http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/13/scot...n-dioxide/

prepare for the butthurt tsunami rolling in.

Don't take it from scientists, take it from Robert Tracinski. He studied philosophy!

(03-13-2017 03:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Don't take it from scientists, take it from Robert Tracinski. He studied philosophy!

Or all Gore, he failed divinity...

(03-13-2017 04:42 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 03:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Don't take it from scientists, take it from Robert Tracinski. He studied philosophy!

Or all Gore, he failed divinity...

But he gave us one hell of an internet!

(03-13-2017 03:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Don't take it from scientists, take it from Robert Tracinski. He studied philosophy!

So you didn't read the article, but still comment. Got it.

Almost nothing in science is ever truly "settled." What everyone thinks is true now may turn out to be complete nonsense 100 years from now. I don't think anyone on this board is in favor of polluting the environment. Quite honestly I'm far more concerned about things like the water crisis in Flint than I am about global warming. Of course the EPA did nothing to stop that, but my question is if we completely got rid of the EPA what would be the free market recourse to prevent stuff like that from happening going forward?

(03-13-2017 03:59 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Don't take it from scientists, take it from Robert Tracinski. He studied philosophy!

He actually framed the issue pretty well: Agreement that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but skepticism on the idea of positive feedbacks, where there is far from a scientific consensus. It's the difference between less than 1 degree C and 3-4 degrees C warming over the next century. Which is the difference between "concerning - work on this" and "alarming - drastic measures required!"

(03-13-2017 06:02 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Almost nothing in science is ever truly "settled." What everyone thinks is true now may turn out to be complete nonsense 100 years from now. I don't think anyone on this board is in favor of polluting the environment. Quite honestly I'm far more concerned about things like the water crisis in Flint than I am about global warming. Of course the EPA did nothing to stop that, but my question is if we completely got rid of the EPA what would be the free market recourse to prevent stuff like that from happening going forward?

What's the recourse currently with the EPA? A fine after you've broken the rules?

(03-13-2017 06:22 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 06:02 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Almost nothing in science is ever truly "settled." What everyone thinks is true now may turn out to be complete nonsense 100 years from now. I don't think anyone on this board is in favor of polluting the environment. Quite honestly I'm far more concerned about things like the water crisis in Flint than I am about global warming. Of course the EPA did nothing to stop that, but my question is if we completely got rid of the EPA what would be the free market recourse to prevent stuff like that from happening going forward?

What's the recourse currently with the EPA? A fine after you've broken the rules?

So does that mean the answer is nothing?

(03-13-2017 06:02 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Almost nothing in science is ever truly "settled." What everyone thinks is true now may turn out to be complete nonsense 100 years from now. I don't think anyone on this board is in favor of polluting the environment. Quite honestly I'm far more concerned about things like the water crisis in Flint than I am about global warming. Of course the EPA did nothing to stop that, but my question is if we completely got rid of the EPA what would be the free market recourse to prevent stuff like that from happening going forward?

Congress and enforcing the laws.

Congess who obeys their corporate overlords. Sure. Good plan.

(03-14-2017 10:40 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 06:02 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Almost nothing in science is ever truly "settled." What everyone thinks is true now may turn out to be complete nonsense 100 years from now. I don't think anyone on this board is in favor of polluting the environment. Quite honestly I'm far more concerned about things like the water crisis in Flint than I am about global warming. Of course the EPA did nothing to stop that, but my question is if we completely got rid of the EPA what would be the free market recourse to prevent stuff like that from happening going forward?

Congress and enforcing the laws.

And I should have faith that Congress is going to take care of that because?

(03-14-2017 04:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 10:40 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 06:02 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Almost nothing in science is ever truly "settled." What everyone thinks is true now may turn out to be complete nonsense 100 years from now. I don't think anyone on this board is in favor of polluting the environment. Quite honestly I'm far more concerned about things like the water crisis in Flint than I am about global warming. Of course the EPA did nothing to stop that, but my question is if we completely got rid of the EPA what would be the free market recourse to prevent stuff like that from happening going forward?

Congress and enforcing the laws.

And I should have faith that Congress is going to take care of that because?

because congress is accountable to the people and are up for elections every 2 & 6 years. Thats the way it supposed to work. If they dont do the job, vote them out.

The way its not supposed to work is for non-elected officials to write rules regulating american's lives down to the puddle in their yard. That IS the EPA.

(03-14-2017 04:35 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 04:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 10:40 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 06:02 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Almost nothing in science is ever truly "settled." What everyone thinks is true now may turn out to be complete nonsense 100 years from now. I don't think anyone on this board is in favor of polluting the environment. Quite honestly I'm far more concerned about things like the water crisis in Flint than I am about global warming. Of course the EPA did nothing to stop that, but my question is if we completely got rid of the EPA what would be the free market recourse to prevent stuff like that from happening going forward?

Congress and enforcing the laws.

And I should have faith that Congress is going to take care of that because?

because congress is accountable to the people and are up for elections every 2 & 6 years. Thats the way it supposed to work. If they dont do the job, vote them out.

The way its not supposed to work is for non-elected officials to write rules regulating american's lives down to the puddle in their yard. That IS the EPA.

That is how it's "supposed" to work yes, but that's not how it works in reality and we all know that. We are talking about a group that has approval ratings in the teens to single digits yet incumbents win roughly 90% of the time.

(03-14-2017 04:41 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 04:35 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 04:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 10:40 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 06:02 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Almost nothing in science is ever truly "settled." What everyone thinks is true now may turn out to be complete nonsense 100 years from now. I don't think anyone on this board is in favor of polluting the environment. Quite honestly I'm far more concerned about things like the water crisis in Flint than I am about global warming. Of course the EPA did nothing to stop that, but my question is if we completely got rid of the EPA what would be the free market recourse to prevent stuff like that from happening going forward?

