Ask a Libertarian: Eposide 1 - The EPA

Well this is getting boring...so I leave you with my ultimate insult..You both should have been Lawyers.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:In a true Libertarian world most excesses would be controlled by the people's ability to buy from those that deliver what is best. This government has set up crony monopolies that the people have very little control over. We have been sold our own poison whereas if it were an open market and someone was found to be selling a bad product the market would punish them by people refusing to buy their crap and putting their money into responsible companies...but with government force controlling everything what is done is  what is best for government and the people be damned.

Hahahahahahahaha!!!

Cancers already spread to your brain ?...sorry man you'll never experience a true free enterprise system.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Can you explain for us a bit more about how things work in Libertarian-land?

You can pick up where you left off when you were basically implying that every consumer would be perfectly rational and would have perfect information about every product that is available in every marketplace. They would then use that information along with their own infallible reasoning to analyze things - such as the supply chain of every component of their flat screen TV - so that they could then vote with their dollar, and support only the best of the best companies...even if that is at the expense of of their own consumption.

Sorry. Keep going and I'll try to reserve my laughter. And when you're done, you can go back to tending the rabbits.

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:In a true Libertarian world most excesses would be controlled by the people's ability to buy from those that deliver what is best. This government has set up crony monopolies that the people have very little control over. We have been sold our own poison whereas if it were an open market and someone was found to be selling a bad product the market would punish them by people refusing to buy their crap and putting their money into responsible companies...but with government force controlling everything what is done is  what is best for government and the people be damned.

Hahahahahahahaha!!!

Cancers already spread to your brain ?...sorry man you'll never experience a true free enterprise system.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry.  Can you explain for us a bit more about how things work in Libertarian-land?

You can pick up where you left off when you were basically implying that every consumer would be perfectly rational and would have perfect information about every product that is available in every marketplace.  They would then use that information along with their own infallible reasoning to analyze things - such as the supply chain of every component of their flat screen TV - so that they could then vote with their dollar, and support only the best of the best companies...even if that is at the expense of of their own consumption.  

Sorry.  Keep going and I'll try to reserve my laughter.  And when you're done, you can go back to tending the rabbits.

I can't pass that up...I like rabbits they are so soft and I just want to hold em and pet em...I want to have lotsa rabbits but they keep getting tumors from this GMO shit George ?

You are being too polite......first in fairness to T he is not a libertarian, just confused and intellectually scattered all over the place. I would rather have PK answer the question. To think we are elevated to the status of lawyers because of the simple question of what would replace the EPA. Well prior to the EPA a citizen could file a nuisance civil suit and this did little to preempt environmental damage. I think the EPA function could be consolidated with other government departments to cut down the regulatory duplication and I think a real time national data base must be established which requires expenditures, but ultimately will allow reduction and streamlining of the epa and the state versions of the same.

Quit picking on T he is not a libertarian, and the discussion simply is not fair. I need to protect my little brother for more serious discussions, like when are the hogan heros reruns on and can he start a colonel Klink fan club.

I'm not a libertarian... and this is a dumb exercise. The epa isn't going anywhere... it will continue to grow in size and scope.

New energy rules are coming out this summer... stay tuned.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Naw it's just that your solutions are always more regulations ,  along with that more government...so what's the point ? We say less government and you yell we are stupid ignorant and lazy..oh and F U.

That was tacky, Teo. The question isn't and never has been "more" or "less" government. That is a complete oversimplification worthy of FAUX NEWS. The real question is who benefits by government regulation? Is it beneficial to the majority or does it favor special interests?

A great example is Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative", which was anything but what was claimed. Using backward language, it was basically a license for businesses to pollute freely without government oversight.

I'm not a libertarian... and this is a dumb exercise. The epa isn't going anywhere... it will continue to grow in size and scope.

New energy rules are coming out this summer... stay tuned.

Finally, from the master of the dog ate my homework, we find out the EPA is not going anywhere. Sidestepped the question completely as Fido digested his answers....you know the ones which give suggestions as to what needs to be cut, and how government can be made smaller and more efficient.

I wasn't aware that libertarians wanted ZERO government. My interpretation was LIMITED.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I worked in the environmental protection field for 16-years. I held two professional certifications (CHMM, CET). I was employed by a consulting firm that served both private government clients.

America has very complex environmental laws that are generally rooted in incidents. CERCLA (the Superfund law) was birthed from the Love Canal pollution scandal. SARA arose because Congress wanted to ensure that the U.S. had no Bhopal incidents such as occurred in 1984 in India. The 1990 Oil Pollution Control Act was birthed as a result of the Exxon Valdez spill. Each of these indicents, which were caused by corporations, brought out further regulatory oversight. Oil Companies are likely extremely lucky that our current very conservative Congress did not pass more environmental laws in the wake of the 2010 BP oil well blowout.

