Environment is Cleaner Than it's Been in More Than 100 Years

[g5000]

Somehow, I don't think the Gulf coast is cleaner than its ever been...

 

[AmericanGirl05]

That's not so. What Republicans want is for EPA to concentrate on pollution, not climate change.

Oh really?

30 GOP senators sponsor bill to stop EPA s water rule TheHill

Yeah.

What you fail to grasp is that the traditional EPA laws and regulations are OK.

This new rule -- like so many of the others goes way beyond.

Not to mention EPA doesn't have the resources to enforce the laws and regs already on the books.

Oh this just keeps getting better...

So the Republicans back in the early 2000's took away the EPA's "Traditional" authority over the storage of large amounts of fertilizers and gave that to the DHS, namely because the chemical companies wanted it that way. This was specifically because the Republicans did not like the EPA having any authority at all and wanted it powerless.

The result? The DHS has no fricking clue how to handle large storage of ferilizers like ammonium nitrate and a plant filled with the stuff blows up in Waco Texas killing 15 people.

West Fertilizer Company explosion - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You are so full of propoganda crap it's hilarious...please keep going.

The authority was transferred to Homeland Security because it was a homeland security issue and they had personnel and resources more suited to protecting them than EPA did or does.

Frankly, the case you list shows that EPA enforcement is grossly undermanned.

It wasn't under EPA authority, it was specifically under Homeland Security to monitor chemical storages at large plants, even though they had almost no personal or tools to do so.

Either way, it clearly does show that the GOP takes authority away from the EPA pretty much any chance it gets, regardless of the risks.

...and it also blows away your silly little talking points about "The GOP only wants the EPA to stop focusing on climate change....errr...The GOP just doesn't want "new" laws for the EPA" which frankly we both know are nonsense.

But EPA didn't have the resources either. So I fail to see your point.

Is the GOP threatening to repeal the Clean Air Act? the Clean Water Act? RCRA? FIFRA? TSCA? CERCLA?

Noooooooo.

 

[g5000]

Oyster Beds Still Empty Four Years After Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Under Bush, every government agency was enlarged, except two. The EPA and the SEC were shrunk. How'd that turn out? Deepwater Horizon and the economic crash.

Plus he created an entirely new and massive cabinet level department. How's that police state working out for ya?

Show me those stats, please. I think you are wrong.

DHS was largely created by combining existing Federal agencies, with the exception of establishing TSA.

How's it working?

As well as any part of the Executive Branch under Obama. Not so hot.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Somehow, I don't think the Gulf coast is cleaner than its ever been...

Coast Guard cleans up oil spills.

DOE and Interior regulate offshore oil.

Not EPA.

If you don't know the laws, I can't help you.

 

[g5000]

Somehow, I don't think the Gulf coast is cleaner than its ever been...

Coast Guard cleans up oil spills.

DOE and Interior regulate offshore oil.

Not EPA.

If you don't know the laws, I can't help you.

If you want to talk out of your ass, I can't help you.

Gulf Coast Oil Spill Reports Office of Inspector General U.S. EPA

n April 2010, the BP Deepwater Horizon mobile offshore drilling unit exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in a significant oil spill along the Gulf coast. The Office of Inspector General conducted various reviews on EPA's involvement in cleaning up the spill.

 

[Nyvin]

Oh really?

30 GOP senators sponsor bill to stop EPA s water rule TheHill

Yeah.

What you fail to grasp is that the traditional EPA laws and regulations are OK.

This new rule -- like so many of the others goes way beyond.

Not to mention EPA doesn't have the resources to enforce the laws and regs already on the books.

Oh this just keeps getting better...

So the Republicans back in the early 2000's took away the EPA's "Traditional" authority over the storage of large amounts of fertilizers and gave that to the DHS, namely because the chemical companies wanted it that way. This was specifically because the Republicans did not like the EPA having any authority at all and wanted it powerless.

The result? The DHS has no fricking clue how to handle large storage of ferilizers like ammonium nitrate and a plant filled with the stuff blows up in Waco Texas killing 15 people.

