Trump admin. proposes rollback of methane rules to save industry $484 million

a reply to: intrepid

You can penalize them on trade to make them pay for those emissions and incentivize them to make changes.

Or you can look the other way and make them attractive to steal jobs and make it so no one can compete with the price of their resources.

If it involves regulations before 2017. It should be referred to as excessive regulations launched by the Obama campaign in it's war on fossil fuel's .

a reply to: TrueBrit

I think enlightened folks, who have educated themselves through a variety of means, understand that higher levels of personal satisfaction come from doing what is best for not only themselves, but for others. Who wants to live in a crappy world full of angry, pissed off people?

But sometimes you have to drag other folks along. This is distasteful, but required.

ETA:

Or leave them behind.

What do you expect when the person heading the EPA has been getting paid off by oil companies for years?

Pruitt received major corporate and employee campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry, taking in at least $215,574 between 2010 and 2014 even though he ran unopposed in the latter year.

By July 2018, Pruitt was under at least 14 separate federal investigations by the Government Accountability Office, the EPA inspector general, the White House Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, and two House committees over his spending habits, conflicts of interests, extreme secrecy, and management practices. Pruitt made frequent use of first class travel as well as frequent charter and military flights. As EPA administrator, Pruitt leased a condo in Washington D.C. at a deeply discounted rate from a lobbyist whose clients were regulated by the EPA.

Link

He knows who signs his checks, and it isn’t the American people.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: intrepid

You can penalize them on trade to make them pay for those emissions and incentivize them to make changes.

Or you can look the other way and make them attractive to steal jobs and make it so no one can compete with the price of their resources.

C'mon. You can't "make" China do anything. They will do as they will. They've got a monopoly on cheap crap that the world buys. Try to do something about it. Won't work.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

China is greater than US and Europe combined.

I stand corrected.

However, per capita...

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Bluntone22

The last I looked the only way to limit cow's methane output is to put them on the BBQ.

Silly analogy. Or are you advocating for less beef in our market?

I'm not giving up my grilled burgers.
I'll let the vegans feel superior as I eat me a pound of mutilated flesh.

My point was people are reacting to a number and they have no clue what it means.

a reply to: intrepid

And that's the attitude that allowed them to get here.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: intrepid

And that's the attitude that allowed them to get here.

OK. What do you propose that the world do to get China to reduce their emissions?

a reply to: JasonBillung

Per capital is because much of China is a 3rd world country. Their emissions are rising and will keep doing so.

In the us 80% live in urban areas and 20% in rural.

China is 20% urban 80% rural.

That is going to keep changing like it did in America.

a reply to: intrepid

Implement global standards that any country is penalized for not following. If you want to pollute to get cheaper goods produced those goods will have an export tax put on them to remove the entire benefit of the pollution with an extra tax on top as punishment. Otherwise if China pollutes we have to as well to maintain competitiveness.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TinySickTears

China's emissions are double the US emissions.

I don't live in China.
I have to concern myself with other nations too?

a reply to: TinySickTears

I'm sorry are you implying their emissions only effect them and not everyone else?

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TinySickTears

China's emissions are double the US emissions.

I don't live in China.
I have to concern myself with other nations too?

If your neighbor is burning tires would it concern you? Same thing on a much bigger scale.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TinySickTears

I'm sorry are you implying their emissions only effect them and not everyone else?

Of course not.
As a US citizen I concern myself with this country and what our president does.

Stop deflecting.

So now we have but China?

Hilarious

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Bluntone22

The last I looked the only way to limit cow's methane output is to put them on the BBQ.

Silly analogy. Or are you advocating for less beef in our market?

I'm not giving up my grilled burgers.
I'll let the vegans feel superior as I eat me a pound of mutilated flesh.

My point was people are reacting to a number and they have no clue what it means.

It's not so much the numbers by themselves. It's the rest of it. Not only is this to save an industry, already subsidized at $20 billion a year, $484 million. Without safety inspections from engineers, it not only leads to more risk of leaks but creates more hazards for workers, pollutes communities located around these places and will directly negatively impact people who work in that industry. This is good for nobody except the people profitting from these companies. The proposal also States.that companies can ignore leaks and hazards for longer, basically giving them a free pass to keep polluting longer or leave hazards in place even when they discover a problem

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TinySickTears

China's emissions are double the US emissions.

I don't live in China.
I have to concern myself with other nations too?

If your neighbor is burning tires would it concern you? Same thing on a much bigger scale.

Don't disagree but I am talking about trump.
But Obama
But Hillary
But China

Too funny

It is obvious that a dollar in the pocket is the most important thing to business today.

This simple answer is to make the case against methane gas through education and innovation. The simpleton’s answer is to make a law and give more power to those who already have the monopoly on force and violence.

a reply to: dug88

The EPA's own analysis also says than an additional 100,000 short tons of volatile organic compounds and 3,800 short tons of hazardous air pollutants would also be emitted, compared to keeping the existing rules in place.

So either 100,000 short tons of methane will be released because of this rule change . That sounds like such a huge number until you take into account the 700 million metric tons are released yearly .





This is another nothing burger just like the outrage of trump allowing the release of dangerous coal warter into our streams . Which turned out to be treated water instead of coal slurry .

Just more chicken little syndrome from the left .