What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Okay, maybe the EPA isn't such a bad thing (1 Viewer)

If you want to talk EPA failures, let's look at Super Fund. Just a horrible program which spent almost all of the time and effort trying to extract money out of the current property owners (which is many cases were not the real polluter). It was mostly a power grab/legal stuggle and in many cases delayed or prevented the cleanup of nasty sites. Made more lawyers rich was it biggest accomplishment.
The problems you identify here are mostly in the operation of the statutory scheme, not its administration.

It's amazing how many people feel qualified to criticize things they know absolutely nothing about.
It's amazing that people use an example of failures from communist China as a soap box against free markets.

BTW. My biggest point was not against the EPA, but against the idea that the arguement is an all for or all against debate. The debate is about the level of government and we are at the point where our government is too big, not that it needs to be completely eliminated.
It's true, communist is actually a model for some, which is crazy. Absolute regulation, absolute corruption. The rivers run read, are filled with garbage and they dam a globally recognized wildlife preserve.

 
Of course the crazy thing about China is they are communist which is the ultimate, maximum amount of "regulation" you can have.

I love the EPA, they just seem to spend more time (or get more press) on idealistic causes and species protection than actually forcing companies to clean up waterways. We could use some help down here.
Huh? Idealistic causes? They're a federal agency administering statutes, they don't take up causes. And the EPA doesn't even do species protection. The Fish and Wildlife Service administers the Endangered Species Act.

Sounds like someone's been watching too much Fox News.
I said "(or get more press)". Take that as you will.

I just know we have a ton of unenforced, unregulated pollution down here, from the bayous being ripped up by the oil companies to whatnot in the air and water. I think the EPA is just as affected by insider influence as our other agencies.
But you have no idea what EPA even does. You just said they spend too much time doing things they literally don't do at all. That's probably not a sound foundation from which to launch criticism.

Also, all air and water pollution is regulated, so I don't know what you mean by unregulation pollution. Enforcement? That's budgeting issue. You want more, vote out the Republicans who slash the agency's budget. Simple as that.

And I don't even know what "insider influence" is. Who's an EPA insider, and who are they influencing? 99% of the people who work there are lifetime civil servants.
Tobias the EPA has enough money to do their job ethically and well. That is a sorry and pathetic excuse.
Yeah, I guess you're right. I mean you clearly understand the intricacies of the agency's work. If only that darn Endangered Species Act wasn't distracting them from their regulation of offshore oil and gas operations!
You mean the MMS? You want to talk insider influence there? Prime example.
No, I mean the EPA. Since you seem to understand their work and their budget well enough to determine that they "have enough money to do their job ethically and well," how would you suggest they reallocate the time and money you think they're currently wasting on "idealistic causes and species protection"?
They have over 8 billion in budget and almost 20,000 employees, they can start by cleaning up the 20 or so LA sites here that have been awaiting cleanup as far back as the 1980's. Enforce penalties against the corporations who are supposed to be paying for this stuff, largely oil and chemical companies here. We have one of the highest cancer rates in America. To me that's why they were created and that's what they should be doing.

I will add that our bayous have been ripped up by canals created by the oil companies over the years, it would be nice if someone in the federal government did something about that. It's called the wetlands, ie part of the "Environment."
How do you think federal agencies work? Do you think they can just act on things that seem like they fall under their jurisdiction based on the agency's name? "Oh, an environmental problem? Call in the Environmental Protection Agency!"

 
Of course the crazy thing about China is they are communist which is the ultimate, maximum amount of "regulation" you can have.

I love the EPA, they just seem to spend more time (or get more press) on idealistic causes and species protection than actually forcing companies to clean up waterways. We could use some help down here.
Huh? Idealistic causes? They're a federal agency administering statutes, they don't take up causes. And the EPA doesn't even do species protection. The Fish and Wildlife Service administers the Endangered Species Act.

Sounds like someone's been watching too much Fox News.
I said "(or get more press)". Take that as you will.

