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.
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.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Litigation.
If you poison people in Texas, the Texas state government would have right to sue for recompense.
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.
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Aazadan
your entire post is vague rumour. I say proof or it didn't happen.
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.
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.
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?
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.
originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Just using hyperbole to highlight a distinction (that some Federal enforcement can be good/necessary).