EPA v Constitution

[therealUT]

Her research was in regard to the effects of Micro-Financing.

 

[n_huffhines]

I was in India and there definitely were sanitation problems; however, I would rather have that than the EPA.

It's not because they don't have an EPA, it's because they have a less developed economy. Our air and water quality was was steadily trending upward through natural market mechanisms post-industrial revolution and pre-1970 (Clean Air and Water Act). Government jumped on the bandwagon, and ever since has pretended to lead the parade.

 

[n_huffhines]

Basically, Americans are so rich, we can afford to worry about the environment. Consumers demand environmental responsibility from corporations. That doesn't happen in India, and most people would laugh at the notion. They are much too poor to care about the environment.

 

[theFallGuy]

It's not because they don't have an EPA, it's because they have a less developed economy. Our air and water quality was was steadily trending upward through natural market mechanisms post-industrial revolution and pre-1970 (Clean Air and Water Act). Government jumped on the bandwagon, and ever since has pretended to lead the parade.

this

 

[RespectTradition]

Basically, Americans are so rich, we can afford to worry about the environment. Consumers demand environmental responsibility from corporations. That doesn't happen in India, and most people would laugh at the notion. They are much too poor to care about the environment.

Are you here trying to use logic and history again? Why do you keep trying to confuse us with your facts?!?!?!?!?

 

[n_huffhines]

My Dad is a HUGE Reagan fan, despite my objections. I love a story he tells about the administration. The economy was taking off, and Americans were feeling better about the cold war. Polls found that the number one criticism of Reagan was his take on the environment. My Dad claims people only care about the environment when everything else is going great. That's pretty accurate, I'd say.

 

[theFallGuy]

My Dad is a HUGE Reagan fan, despite my objections. I love a story he tells about the administration. The economy was taking off, and Americans were feeling better about the cold war. Polls found that the number one criticism of Reagan was his take on the environment. My Dad claims people only care about the environment when everything else is going great. That's pretty accurate, I'd say.

I agree. When people are struggling with unemployment and trying to feed their families, I'd say those issues go on the back burner.

 

[PKT_VOL]

It's not because they don't have an EPA, it's because they have a less developed economy. Our air and water quality was was steadily trending upward through natural market mechanisms post-industrial revolution and pre-1970 (Clean Air and Water Act). Government jumped on the bandwagon, and ever since has pretended to lead the parade.

Although technology and wealth play a role in the environmental protection movement, it is silly to downplay the positive effect of the Clean Air and Water Act and formation of the EPA.

 

[n_huffhines]

Although technology and wealth play a role in the environmental protection movement, it is silly to downplay the positive effect of the Clean Air and Water Act and formation of the EPA.

Isn't it silly to credit them? The air and water quality trends basically continued to improve at the same rate after the EPA was founded. We don't really know one way or another that the EPA has really had a positive impact. We know they have had a negative impact through regulation.

 

[therealUT]

Currently, there are private water projects in the majority of Indian states working to establish an infrastructure that will deliver potable water on-demand to Indian households, via pipelines and plumbing. There is no government agency equivalent to the EPA to ensure that the water is clean; yet, having been onsite at two of these major projects, I can attest to the fact that there was no attempt to cut corners. Most of these businessmen/women understand that it is in their long-term interest to ensure that the water is clean; nobody is willing to invest in such enormous financial projects that would deliver a product that would be rejected by the population.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Isn't it silly to credit them? The air and water quality trends basically continued to improve at the same rate after the EPA was founded. We don't really know one way or another that the EPA has really had a positive impact. We know they have had a negative impact through regulation.

Are arguing that the EPA is essentially worthless and has an overall negative impact? Part two, do you believe aside from the overzealous regulations (they effect generally business, not the environment), that there would be a positive effect on the environment? No negative effects upon the environment?

Currently, there are private water projects in the majority of Indian states working to establish an infrastructure that will deliver potable water on-demand to Indian households, via pipelines and plumbing. There is no government agency equivalent to the EPA to ensure that the water is clean; yet, having been onsite at two of these major projects, I can attest to the fact that there was no attempt to cut corners. Most of these businessmen/women understand that it is in their long-term interest to ensure that the water is clean; nobody is willing to invest in such enormous financial projects that would deliver a product that would be rejected by the population.

Of course, their product is clean water. If it is not up to a high standard of cleanliness then they will lose their arse in the free market. For me the EPA is most important in providing an a strong incentive not to dump toxic byproducts into the environment. Managing toxic byproducts responsibly is not cheap; there is a strong economic incentive not to do so.