Congress and enforcing the laws.

And I should have faith that Congress is going to take care of that because?

because congress is accountable to the people and are up for elections every 2 & 6 years. Thats the way it supposed to work. If they dont do the job, vote them out.

The way its not supposed to work is for non-elected officials to write rules regulating american's lives down to the puddle in their yard. That IS the EPA.

That is how it's "supposed" to work yes, but that's not how it works in reality and we all know that. We are talking about a group that has approval ratings in the teens to single digits yet incumbents win roughly 90% of the time.

Then the answer should be pretty clear. Do what they're currently proposing to do.

Don't trust Congress? Okay. Don't want a bunch of nameless, faceless, wholly unaccountable self-preservation at all costs is job 1 bureaucrats in DeeCee making rules and regs as to how a farmer in Idaho can conduct their potato farm? Okay, good, me neither.

Send it back to the States. Let the locals, that can and will, actually go out to sites and work with their constituents to come up with the best plans for the most benefit of the most people.

If they aren't doing their job, or they aren't doing a good job at their job, fire their asses and find someone else.

Block grant those Billions of dollars back to the States, keep say 50 + some support staff in DC, one for each State, from each State, as a "clearinghouse" of sorts, and let the people take care of their own backyards.

This isn't that hard.

This is one of those issues I see completely separate and apart from the underlying science, or lack thereof.

(03-14-2017 04:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 04:41 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 04:35 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 04:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 10:40 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  Congress and enforcing the laws.

And I should have faith that Congress is going to take care of that because?

because congress is accountable to the people and are up for elections every 2 & 6 years. Thats the way it supposed to work. If they dont do the job, vote them out.

The way its not supposed to work is for non-elected officials to write rules regulating american's lives down to the puddle in their yard. That IS the EPA.

That is how it's "supposed" to work yes, but that's not how it works in reality and we all know that. We are talking about a group that has approval ratings in the teens to single digits yet incumbents win roughly 90% of the time.

Then the answer should be pretty clear. Do what they're currently proposing to do.

Don't trust Congress? Okay. Don't want a bunch of nameless, faceless, wholly unaccountable self-preservation at all costs is job 1 bureaucrats in DeeCee making rules and regs as to how a farmer in Idaho can conduct their potato farm? Okay, good, me neither.

Send it back to the States. Let the locals, that can and will, actually go out to sites and work with their constituents to come up with the best plans for the most benefit of the most people.

If they aren't doing their job, or they aren't doing a good job at their job, fire their asses and find someone else.

Block grant those Billions of dollars back to the States, keep say 50 + some support staff in DC, one for each State, from each State, as a "clearinghouse" of sorts, and let the people take care of their own backyards.

This isn't that hard.

Is that actually what's being proposed? I'm not trying to start a fight or anything I'm seriously asking is the proposal to essentially end the EPA and allocate that money to the state level?

(03-14-2017 04:59 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 04:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 04:41 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 04:35 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-14-2017 04:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  And I should have faith that Congress is going to take care of that because?

because congress is accountable to the people and are up for elections every 2 & 6 years. Thats the way it supposed to work. If they dont do the job, vote them out.

The way its not supposed to work is for non-elected officials to write rules regulating american's lives down to the puddle in their yard. That IS the EPA.

That is how it's "supposed" to work yes, but that's not how it works in reality and we all know that. We are talking about a group that has approval ratings in the teens to single digits yet incumbents win roughly 90% of the time.

Then the answer should be pretty clear. Do what they're currently proposing to do.

Don't trust Congress? Okay. Don't want a bunch of nameless, faceless, wholly unaccountable self-preservation at all costs is job 1 bureaucrats in DeeCee making rules and regs as to how a farmer in Idaho can conduct their potato farm? Okay, good, me neither.

Send it back to the States. Let the locals, that can and will, actually go out to sites and work with their constituents to come up with the best plans for the most benefit of the most people.

If they aren't doing their job, or they aren't doing a good job at their job, fire their asses and find someone else.

Block grant those Billions of dollars back to the States, keep say 50 + some support staff in DC, one for each State, from each State, as a "clearinghouse" of sorts, and let the people take care of their own backyards.

This isn't that hard.

Is that actually what's being proposed? I'm not trying to start a fight or anything I'm seriously asking is the proposal to essentially end the EPA and allocate that money to the state level?

No fight, just a discussion.

I haven't delved all that far into it myself, but to some extent, yes, that is part of the idea(s) this admin is proposing for a lot of the alphabet soup Orgs in Washington. A return to Federalism and decentralizing the bloated morass that is Washington. This is the essence of what "draining the swamp" is really all about, not whether or not a few familiar faces remain in certain positions or whatever.

If we could return the ability and responsibility of many of these departments back to the Governors and voters of their States, just think of the possible efficiencies that could be realized, the flexibility to address issues and local concerns in a timely fashion, and avoid insanely stupid "one size fits all" crap that DeeCee wants to have apply to Manhattan and Butte Montana alike.

We're 50 freaking States, not one big ole landmass or whatever. Just think about what the people, climate, environments in upstate Minnesota and Key West have in common? Next to nothing. Let the locals take care.

The vast majority of environmental issues go beyond state lines. We can't even get Indiana to come to a meeting on phosphates in Lake Erie but they contribute 18% of the phosphates that go into the tributaries that feed in.


Your idea sounds fine philosophically but realistically it's naive at best.