This being said, I am absolutely convinced that the U.S. has the most protective environmental laws on the planet. There is no conspiracy between industry and government to get away with slowly poisoning us. Industry did not push-back against us when we told them they needed to do certain things in order to be compliant with laws.

If there were not a history of incidents like Love Canal, Bhopal, Exxon Valdez, BP oil spill, etc., there would be no need for the EPA or environmental laws.

Yes, but how do you feel about the EPA making laws based on bad science or political reasons? Does that cross your line?

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:In a true Libertarian world most excesses would be controlled by the people's ability to buy from those that deliver what is best. This government has set up crony monopolies that the people have very little control over. We have been sold our own poison whereas if it were an open market and someone was found to be selling a bad product the market would punish them by people refusing to buy their crap and putting their money into responsible companies...but with government force controlling everything what is done is  what is best for government and the people be damned.

Hahahahahahahaha!!!

Cancers already spread to your brain ?...sorry man you'll never experience a true free enterprise system.

That's because THERE IS NO SUCH ANIMAL...never was, never will be.

No I am not a pure libertarian true . labels are so limiting  but lawyers love em cause it lets them file you in a nice little folder and tell you think and feel on any given subject. I have drawn closer to libertarian as the idiot democrats have burdened this country with counter productive social programs and my formerly beloved Republican Party has become the war party. After the insanity that was Jimmy Carter I became so infatuated with R.R. Alas it was the time of great change and small gov low tax repubs vanished forever and I am in the wilderness of wishes.

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln
Democrats in the wild...

2seaoat wrote:I guess some libertarians do not understand the concept of jurisdiction......all their huffing and puffing about blowing the house down, and they are collectively clueless on a narrowly drawn question, and are beyond clueless grasping the complexities of modern government.  Not huffing and puffing and blowing the house down, and working to open the door with a key is a solution which they are too lazy to discuss...intellectual integrity takes effort.

If you're talking to me then we have all the jurisdiction we need to cancel the trade agreements that didn't follow the EPA, OSHA, anti-trust, child labor restrictions, etc... that the countries like India and China agreed to but have ignored complying with.

I'm perfectly OK with closing down those trade agreements, along with their manufacturing industries, and they can just send us the raw materials. Then we'll manufacture the product here were those various and sundry laws that you want compliance with will be followed.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

 

I'm perfectly OK with closing down those trade agreements, along with their manufacturing industries, and they can just send us the raw materials. Then we'll manufacture the product here were those various and sundry laws that you want compliance with will be followed.

So after you start the trade war, where will our manufacturers sell their goods, and where will our farmers sell our crops? Your points are not without merit, but trade negotiations are specific, not general, and environmental control by general unilateral declaration is extremely naive, and getting that Iowa corn to the Chinese and Indian middle class will not be helped by careless and broad solutions which actually are counterproductive.

2seaoat wrote:I'm perfectly OK with closing down those trade agreements, along with their manufacturing industries, and they can just send us the raw materials. Then we'll manufacture the product here were those various and sundry laws that you want compliance with will be followed.

So after you start the trade war, where will our manufacturers sell their goods, and where will our farmers sell our crops?  Your points are not without merit, but trade negotiations are specific, not general, and environmental control by general unilateral declaration is extremely naive, and getting that Iowa corn to the Chinese and Indian middle class will not be helped by careless and broad solutions which actually are counterproductive.

The trade regulations were specific about those countries complying with certain EPA, OSHA, anti-trust, child labor, and other restrictions. They haven't been followed so the contract has been breached.

If you don't want them to comply then don't expect the American people to comply with further restrictions.

Those countries are free to feed their people oil soup with a mixture of their various other raw materials they dig out of the ground if they so choose. I'm thinkin' the people they have won't be to happy with that though.

200 proof will run my car just as good as gasoline once it's converted.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5gdcJnuI4I

 

Floridatexan wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Well with waste products like fluoride we would just put it in the public water supply and let the public drink it.... Oh wait we already do that.   Let me think on it.  Good question.  

You have a very valid point, IMHO.  It's INDUSTRIAL fluoride...a byproduct (waste) from phosphate production.  There is no reason to add fluoride to drinking water; it has been shown to CAUSE, instead of solve problems.  