West Fertilizer Company explosion - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You are so full of propoganda crap it's hilarious...please keep going.

The authority was transferred to Homeland Security because it was a homeland security issue and they had personnel and resources more suited to protecting them than EPA did or does.

Frankly, the case you list shows that EPA enforcement is grossly undermanned.

It wasn't under EPA authority, it was specifically under Homeland Security to monitor chemical storages at large plants, even though they had almost no personal or tools to do so.

Either way, it clearly does show that the GOP takes authority away from the EPA pretty much any chance it gets, regardless of the risks.

...and it also blows away your silly little talking points about "The GOP only wants the EPA to stop focusing on climate change....errr...The GOP just doesn't want "new" laws for the EPA" which frankly we both know are nonsense.

But EPA didn't have the resources either. So I fail to see your point.

Is the GOP threatening to repeal the Clean Air Act? the Clean Water Act? RCRA? FIFRA? TSCA? CERCLA?

Noooooooo.

Of course they won't publicly announce they want to repeal the Clean Water Act...that's bad publicity. They do the same thing they did for the chemical companies....They attach riders or other subtle changes to regulation to weaken them to nothing.

The Authority to regulate large storage of fertilzer chemicals was TAKEN AWAY....what part of that don't you get??? Oh and your point makes perfect sense: "One agency is underfunded to handle something...so let's give it to an agency with NOTHING!!!" Great idea Republicans!!

 

[g5000]

Under Bush, every government agency was enlarged, except two. The EPA and the SEC were shrunk. How'd that turn out? Deepwater Horizon and the economic crash.

Plus he created an entirely new and massive cabinet level department. How's that police state working out for ya?

Show me those stats, please. I think you are wrong.

Regulation Grew Not Shrunk Under Bush National Review Institute Blog

• Regulatory Budget and Staffing Levels: Appropriations for federal regulatory agencies haveincreased 44% under Bush from $27 billion to $44.9 billion. Even excluding the federal takeover of airport screeners, the increase in regulatory budgets is still up 30% and non-Transportation Security Administration staff is up 11%.
• Regulatory Page Counts: In 2007 the Federal Register (the publication all proposed and finalized rules must be published in) had 72,090 pages, higher than any year before 2000. In 2007, the Code of Federal Regulation (essentially the regulatory statute book) had 145,816 pages, more than 4,500 pages longer than when Bush took office.
• The Number and Cost of Major Rules: Since Bush took office 98 rules have had an economic impact on the United States greater than $100 million. Of those 98, 75 have increased the regulatory burden and 23 have decreased it. More than half of the cost saving rules came from the FCC and SEC, two independent agencies Bush cannot directly control.
• Cost Estimates: Since Bush took office, more than $28 billion in new regulatory costs have been inflicted on the American people. Only in 2001 when Bush repealed President Bill Clinton’s costly ergonomics rule, did overall regulatory costs decrease.

 

[g5000]

Despite the claims of critics-and some supporters-of the Bush Administration, net regulatory burdens have increased in the years since George W. Bush assumed the presidency. Since 2001, the federal government has imposed almost $30 billion in new regulatory costs on Americans. About $11 billion was imposed in fiscal year (FY) 2007 alone.

Critics of Bush Administration regulatory policy have argued that budget cuts are evidence that restrictions are being loosened. Yet according to an analysis by George Mason University's Mercatus Center and Washington University's Weidenbaum Center, appropriations for federal regulatory agencies have increased during the Bush years from $27 billion in FY 2001 to $44.9 billion in FY 2007-a 44 percent increase in inflation-adjusted dollars.[12] The total staffing of regulatory agencies went up nearly as much, from 172,000 employees to over 244,000- a 41 percent increase.

Environmental regulation declined in real (although not nominal) terms, from about $6 billion to $5.6 billion.

Red Tape Rising Regulatory Trends in the Bush Years

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Somehow, I don't think the Gulf coast is cleaner than its ever been...