 

[gsvol]

Can you show me where it's Constitutionally legal for companies to pollute public systems?


*I didn't read your article, just the headline and your question.

If you think the EPA always prevents polution by big corporations, you are sadly mistaken, I know this from personal first hand contact.

After reading what you posted, it does sound like an incredibly ridiculous overreach of power.

Thousands of these sorts of things happen on a daily basis against individual citizens by the EPA abusing their constitutional rights by effectively seizing private property without compensation and if you don't have a few million dollars for a legal battle then you are screwed.

They may not take possession of your property but they will dictate how the land is used or not used and what you may or may not do with said property.

If they say you can't do anything at all to improve the property and say that if you sell the property unless the buyer agrees to keep the land as it is to provide habitat for the _______ (fill in blank) critter forever or until said critter is off the endangered list (a rare occurance), then you still have to keep paying property taxes or eventually the property will be seized by the state for unpaid taxes.

The EPA is a good idea on paper but it has gooten totally out of control, especially under the current regime.

Like India, they throw their trash on the ground. It is filthy. The killer for me is their defecation of their own property. Unlike the country where there is plenty of space to do your business, the city is wall to wall with people. About every couple weeks I see a parent teach their child to defecate on the sidewalk in front of their house. It is appalling. Of course it rains a lot here so the streams and storm drains are nothing but fresh sewage which floods every time it rains (which is every day). We affectionately refer to it as "sewage feet."

Pompei had an interesting sewage system, it was the streets.

People disposed of their wastes into the streets in front of their houses, water from natural springs above Pompei was diverted into the streets and washed the wastes out of town.

At each intersection there were stones that rose to the level of the sidewalks which pedestrians used to cross the streets, these stepping stones were spaced so that chariots and carts could cross the intersections without their wheels hitting the stepping stones.

The ruins of Pompei is worth a visit for anyone ever traveling through Naples and then don't miss a visit to the Isle of Capri, a swim in the waters of the Blue Grotto is a must.

On one trip to Capri my traveling companion and I encountered a sales clerk that couldn't have been more than fifteen who knew as least some of nine languages. She may have known even more than that, nine exausted our knowledge of different languages.

Diculous again...?!?!

RE-diculus because the EPA is run by a bunch of diculus heads.

 

[therealUT]

Pompei had an interesting sewage system, it was the streets.

People disposed of their wastes into the streets in front of their houses, water from natural springs above Pompei was diverted into the streets and washed the wastes out of town.

This is an interesting example because this is still what happens in many developing nations. The big difference between ancient Pompeii and modern day Saigon is that the majority of the refuse in ancient Pompeii was biodegradable and natural; the majority of the refuse today comes from non-biodegradable synthetics and synthetic chemicals. Ecosystems have a much tougher time dealing with the refuse today leading to toxic waste hazards in many streams, rivers, lakes, and aquifers.

While I do not believe that the EPA should be a federal agency; I do not believe that the analogy between ancient Pompeii and modern day developing countries holds.

 

[PKT_VOL]

If you think the EPA always prevents polution by big corporations, you are sadly mistaken, I know this from personal first hand contact.

Nope, but it helps to limit such occurrences.

The EPA is a good idea on paper but it has gooten totally out of control, especially under the current regime.

Agreed.

Pompei had an interesting sewage system, it was the streets.

People disposed of their wastes into the streets in front of their houses, water from natural springs above Pompei was diverted into the streets and washed the wastes out of town.

At each intersection there were stones that rose to the level of the sidewalks which pedestrians used to cross the streets, these stepping stones were spaced so that chariots and carts could cross the intersections without their wheels hitting the stepping stones.

The difference is people over here have the ability to dispose of their waste properly. I am glad that I am not one of those people who live at the bottom of a hill; nothing like getting your house flooded with raw sewage every other day.

This is an interesting example because this is still what happens in many developing nations. The big difference between ancient Pompeii and modern day Saigon is that the majority of the refuse in ancient Pompeii was biodegradable and natural; the majority of the refuse today comes from non-biodegradable synthetics and synthetic chemicals. Ecosystems have a much tougher time dealing with the refuse today leading to toxic waste hazards in many streams, rivers, lakes, and aquifers.

While I do not believe that the EPA should be a federal agency; I do not believe that the analogy between ancient Pompeii and modern day developing countries holds.

I agree with the biodegradable vs non-biodegradable point. Human waste still presents problems with the spread of disease. Their rivers, streams, and lakes are also heavily polluted with toxic chemicals from dumping (both individual and corporate) and trash.