Right, before fluoride I was about 18 and had at least 12 cavities. Fluoride came along and not another one in fifty years. Yep, sure has caused a lot of problems.

boards of FL wrote:So this is it?  No answer or explanation as to what would be expected in a world with no EPA or environmental regulation?  

Write your own fiction story.

Markle wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Well with waste products like fluoride we would just put it in the public water supply and let the public drink it.... Oh wait we already do that.   Let me think on it.  Good question.  

You have a very valid point, IMHO.  It's INDUSTRIAL fluoride...a byproduct (waste) from phosphate production.  There is no reason to add fluoride to drinking water; it has been shown to CAUSE, instead of solve problems.  

Right, before fluoride I was about 18 and had at least 12 cavities.  Fluoride came along and not another one in fifty years.  Yep, sure has caused a lot of problems.

Well then Markle you have every right to get you some fluoride and guzzle it till your brains fall out but how is it the government has a right to force everyone to drink it ?..Also fluoride is a deadly poison and when they treated my teeth in the Navy they strongly cautioned us to not swallow it and rinse it out completely you don't drink the damned stuff....You are NO different than liberals you both want the government to spoon feed you and change your diapers !...grow up and quit letting government propaganda control you.

2seaoat wrote:I want billions more put into the  EPA to study national trends in cancer clusters and comprehensive studies on air and water quality by the mile in this country with specific gps and compositions available for the public to see in real time.  This database must be one prerequisite to reviewing EPA function.  I saw a CSX derailment where 54 tanker loads of ethanol burned or was put out with fire compression chemicals and then the largest fish kill in the State's history and they never took water samples until three days after the kill, and never could prove a causal connection with the spill and the fish kill..

Not only are the regulations too complex, the action plans are woefully inadequate, and fail in their mission to first understand where our environment is now, and how can we effectively and efficiently improve the quality and protect American citizens.

Yep, stuff happens. Let us know when you can put a stop to "stuff happening".

http://www.bna.com/epa-regulatory-agenda-n17179880399/

Six Priorities Outlined.

In its regulatory agenda, the EPA listed six priorities that will guide its forthcoming rulemakings. They are:

making a visible difference in communities across the country; addressing climate change and improving air quality; taking action on toxics and chemical safety; protecting water; launching a new era of state, tribal and local partnership; and working toward a sustainable future.

Most of those priorities date back to the early days of former EPA Administrator Jackson's tenure with the agency. McCarthy identified addressing climate change, reforming chemical safety regulations and improving the nation's regulation of water as some of her personal priorities in a September speech .

Specific proposals in the agency's chemical and water divisions were also outlined in the document (see related stories)..

Power Plant Regulations.

In its statement of priorities, the EPA confirmed it intends to issue proposed new source performance standards for carbon dioxide emissions from existing and modified power plants in 2014.

Under the Clean Air Act, the agency must review and, if necessary, revise its new source performance standards every eight years. According to its regulatory agenda, the EPA intends to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in February 2014 and finalize a rule by September 2014.

The agency also intends to finalize its renewable fuel standard regulation by February 2014, according to the agenda. The agency will formally publish its proposed rule on the renewable fuel standard for 2014 on Nov. 29 (see related story).

As part of its goal to improve the efficiency of government, the EPA plans to update regulations on the Freedom of Information Act by publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking in December and finalizing the rule by May 2014.

The EPA said the modified FOIA rules will allow it to “comply with the 2007 Open Government Act, reflect EPA's business process, and correct obsolete information.”

The agency's FOIA rules were last updated in 2002, according to the agenda.

Compliance with existing FOIA regulations has been a source of contention and lawsuits at the agency. Most recently, two public interest groups sued the agency to release e-mails related to potential coal export facilities in the Northwest .

Fracking Regulation.

According to the agenda, the agency also anticipates publishing an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in August 2014 under the Toxic Substances Control Act's sections 8(a) and 8(d) to obtain data on chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing.

The EPA will “initiate a stakeholder process to provide input on the design and scope of the TSCA reporting requirements that would be included in a proposed rule” and anticipates states, industry, public interest groups and members of the public will participate in the process.

The agency will initiate the rulemaking in response to a petition but stressed it hadn't committed to a specific rulemaking outcome.

Notably absent from the agency's rulemaking agenda was a mention of the long-delayed final rule on the management of coal combustion residuals from power plants.

A federal judge Oct. 29 ordered the agency to offer a timeline within 60 days for completing its work on the regulation. Environmental groups have said the lack of federal regulation of coal ash endangers human health and the environment, while recycling groups argue that regulatory uncertainty surrounding the proposal has crippled their industry .

The agency wasn't immediately available to comment on the rule's status.