It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by scottsquared Is there any evidence that any industry in history has ever voluntarily enacted procedures towards the clean up of the environment of waste that the industry itself is contributing? I challenge you to give an example.
The "clear skies" argument goes: that by relaxing regulations on emissions from industry, enough savings will be realized that industry will have incentive to clean up emissions on their own.
Originally posted by Crash
Why dont we just try to make a filter that filters air or so?
We do it with water
In the past few weeks, the administration diluted federal rules governing air pollution from old coal-fired power plants; emissions that cause global warming; ballast water on ships contaminated with foreign species of plants and animals; sales of land tainted with PCBs; drilling for oil and gas on federal land; and scientific studies that underpin federal regulations.
The decisions included:
Two controversial changes in a rule governing expansion of old coal-fired power plants, dramatically easing the rules requiring companies to install new pollution controls when they make big upgrades.
Two legal opinions ruling that carbon dioxide, which most scientists say is the chief cause of global warming, isn't a pollutant that the EPA can cite to regulate emissions from cars and power plants. The rulings reverse a Clinton administration legal opinion that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.
An EPA legal opinion declaring that it won't regulate ships' ballast water under the Clean Water Act, turning the issue over to the Coast Guard. The ballast water contains billions of tiny fish, plants and other foreign invasive species that scientists say are major threats to native species in American waters.
An edict changing a 25-year-old rule to allow the sale of land tainted with toxic PCBs.
An order to Bureau of Land Management field offices in the West telling them to speed up the process permitting drilling for oil and gas on federal lands.
A new Office of Management and Budget policy governing scientific studies used to justify costly federal regulations. The policy orders more stringent peer review; environmentalists fear it will slow the enactment of environmental regulations.
"There's a lot of dramatic change going on. And a good bit of which would be thought of by many as not very environmentally sound," said Dan Esty, who was the EPA's deputy chief of staff in the first Bush administration and now heads Yale University's Center for Environmental Law and Policy.
The rule changes that affect air pollution from power plants "are really breath-taking in terms of the scope of regulatory change," said Chuck Davis, a Colorado State University political scientist who specializes in environmental policy. "And there's not a whole lot environmentalists can do about it, except challenge it in courts."
Unable to get bills that would weaken environmental laws through Congress, the administration made all these changes as administrative rulings.
Politicians are constantly trying to reframe and invent rights in response to political demands. One of the more curious notions to emerge from the constant stream of political rhetoric on the environment is that Americans have an inalienable right to breathe clean air. If we take this as a religious truth, it follows that costs should be no object in pursuing our goal. But what about the goal itself- how clean is clean? Again, if we are to interpret "clean" literally, as is frequently done in legislation, clean means "zero pollution." With this simple truth, it follows that benefit-cost analysis on environmental issues is irrelevant. Indeed, any notion of balancing that makes tradeoffs between the environment and other things we value cannot be undertaken.
George Tenent & James Pavitt can be added to the running total kept HERE.
It's an historic number of resignations with several months left to the term; where do you think it will stop?
Do you think that the CIA will follow the EPA, in having it's head person resign along with the top deputy directors, as listed in the link above? These two agencies were the most co-opted, politicized and dishonored by the Bush political machine. Regardless of party, every professional has been required to hold their nose & corroborate their president's agenda. But here you have two agencies that were asked to build wholsale fabrications that have harmed or killed 100's of thousands of people. I'd like to think it was conscience on their part that motivated, finally, their respective resignations @ the EPA & CIA. But, I fear that it was simply a matter of cutting their losses & avoiding the taint.
Originally posted by cavscout
I am not worked up by the EPA or green liberals simply saying this is bad.
I posted that, under the eye of the free market, and with no government control or mandate, measurements in 14 U.S. cities in 1931 showed an average particulate concentration of 510 micrograms per cubic meter. In 1957, it was down to 120 micrograms. In 1969, the measurement stood at 92 micrograms per cubic meter.
Convince me why this is bad.
Here is an interesting tidbit of information to leave you with. Did you know that 85% of the CO2 in our atmosphere comes from natural sources? To quote Vin Suprynowicz, editor of the Las Vegas Review Journal, “Volcanoes have been spewing heat-trapping greenhouse gasses since the Earth’s mantle was formed. All the smokestacks and tailpipes in the world couldn’t compete with Mount St. Helens’ or Mount Pinatubo’s carbon belches.”