EPA run amok

• QuakerOats

  'environmental justice' and self (epa) promotion of federal regulations ...... WOW. The radicals in the EPA are outdoing themselves now.
  
  
  "EPA's Jackson Makes "Environmental Justice" A Priority.
  USA Today (4/20, Winter) reports, "Thursday is the 40th anniversary of the first Earth Day, which with the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency the same year, heralded the beginning of the modern environmental movement. ... Yet the head of the EPA under the Obama administration, Lisa Jackson, is among those who say the movement's achievements -- including significantly cleaner air and water throughout much of the USA -- have not been equally shared by low-income and minority communities." Jackson "adds that the EPA, and environmentalists in general, need to do a better job of using the clout they've accumulated since 1970 to ensure more 'environmental justice' - a term she and others use to describe the idea that everyone, no matter their race or income level, has the right to live in a healthy environment." Jackson says, "This is part of the unfinished business of the environmental movement."
  http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2010-04-19-earth-day_N.htm
  
  "President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency is encouraging the public to create video advertisements that explain why federal regulations are "important to everyone."
  http://cnsnews.com/news/article/64297
  
  God save the Republic.
  
  Radical environmentalism -- perhaps the greatest threat to liberty in the world today.
• cbus4life

  QuakerOats wrote: 'environmental justice' and self (epa) promotion of federal regulations ...... WOW. The radicals in the EPA are outdoing themselves now.
  
  
  "EPA's Jackson Makes "Environmental Justice" A Priority.
  USA Today (4/20, Winter) reports, "Thursday is the 40th anniversary of the first Earth Day, which with the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency the same year, heralded the beginning of the modern environmental movement. ... Yet the head of the EPA under the Obama administration, Lisa Jackson, is among those who say the movement's achievements -- including significantly cleaner air and water throughout much of the USA -- have not been equally shared by low-income and minority communities." Jackson "adds that the EPA, and environmentalists in general, need to do a better job of using the clout they've accumulated since 1970 to ensure more 'environmental justice' - a term she and others use to describe the idea that everyone, no matter their race or income level, has the right to live in a healthy environment." Jackson says, "This is part of the unfinished business of the environmental movement."
  http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2010-04-19-earth-day_N.htm
  
  "President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency is encouraging the public to create video advertisements that explain why federal regulations are "important to everyone."
  http://cnsnews.com/news/article/64297
  
  God save the Republic.
  
  Radical environmentalism -- perhaps the greatest threat to liberty in the world today.

  What is wrong with this? I don't think it is wrong to rally for better environmental conditions in low-income and poverty-stricken areas, as they do have their issues.
  How is what Jackson saying worthy of proclaiming "god save the republic?"
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Yeah, I actually like not having the Cuyahoga catching on fire. Although the Burning River ale is pretty tasty....
• fish82

  

  Nothing wrong with the concept per se, but the term "environmental justice" is pretty drama queenish.
• fan_from_texas

  Environmental justice . . . a term she and others use to describe the idea that everyone, no matter their race or income level, has the right to live in a healthy environment." Jackson says, "This is part of the unfinished business of the environmental movement."

  Wow, we should be really angry! We all know that poor people deserve to live in radioactive landfills! That nasty EPA is trying to force their agenda down our throats!
  
  Gimme a break.
• cbus4life

  fish82 wrote: Nothing wrong with the concept per se, but the term "environmental justice" is pretty drama queenish.

  Haha, touche. I'll be honest, first time i've heard the term.
  
  But, again, i don't see anything wrong with what she is saying.
• QuakerOats

  'environmental justice', 'social justice' et.al. all code for forced redistribution (marxism) under the guise of helping the less fortunate. I can't believe you guys can't see through all this BS, you are smarter than that. These people are anti-capitalists to the core; their mission is not in line with mainstream America.
  
  The notion that they are now engaging you to jump on board with even more regulation is rather unbelievable. You can forget any significant investment and job creation by American businesses as long as these radicals are running the show ------ the offshoring will continue.
  
