H.R.861 - To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency

a reply to: Phage

Look, you can defend cookie-cutter, kool-aid agencies all you like. States have the primary duty of enforcing these laws. Expecting the world to end in a massive eruption of oil slicks on lakes, rivers and streams, and air full of coal smoke is what my Granny called, "Borrowing trouble to worry over." You can defend an agency that is run by the most powerful corporate interests in the world?
The easiest way to drain this portion of the swamp is to dismantle it. Handle any issues that arise among states by empowering other water or air or soil protectors. I promise you, there's more than one string for that bow.
I understand progressives like a lot of government because they like the idea of other people being controlled by force. I'm more about people controlling themselves and their destiny.

Just noticed that one of our KY Reps is a co-sponsor. Good for him!

a reply to: diggindirt

States have the primary duty of enforcing these laws.

False. The EPA has the duty of enforcing federal environmental laws.

Expecting the world to end in a massive eruption of oil slicks on lakes, rivers and streams, and air full of coal smoke is what my Granny called, "Borrowing trouble to worry over."

Strawman much?

You can defend an agency that is run by the most powerful corporate interests in the world?

I don't recall "defending" the EPA. I tolerate a number of things that I don't necessarily like but understand the necessity of. I hate having to drive on the right, for example.

Handle any issues that arise among states by empowering other water or air or soil protectors.

Like whom?

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Phage

As I said, it's a lot easier to fight them locally (in state) than having to waste time, energy and cause more pollution by traveling all the way to DC and watching the corporate lobbyists get admitted to Congress critters' offices while the citizens sit and cool their heels for days.

States do not look out for each other. State governments also have lobbyists and special interest groups. States usually don't have the funding or the expertise to clean up brownfield sites

Most folks here grew up in an era with air that is cleaner than China's and rivers that aren't full fish too toxic to eat and water so full of chemicals that it catches fire. But that was a reality for us when I was growing up and in my early 20's. We relied on states back then to take care of things and they had different ideas of "taking care" and different levels of enforcement.

It needs unified standards.

Here in Texas, we fought for years to clean up the coal plants, limestone plants, and many other polluters. Left to itself, the lawmakers and big businessmen of Texas would declare that it was a "financial hardship" on them to put in filters or change methods of waste disposal... heck, they still do.

Remember the 2013 explosion of the fertilizer plant in West, Texas? I do. It affected my area directly. And you know, in spite of outrage and lobbying, the fertilizer producers and storage plants aren't any more compliant in 2017 than they were in 2013. That's 'state enforcement' in Texas.

Your state may be better or worse than Texas.

It'll take the national government to make changes in all states because the governments listen to the businesses and the businesses don't want to spend any money changing things.

originally posted by: Phage
How does Lake Erie look nowadays?

As a person with a heavy interest in asian culture, we can simply point over to China as an example as to why the EPA is necessary. You cant even drink the water there due to heavy metals in the supply...the air is simply corrosive.

I am genuinely dumbfounded that there is seemingly a significant portion of the US who cant seem to grasp the very basic understanding of why the EPA is necessary..especially when they have access to the internet. Political ideology over the ecosystem. It makes no sense. Thanks for checking these people, you have a far more elegant presentation than I. I am not sure if presentation matters though considering it seems breathing clean air and drinking non poisonous water is now a partisan debate.

a reply to: SaturnFX

It's a freshman rep, riding on Trump's coat tails. I won't say "mark my words" but I have strong doubts the bill will leave committee. Congress is grappling with a president they can't wrap their head around and that whole ACA thing.

a reply to: Metallicus

I agree we need to get rid of there wasteful crooked programs,FDA as well ,we need someone looking out for us,not their bank account

a reply to: Byrd

You and Phage are Way Above Top Secret! Thank You!

Most folks here grew up in an era with air that is cleaner than China's

Very good point! My kids never had to have burning lungs from playing outside at recess as I and my classmates had to go through in the early 1960s in Los Angeles. They didn't have to breathe air laced with lead auto exhaust fumes.

The FDA is another agency that people in power want to do away with. Younger people do not remember the 1960s thalidomide horrific disaster that prompted the move for increased regulation.

a reply to: Metallicus

Won't happen. Also anybody who thinks the private sector will step up and fill the void is an idiot. The EPA was created to deal the environmental problems caused by the private sector. That doesn't though that the EPA hasn't been horribly mismanaged.

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: Byrd

You and Phage are Way Above Top Secret!

Thank You!

Most folks here grew up in an era with air that is cleaner than China's

Very good point! My kids never had to have burning lungs from playing outside at recess as I and my classmates had to go through in the early 1960s in Los Angeles. They didn't have to breathe air laced with lead auto exhaust fumes.

The FDA is another agency that people in power want to do away with. Younger people do not remember the 1960s thalidomide horrific disaster that prompted the move for increased regulation.

It's both good and bad that they never had to deal with the things we fought for. One site where I volunteer is a former illegal landfill site (now an Audubon park) that was so toxic that the fish in the nearby river were inedible and the illegally dumped tires caught fire twice (during the time I was in Dallas), burning for around 9 months in one incident. We could smell the thing 20 miles away.

And yes, thalidomide and many others.