I just know we have a ton of unenforced, unregulated pollution down here, from the bayous being ripped up by the oil companies to whatnot in the air and water. I think the EPA is just as affected by insider influence as our other agencies.
You've got to go local. When my father across the state complained of constant trash burning which was smoking his neighborhood out of their houses I went to the EPA offices to ask them what to do. He called back that evening to tell me that the burning had stopped--apparently there was a neighboring landowner who was contracted to burn brush from road clearing projects and they were tossing in tires, trash and whatever else got piled up in the debris. They had been trying to stop that burning for years apparently.

EPA is like every other agency that gets buried in the bureacracy at the federal or state level. At the global level everything is theoretical and based on ideals. it takes getting past the politics and down to the ground for incidents to become personal enough where people really get involved. helps to know someone to get you there.

 
Tobias, what Saints posted is an article from the WSJ and not the opinions page. I subscribe to the WSJ for business reasons, and I believe that, though their editorials are certainly partisan, their articles can generally be trusted as a good source of business information.

Rather than disparaging the WSJ, what specifically about that article do you believe to be incorrect?
It says "Review and Outlook" above the headline. It says "Opinion" right next to "Wall Street Journal" on the online masthead. The last sentence advises the Obama administration on what it should do. What is your basis for concluding that its not from the opinions page?

Anyway, the problem isn't the piece itself; it's that SaintsinDome used it to condemn the EPA when there's literally no mention of the EPA, and the matter it discusses is not in EPA's jurisdiction.

 
Is it correct at this point to call China a Communist regime? They are still a dictatorship run by a bunch of old men who call themselves Communist, but it seems like in matters pertaining to the economy they are highly capitalist and much more unregulated than we are.

 
Tobias, what Saints posted is an article from the WSJ and not the opinions page. I subscribe to the WSJ for business reasons, and I believe that, though their editorials are certainly partisan, their articles can generally be trusted as a good source of business information.

Rather than disparaging the WSJ, what specifically about that article do you believe to be incorrect?
It says "Review and Outlook" above the headline. It says "Opinion" right next to "Wall Street Journal" on the online masthead. The last sentence advises the Obama administration on what it should do. What is your basis for concluding that its not from the opinions page?

Anyway, the problem isn't the piece itself; it's that SaintsinDome used it to condemn the EPA when there's literally no mention of the EPA, and the matter it discusses is not in EPA's jurisdiction.
It says "article" right next to the title, so that was my assumption.
 
Tobias, what Saints posted is an article from the WSJ and not the opinions page. I subscribe to the WSJ for business reasons, and I believe that, though their editorials are certainly partisan, their articles can generally be trusted as a good source of business information.

Rather than disparaging the WSJ, what specifically about that article do you believe to be incorrect?
It says "Review and Outlook" above the headline. It says "Opinion" right next to "Wall Street Journal" on the online masthead. The last sentence advises the Obama administration on what it should do. What is your basis for concluding that its not from the opinions page?

Anyway, the problem isn't the piece itself; it's that SaintsinDome used it to condemn the EPA when there's literally no mention of the EPA, and the matter it discusses is not in EPA's jurisdiction.
It says "article" right next to the title, so that was my assumption.
OK.

Your assumption was incorrect. As is Saints' use of the article as evidence of EPA failure.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
TobiasFunke said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
TobiasFunke said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
TobiasFunke said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
TobiasFunke said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Of course the crazy thing about China is they are communist which is the ultimate, maximum amount of "regulation" you can have.

I love the EPA, they just seem to spend more time (or get more press) on idealistic causes and species protection than actually forcing companies to clean up waterways. We could use some help down here.
Huh? Idealistic causes? They're a federal agency administering statutes, they don't take up causes. And the EPA doesn't even do species protection. The Fish and Wildlife Service administers the Endangered Species Act.

Sounds like someone's been watching too much Fox News.
I said "(or get more press)". Take that as you will.

I just know we have a ton of unenforced, unregulated pollution down here, from the bayous being ripped up by the oil companies to whatnot in the air and water. I think the EPA is just as affected by insider influence as our other agencies.
But you have no idea what EPA even does. You just said they spend too much time doing things they literally don't do at all. That's probably not a sound foundation from which to launch criticism.

Also, all air and water pollution is regulated, so I don't know what you mean by unregulation pollution. Enforcement? That's budgeting issue. You want more, vote out the Republicans who slash the agency's budget. Simple as that.