  Change we can believe in .................
• redstreak one

  

  The scary part of this for me was that Federal regulations are passed at a rate of 10-1 versus Congressional laws and are treated the same as far as enforcement! lol
• j_crazy

  

  having dealt extensively with the EPA when I worked in WY, I can say without a doubt, it's the WORST RUN DIVISION OF THE US GOVERNMENT.
  
  some of the people working there are functionally retarded.
• fan_from_texas

  redstreak one wrote: The scary part of this for me was that Federal regulations are passed at a rate of 10-1 versus Congressional laws and are treated the same as far as enforcement! lol

  I think the ratio is probably higher than 10-1. In my practice, we're looking at closer to 50-1. I don't remember the last time we've relied on an actual statute--everything is done via the regulatory process.
• RedRider1

  

  Get ready for the EPA to show up en masse at any factory that emits anything more than their employees breath.
  
  Fines will go up & regulatory fees will go up....so that they can pay for "environmental justice"
  
  The words are fine....and nobody has a problem with it....that's the point...it's how they go about achieving this "justice" is what people should be paying attention to.
  
  Besides...if you're against low-income familes having access to clear air/water, you're just a racist....and can be labeled as such.
• bigmanbt

  Environmental standards should be set at the state and local level, not the national level. EPA needs to go, each state can have their own EPA. The fact that they are encouraging people to make propaganda videos saying regulations are good, well that sickens me. I hate all kinds of propaganda, and propaganda that gets us away from the Constitution I really hate.
• Swamp Fox

  There are definitely things thast need to be regulated to insure clean air and water. I think that all Americans do have an inherent right to not have to drink polluted water or breathe carcinogen filled air. Therefore, although perhaps "environmental justice" is a bit over the top, I do agree with her basic premise.
• jmog

  Swamp Fox, unfortunately the stuff you are referring to was dealt with by the EPA years ago and other than some rogue companies, doesn't get put into the atmosphere anymore.
  
  Now the EPA wants to regulate CO2 which has zero health effects to humans.
• fan_from_texas

  bigmanbt wrote: Environmental standards should be set at the state and local level, not the national level. EPA needs to go, each state can have their own EPA.

  That sounds good in theory, but in practice, it's a bad idea. First, as a practical matter, each state already has its own EPA, independent of the feds, and they do regulate on state and local levels. Part of what they do is to regulate areas of concern that don't impact other states (such as solid waste and hazmat that isn't involved in interstate commerce).
  
  Second, the idea that we don't need baseline environmental standards is ridiculous because of the physical nature of the beast. If an upstream state decides that dumping whatever you want into the Mississippi is a good idea, that is going to impact downstream states. Similarly, it's not like we have walls around Ohio that keep the air locked in the state. If Ohio factors pollute, it affects the air quality of neighboring states, hence the need for federal oversight (e.g., the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act). I agree that the process needs to be driven on the state and local level, but when state/local actions drastically impact others, it's nonsensical to insulate localities from the consequences of those actions.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Yeah well when the people of Appalachia get clean water ran into their homes, there will be something else to celebrate.
• QuakerOats

  Swamp Fox wrote: There are definitely things thast need to be regulated to insure clean air and water. I think that all Americans do have an inherent right to not have to drink polluted water or breathe carcinogen filled air. Therefore, although perhaps "environmental justice" is a bit over the top, I do agree with her basic premise.

  And I think all Americans have the right to not be enslaved by a federal bureaucracy whose powers extend far beyond any reasonable representation and without checks and balances.
  
  It is time to de-fund the epa. That would be change we can believe in!
• believer

  

  QuakerOats wrote:And I think all Americans have the right to not be enslaved by a federal bureaucracy whose powers extend far beyond any reasonable representation and without checks and balances.

  That can be applied to just about any federal bureaucracy. In the end federal bureaucracies have but one goal in mind: Their own $elf-pre$ervation.
  
  Amazingly Big Government advocates still cling to the naive belief that we need these agencies to protect us from ourselves.
• Sykotyk

  

  First, this statement made is regarding making sure low-income and minorities get the same environmental advantages the rest of us in better enclaves can expect.
  