Product safety is taken for granted (remember the still unsolved Tylenol tamperings) and clean air and cleaner water are assumed. We can't let it get rolled back.

originally posted by: GreyScale

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: JAY1980
a reply to: underwerks
"Private sector"

The private sector is the part of the economy, sometimes referred to as the citizen sector, which is run by private individuals or groups, usually as a means of enterprise for profit, and is not controlled by the State (areas of the economy controlled by the state being referred to as the public sector)

Where in there does it say corporate control?
If you work for a private business(and I know you do) then you ARE the private sector.
Why do you not have faith in yourself or your peers ability to do the right thing?
Why must there be a government entity in control?
I doubt a bunch of politicians know whats best for the people and wildlife in say like central Montana. I however have absolute faith that the (private sector)caretakers who rely on the land for their lively-hood and survival will take better care of it than someone who prefers to fly over that part of the nation.

I have more faith my peers will do the right thing than my government will do the right thing. I guess that's where you modern liberals and us classical liberals will always differ.

No, I don't have faith in my peers to do the right thing. Nor any company. When profit is the motivation, that will be the choice the majority of the time.

If business isn't required by law to care about the environment, the majority won't when profits are on the line.

And who controls these businesses that show up in place of the EPA? Do you really believe its a good idea for the E in EPA to stand for Exxon?

Your quote right there. THAT is why you're a liberal.

You have no faith in your peers to do the right thing. Nor any company (which, by the way, is a legal entity comprised of your peers.)

No, what you need is an over-reaching Federal government to take care of you and all the problems of everyone and everything. Forever.

Now how about try this... state elected representatives are more beholden to their constituents then Federal politicians are.

Keep things at closer to a local level and you will have better representation.

And for the record, Exxon pays a whole lot more in taxes than the EPA does.

The irony of this post... liberals are as much your peers as ultra conservatives, yet, you wouldn't trust them to act how you would want because they don't share your viewpoint (let's just be honest). The fact of the matter is people are tribal and the majority will do whatever it takes to get to the head of the class.

Now you are correct, States are more beholden because each vote accounts for a larger percentage of the pie, however, we are a federalist system, not a confederacy of individual sobering nations. Environmental issues cross state lines and therefore become a federal issue that transcends states rights. Much like interstate commerce.

a reply to: Byrd

Nobody is rolling back anything. If you think the Feds are more responsive to the people, you've never had to deal with environmental issues in your back yard. I'm not talking about stated political intention---I'm talking the reality of having a huge issue dumped in your back yard. Calls to the EPA are referred to the state. That's how reality works. I'm sorry a lot of you have this idealized view of the EPA---you believe what you wish to believe. I pray that you never have to actually call on them for help in PREVENTING pollution.
Yes, the air is cleaner in cities than when I grew up. The water in major waterways and lakes is visibly cleaner but now cities are reporting high levels of prescription drugs in their water supply. So you and your children are being accidentally drugged and what has the EPA done about that? NOTHING. They have instead suggested a "Study" to last ten years....

I'm a conservationist. I believe we need to conserve and PROTECT our resources. WE need to do that---not depend on a governmental agency bought off by corporate interests. Watershed protection has to come from the grassroots, people out there doing the water testing and reporting to state agencies. There is no way in reality to pay enough people to do these jobs of testing the water and air so if you truly care, YOU have to take part of the responsibility. Handing it off to bureaucrats doesn't work.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Byrd

Nobody is rolling back anything. If you the Feds are more responsive to the people, you've never had to deal with environmental issues in your back yard.

Actually, I have. And have been involved in a few state efforts and local efforts.

I'm a conservationist. I believe we need to conserve and PROTECT our resources. WE need to do that---not depend on a governmental agency bought off by corporate interests. Watershed protection has to come from the grassroots, people out there doing the water testing and reporting to state agencies.

Yes. I took the training for being part of the Water Team and was on the Mussel Watch Team. I know about this.

There is no way in reality to pay enough people to do these jobs of testing the water and air so if you truly care, YOU have to take part of the responsibility. Handing it off to bureaucrats doesn't work.

But we need people paying attention to the data and we need scientists to do long-term analysis of the data AND we need bureaucrats with money and a big stick to make laws to protect and save the environment.

State, local, and national levels are needed.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: GreyScale

Exxon pays into the government billions of dollars.

Which government?

Exxon doled out more than $15 billion in income tax payments to foreign countries last year. U.S. tax codes allow companies to take massive deductions in light of those international charges, which knocked Exxon's federal income-tax bill down into negative territory.That said, Uncle Sam gets his money in other ways. Including sales taxes and duties, Exxon recorded $7.7 billion in U.S. tax costs last year, and paid even more overseas.

money.cnn.com...

I guess you missed the part where that 7.7 billion was taxes paid, from sales tax to other taxes. To the United Stats Government. THAT government.

Yes, they pay over 50 billion in taxes overseas... where they have oil interests.

Perhaps we could expand that to the US, since our last Eco-Terrorist in Chief is no longer in office.

a reply to: GreyScale

I guess you missed the part where that 7.7 billion was taxes paid, from sales tax to other taxes.

No. I can read what I quoted.