).



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Just using hyperbole to highlight a distinction (that some Federal enforcement can be good/necessary).



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Just using hyperbole to highlight a distinction (that some Federal enforcement can be good/necessary).


The federal government has its role. The states have their role. The federal government should not seize roles that do not belong to them.



posted on Jan, 29 2018 @ 03:29 PM
link   
As "lofty" as some of our ideals are pertaining to small government, even us Libertarians know most people, and especially corporations/companies, cannot be trusted to use the half-rotted mush between their ears to think long-term and do the right things we need to do now to make sure we don't cross the environmental Point of No Return. We dangled a foot over that line and got a river on fire, lead-laden water, toxic soil (Rockford, MI and Tallevast, FL are places I recommend reading about) stripped environments, etc.

We may have recoiled a little and tried to clean up/rehabilitate, but we're not doing good enough yet to go Full Unsupervised.
To do so is a fool's venture, you might as well be on your knees swallowing the promises of money-hungry charlatans.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join