Coast Guard cleans up oil spills.

DOE and Interior regulate offshore oil.

Not EPA.

If you don't know the laws, I can't help you.

If you want to talk out of your ass, I can't help you.

Gulf Coast Oil Spill Reports Office of Inspector General U.S. EPA

n April 2010, the BP Deepwater Horizon mobile offshore drilling unit exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in a significant oil spill along the Gulf coast. The Office of Inspector General conducted various reviews on EPA's involvement in cleaning up the spill.

Coast Guard has the lead. Read the law.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Yeah.

What you fail to grasp is that the traditional EPA laws and regulations are OK.

This new rule -- like so many of the others goes way beyond.

Not to mention EPA doesn't have the resources to enforce the laws and regs already on the books.

Oh this just keeps getting better...

So the Republicans back in the early 2000's took away the EPA's "Traditional" authority over the storage of large amounts of fertilizers and gave that to the DHS, namely because the chemical companies wanted it that way. This was specifically because the Republicans did not like the EPA having any authority at all and wanted it powerless.

The result? The DHS has no fricking clue how to handle large storage of ferilizers like ammonium nitrate and a plant filled with the stuff blows up in Waco Texas killing 15 people.

West Fertilizer Company explosion - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You are so full of propoganda crap it's hilarious...please keep going.

The authority was transferred to Homeland Security because it was a homeland security issue and they had personnel and resources more suited to protecting them than EPA did or does.

Frankly, the case you list shows that EPA enforcement is grossly undermanned.

It wasn't under EPA authority, it was specifically under Homeland Security to monitor chemical storages at large plants, even though they had almost no personal or tools to do so.

Either way, it clearly does show that the GOP takes authority away from the EPA pretty much any chance it gets, regardless of the risks.

...and it also blows away your silly little talking points about "The GOP only wants the EPA to stop focusing on climate change....errr...The GOP just doesn't want "new" laws for the EPA" which frankly we both know are nonsense.

But EPA didn't have the resources either. So I fail to see your point.

Is the GOP threatening to repeal the Clean Air Act? the Clean Water Act? RCRA? FIFRA? TSCA? CERCLA?

Noooooooo.

Of course they won't publicly announce they want to repeal the Clean Water Act...that's bad publicity. They do the same thing they did for the chemical companies....They attach riders or other subtle changes to regulation to weaken them to nothing.

The Authority to regulate large storage of fertilzer chemicals was TAKEN AWAY....what part of that don't you get??? Oh and your point makes perfect sense: "One agency is underfunded to handle something...so let's give it to an agency with NOTHING!!!" Great idea Republicans!!

What riders have they attached that you find so offensive.

The chemical storage enforcement was taken away from EPA (it was delegated to states, anyway) because it was a homeland security issue!!!!!!!

DHS has far from nothing when it comes to enforcement resources. Didn't you just call it a police state?

 

[orogenicman]

I know this will drive the environmental wackos. "How dare anyone claim the environment is clean!"

Michigan s Environment is Cleaner than it s Been in More than 100 Years Michigan Capitol Confidential

Michigan's Environment is Cleaner Than it's Been in More Than 100 Years

Disease, contamination and pollutants are mostly in the past while

Many people view the relationship between humans and nature as a zero-sum game: Our progress comes at the direct expense of the environment. Actually, that’s not the case.


Recently, we’ve been able to dramatically improve our standard of living while simultaneously leaving behind a cleaner environment. In fact, Michigan’s environment is arguably cleaner than it has been in more than 100 years.


Consider how clean our drinking water has become. In the early 20th century, waterborne infectious diseases such as cholera, dysentery and typhoid were leading causes of death, and typhoid epidemics annually sickened thousands in American cities. With technological leaps in filtration – now to the level of filtering microbes and chemical compounds, disinfection and water analysis – these waterborne illnesses have been practically eradicated in Michigan and the United States.