  Secondly, QuakerOats, who says there's no checks or balances with the current EPA? Isn't their whole purpose to protect the environment? In fact, it's right there in the title, "ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION agency".
  
  Sorry you have very lax standards for the environment. I'm sure you're 'pro arsenic in the drinking water' the way Bush was when he was President. (see here)
  
  Sorry, but 'just because you want to' is not a good reason to relax environmental standards that are designed to protect the people of this country (not the profits of the corporations).
  
  Sykotyk
• I Wear Pants

  believer wrote:

  QuakerOats wrote:And I think all Americans have the right to not be enslaved by a federal bureaucracy whose powers extend far beyond any reasonable representation and without checks and balances.

  That can be applied to just about any federal bureaucracy. In the end federal bureaucracies have but one goal in mind: Their own $elf-pre$ervation.
  
  Amazingly Big Government advocates still cling to the naive belief that we need these agencies to protect us from ourselves.

  So if we think that any federal agencies aren't completely worthless we are automatically "Big Government advocates"?
• cbus4life

  Yes, any liberal or person who doesn't hate nearly every aspect of the government is automatically in favor of a nanny state and needs the federal government to tell them what they can and can't do.
• Sykotyk

  

  Then why even have government? Take a vacation in Somalia and tell me how much you love living without a government.
  
  I think the biggest difference between the Right and the Left is that the Right naturally believes that every person--that they don't know--on Earth is scum and cannot be trusted. You can only trust yourself and your immediate associates. So any organization where you're not in complete control is entirely problematic and to your detriment. Lefties naturally believe that the vast majority of people on Earth are naturally good and can be trusted, so working together for a common cause is thereby the most direct and efficient ways of getting things done.
  
  The conundrum isn't political. The conundrum is an issue of trust.
  
  Sykotyk
• tk421

  

  Sykotyk wrote: Then why even have government? Take a vacation in Somalia and tell me how much you love living without a government.
  
  I think the biggest difference between the Right and the Left is that the Right naturally believes that every person--that they don't know--on Earth is scum and cannot be trusted. You can only trust yourself and your immediate associates. So any organization where you're not in complete control is entirely problematic and to your detriment. Lefties naturally believe that the vast majority of people on Earth are naturally good and can be trusted, so working together for a common cause is thereby the most direct and efficient ways of getting things done.
  
  The conundrum isn't political. The conundrum is an issue of trust.
  
  Sykotyk

  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. That's hilarious. Yes, the left is the most trustful bunch of people I've ever met.
• fish82

  

  Sykotyk wrote: Then why even have government? Take a vacation in Somalia and tell me how much you love living without a government.
  
  I think the biggest difference between the Right and the Left is that the Right naturally believes that every person--that they don't know--on Earth is scum and cannot be trusted. You can only trust yourself and your immediate associates. So any organization where you're not in complete control is entirely problematic and to your detriment. Lefties naturally believe that the vast majority of people on Earth are naturally good and can be trusted, so working together for a common cause is thereby the most direct and efficient ways of getting things done.
  
  The conundrum isn't political. The conundrum is an issue of trust.
  
  Sykotyk

  Yeah...that's it exactly. :rolleyes:
• majorspark

  

  Sykotyk wrote: Then why even have government? Take a vacation in Somalia and tell me how much you love living without a government.
  
  I think the biggest difference between the Right and the Left is that the Right naturally believes that every person--that they don't know--on Earth is scum and cannot be trusted. You can only trust yourself and your immediate associates. So any organization where you're not in complete control is entirely problematic and to your detriment. Lefties naturally believe that the vast majority of people on Earth are naturally good and can be trusted, so working together for a common cause is thereby the most direct and efficient ways of getting things done.
  
  The conundrum isn't political. The conundrum is an issue of trust.
  
  Sykotyk

  Government is a necessary evil. You would do well to have a healthy distrust of it. No entity on this earth has more blood on its hands than that of government.