And I don't even know what "insider influence" is. Who's an EPA insider, and who are they influencing? 99% of the people who work there are lifetime civil servants.
Tobias the EPA has enough money to do their job ethically and well. That is a sorry and pathetic excuse.
Yeah, I guess you're right. I mean you clearly understand the intricacies of the agency's work. If only that darn Endangered Species Act wasn't distracting them from their regulation of offshore oil and gas operations!
You mean the MMS? You want to talk insider influence there? Prime example.
No, I mean the EPA. Since you seem to understand their work and their budget well enough to determine that they "have enough money to do their job ethically and well," how would you suggest they reallocate the time and money you think they're currently wasting on "idealistic causes and species protection"?
They have over 8 billion in budget and almost 20,000 employees, they can start by cleaning up the 20 or so LA sites here that have been awaiting cleanup as far back as the 1980's. Enforce penalties against the corporations who are supposed to be paying for this stuff, largely oil and chemical companies here. We have one of the highest cancer rates in America. To me that's why they were created and that's what they should be doing.

I will add that our bayous have been ripped up by canals created by the oil companies over the years, it would be nice if someone in the federal government did something about that. It's called the wetlands, ie part of the "Environment."
In January 2001, the United States Supreme Court issued a 5-to-4 opinion - the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers - that denied Federal Clean Water Act protection for thousands of wetlands that serve as habitat for migratory birds. The Supreme Court ruled that Clean Water Act was being applied too broadly - "an impingement of states' power" and ruled that the law cannot be used to protect isolated wetlands.
Majority Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas
Dissent Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer
 
If you want to talk EPA failures, let's look at Super Fund. Just a horrible program which spent almost all of the time and effort trying to extract money out of the current property owners (which is many cases were not the real polluter). It was mostly a power grab/legal stuggle and in many cases delayed or prevented the cleanup of nasty sites. Made more lawyers rich was it biggest accomplishment.
The problems you identify here are mostly in the operation of the statutory scheme, not its administration.

It's amazing how many people feel qualified to criticize things they know absolutely nothing about.
It's amazing that people use an example of failures from communist China as a soap box against free markets.

BTW. My biggest point was not against the EPA, but against the idea that the arguement is an all for or all against debate. The debate is about the level of government and we are at the point where our government is too big, not that it needs to be completely eliminated.
Soap box? Gimme a break. You don't need to take every tongue-in-cheek comment so seriously. You actually seem like a pretty decent, level-headed guy but the way you just hit the ground running in every single thread and immediately go political is bonkers.

 
Looks like the Environment could use some Protecting here.
They just said the water is safe, go on about your business

not too sure what changed, algae bloom is still there, weather has not changed, but hey, who am i to question!!!

 
Looks like the Environment could use some Protecting here.
Maybe the EPA can exercise their authority over endangered species to protect the fish there.

 
Looks like the Environment could use some Protecting here.
Maybe the EPA can exercise their authority over endangered species to protect the fish there.
"The fish are fine, please consume the algae toxin ridden fish swimming in the water we told you not to even touch with no worries" - The People In Charge

 
Looks like the Environment could use some Protecting here.
Maybe the EPA can exercise their authority over endangered species to protect the fish there.
What this lil' guy?

Oh he's fine.

But hey let's get those carbon emissions under control, that's their real job.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Looks like the Environment could use some Protecting here.
Maybe the EPA can exercise their authority over endangered species to protect the fish there.
What this lil' guy?

Oh he's fine.

But hey let's get those carbon emissions under control, that's their real job.
I can't tell if you're fishing (no pun intended) or if you really don't understand how laws and federal agencies work. I'm trying to tell myself its the former, but based on how wrong you were on this subject last week I kind of think it might be the latter. You really do think EPA can do anything it wants as long as it falls under what you think of as the "environment," don't you?

 
If you want to talk EPA failures, let's look at Super Fund. Just a horrible program which spent almost all of the time and effort trying to extract money out of the current property owners (which is many cases were not the real polluter). It was mostly a power grab/legal stuggle and in many cases delayed or prevented the cleanup of nasty sites. Made more lawyers rich was it biggest accomplishment.
The problems you identify here are mostly in the operation of the statutory scheme, not its administration.

It's amazing how many people feel qualified to criticize things they know absolutely nothing about.
It's amazing that people use an example of failures from communist China as a soap box against free markets.

BTW. My biggest point was not against the EPA, but against the idea that the arguement is an all for or all against debate. The debate is about the level of government and we are at the point where our government is too big, not that it needs to be completely eliminated.
Soap box? Gimme a break. You don't need to take every tongue-in-cheek comment so seriously. You actually seem like a pretty decent, level-headed guy but the way you just hit the ground running in every single thread and immediately go political is bonkers.
I would bet my percentage of posts concerning politics is easily in the lower half of the all the posters on this thread. :shrug:

 
Looks like the Environment could use some Protecting here.
Maybe the EPA can exercise their authority over endangered species to protect the fish there.
What this lil' guy?

Oh he's fine.

But hey let's get those carbon emissions under control, that's their real job.
I can't tell if you're fishing (no pun intended) or if you really don't understand how laws and federal agencies work. I'm trying to tell myself its the former, but based on how wrong you were on this subject last week I kind of think it might be the latter. You really do think EPA can do anything it wants as long as it falls under what you think of as the "environment," don't you?
Somewhat, maybe because of the overall incredible defensiveness on the subject.

However federal employees are our servants. They do our bidding at the amount we tell them to do it. If the environment is that screwed up in Toledo that should not be happening. We can't get the wetlands fixed down here. There is a man made drought in Imperial Valley and in the Colorado River valley. In all situations the environment needs protecting. I'd say that's exactly what the EPA should be doing, not killing the coal industry, not attacking carbon levels, they should be simply cleaning up the environment or making sure it stays clean.

 
Looks like the Environment could use some Protecting here.
Maybe the EPA can exercise their authority over endangered species to protect the fish there.
What this lil' guy?

Oh he's fine.

But hey let's get those carbon emissions under control, that's their real job.
I can't tell if you're fishing (no pun intended) or if you really don't understand how laws and federal agencies work. I'm trying to tell myself its the former, but based on how wrong you were on this subject last week I kind of think it might be the latter. You really do think EPA can do anything it wants as long as it falls under what you think of as the "environment," don't you?
Somewhat, maybe because of the overall incredible defensiveness on the subject.

However federal employees are our servants. They do our bidding at the amount we tell them to do it. If the environment is that screwed up in Toledo that should not be happening. We can't get the wetlands fixed down here. There is a man made drought in Imperial Valley and in the Colorado River valley. In all situations the environment needs protecting. I'd say that's exactly what the EPA should be doing, not killing the coal industry, not attacking carbon levels, they should be simply cleaning up the environment or making sure it stays clean.
No. They do only what the laws and regulations authorize or direct them to do. If there is no law authorizing EPA to do a particular thing the agency cannot do it, and if there is no law or regulation authorizing an employee to take a certain kind of action the employee can't act alone.

I don't mean to pick on you, but if you want to see problems addressed and situations improved in a democracy the first step is an informed public that understands who is (and is not) to blame for various problems. Otherwise you'd have people voting out their congressmen because the trash pickup was late and voting out their mayors because they don't like the war in Iraq. That's basically what you've been doing in this thread- blaming EPA for things that they didn't do and in some cases can't do.

With respect to this Toledo thing there actually is an EPA role here, although responsibility is mostly delegated to state agencies under the relevant statutes (Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act).

ETA: Also I know some people at EPA. Good people doing decent work.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Looks like the Environment could use some Protecting here.
Maybe the EPA can exercise their authority over endangered species to protect the fish there.
What this lil' guy?

Oh he's fine.

But hey let's get those carbon emissions under control, that's their real job.
I can't tell if you're fishing (no pun intended) or if you really don't understand how laws and federal agencies work. I'm trying to tell myself its the former, but based on how wrong you were on this subject last week I kind of think it might be the latter. You really do think EPA can do anything it wants as long as it falls under what you think of as the "environment," don't you?
Somewhat, maybe because of the overall incredible defensiveness on the subject.

However federal employees are our servants. They do our bidding at the amount we tell them to do it. If the environment is that screwed up in Toledo that should not be happening. We can't get the wetlands fixed down here. There is a man made drought in Imperial Valley and in the Colorado River valley. In all situations the environment needs protecting. I'd say that's exactly what the EPA should be doing, not killing the coal industry, not attacking carbon levels, they should be simply cleaning up the environment or making sure it stays clean.
No. They do only what the laws and regulations authorize or direct them to do. If there is no law authorizing EPA to do a particular thing the agency cannot do it, and if there is no law or regulation authorizing an employee to take a certain kind of action the employee can't act alone.

I don't mean to pick on you, but if you want to see problems addressed and situations improved in a democracy the first step is an informed public that understands who is (and is not) to blame for various problems. Otherwise you'd have people voting out their congressmen because the trash pickup was late and voting out their mayors because they don't like the war in Iraq. That's basically what you've been doing in this thread- blaming EPA for things that they didn't do and in some cases can't do.

With respect to this Toledo thing there actually is an EPA role here, although responsibility is mostly delegated to state agencies under the relevant statutes (Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act).

ETA: Also I know some people at EPA. Good people doing decent work.
Well they can help support the Levee Board lawsuit against the oil companies to help recoup the cost of decades of their tearing up our coast.

I have no idea who is on the hook for it, Interior, USFWS, or EPA, or someone else, but we have seen Bobby Jindal basically jump like a trout on the end of the oil companies' line. In fact they have done an actual ex post facto law to shoot down a lawsuit by the regional Levee Board to compel them to recoup years of damage. There is cost to FEMA and the whole country for this stuff, not to mention lives and property, and no one seems to get it. It's been going on D & R back to Huey at least but it's the SOS. It's hard to think of a bigger Environmental issue that needs more Protection but whatever the reason there ain't no cavalry by the looks of it.

You'll have to forgive me if I fail to see the good that EPA has done down here, it's not just that.

 
As i understand it the current "plan" for Toledo is to possibly build a new water treatment facility at a different location (assuming they can get enough money) and do nothing to stop the pollution that caused this algae bloom to be so huge

when the algae blooms continue to grow and pollute that location I assume they'll just build another

 
Well they can help support the Levee Board lawsuit against the oil companies to help recoup the cost of decades of their tearing up our coast.
No, they can't. They're not a non-profit environmental protection group, nor are they litigators. And I believe it's a state court lawsuit. Not only is EPA not involved, the entire federal government is not involved.

I have no idea who is on the hook for it, Interior, USFWS, or EPA, or someone else, but we have seen Bobby Jindal basically jump like a trout on the end of the oil companies' line. In fact they have done an actual ex post facto law to shoot down a lawsuit by the regional Levee Board to compel them to recoup years of damage. There is cost to FEMA and the whole country for this stuff, not to mention lives and property, and no one seems to get it. It's been going on D & R back to Huey at least but it's the SOS. It's hard to think of a bigger Environmental issue that needs more Protection but whatever the reason there ain't no cavalry by the looks of it.
I don't know exactly what "it" is here, but if you don't know who's on the hook isn't in counterproductive to start assessing blame? And again, just because it's an environmental issue and you want something protected doesn't mean the agency can do it. They have to have specific statutory authority to act. I don't know how many more times or different ways I can say that. If you can't name the federal statute an agency is failing under it's probably a good idea to blame that agency.

And absolutely nothing you've talked about here has anything at all to do with EPA. I'm sorry it's a bad situation that is negatively impacting your area, but you might as well blame Canada, or the closure of Brennan's, or the retirement of Pete Fountain. All of those have as much to do with the problems you mention as the EPA.

You'll have to forgive me if I fail to see the good that EPA has done down here, it's not just that.
The thing about environmental protection is that when it works you don't notice it- not for many years, at least. But I promise you the EPA- or really the laws the EPA administers- are among the great government success stories of our lifetimes. Here's Ahnold praising the Clean Air Act in the WSJ. And a Clean Water Act story. BTW this Clean Water Act column hits on what I suspect may be the problem in Toledo- statutory exemptions for agricultural runoff. I think they're saying that's what caused the algal bloom in Lake Erie? If you want that addressed, talk to your Congressman about eliminating those exemptions. Once they're in the statute there's nothing the agency or the states can do about it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top