The water in our rivers, lakes and streams is also less contaminated than it used to be. Treated wastewater and storm water contain significantly lower levels of contaminants, as technology and control systems have advanced. Some wastewater treatment plants in Michigan discharge water of higher quality than their receiving streams. For example, the PARCC Side Clean Water Plant in Plainfield, Michigan discharges four million gallons of water per day into the Grand River that is of better quality than the river’s water. Other Michigan treatment plants can also produce effluents better than river water much of the time.


Wildlife habitats are improving, too. In a 2010 Detroit News article, Jim Lynch chronicled the repopulation of wildlife around Detroit, writing, “After decades of struggling to overcome the Detroit River’s polluted past, a variety of fish and bird species have re-established themselves ... [t]he budding osprey population is joined by increasing numbers of walleye, lake sturgeon and whitefish as well as bird species like the bald eagle and peregrine falcon.”​

Gee, a rag from a right wing political blog saying that the former automobile manufacturing capital of the world is now cleaner than it has been in 100 years. Big surprise. Assuming that that claim even has any merit, did it ever occur to them that perhaps the reason is because much of the manufacturing sector in Michigan is no longer in Michigan? And yes, the environment there is likely better than it used to be, thanks largely to efforts by the EPA and State environmental officials to identify and mitigate the industrial waste streams that caused the contamination in the first place.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Under Bush, every government agency was enlarged, except two. The EPA and the SEC were shrunk. How'd that turn out? Deepwater Horizon and the economic crash.

Plus he created an entirely new and massive cabinet level department. How's that police state working out for ya?

Show me those stats, please. I think you are wrong.

Regulation Grew Not Shrunk Under Bush National Review Institute Blog

• Regulatory Budget and Staffing Levels: Appropriations for federal regulatory agencies haveincreased 44% under Bush from $27 billion to $44.9 billion. Even excluding the federal takeover of airport screeners, the increase in regulatory budgets is still up 30% and non-Transportation Security Administration staff is up 11%.
• Regulatory Page Counts: In 2007 the Federal Register (the publication all proposed and finalized rules must be published in) had 72,090 pages, higher than any year before 2000. In 2007, the Code of Federal Regulation (essentially the regulatory statute book) had 145,816 pages, more than 4,500 pages longer than when Bush took office.
• The Number and Cost of Major Rules: Since Bush took office 98 rules have had an economic impact on the United States greater than $100 million. Of those 98, 75 have increased the regulatory burden and 23 have decreased it. More than half of the cost saving rules came from the FCC and SEC, two independent agencies Bush cannot directly control.
• Cost Estimates: Since Bush took office, more than $28 billion in new regulatory costs have been inflicted on the American people. Only in 2001 when Bush repealed President Bill Clinton’s costly ergonomics rule, did overall regulatory costs decrease.

There are no stats here comparing EPA and SEC staffing to the remainder of government. Not to mention I would require you to provide an official government source (and it exists but I won't give you any hints) for that information, not some blog from either side.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's cleaner because of more environmental awareness, back 100 years ago there wasn't "any" environmental awareness.

Now the GOP wants to deregulate all environment protections and dismantle the EPA....as Colbert says: "If something's working why continue it?"

So it's about awareness then it;s about regulation!

Fucking LOLberals.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

It's cleaner because of more environmental awareness, back 100 years ago there wasn't "any" environmental awareness.

Now the GOP wants to deregulate all environment protections and dismantle the EPA....as Colbert says: "If something's working why continue it?"

So it's about awareness then it;s about regulation!

Fucking LOLberals.

All the "awareness" in the world doesn't reduce pollution.

In fact, I read somewhere that recycling actually costs more in time and money than it saves. So much for awareness.

 

[Mr. H.]

So why would you want to abolish the EPA and get rid of environmental laws?

Why did your state ban hydraulic fracturing which produces natural gas which burns cleaner than coal which is a major reason emissions are at a 20 year low?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So why would you want to abolish the EPA and get rid of environmental laws?

Why did your state ban hydraulic fracturing which produces natural gas which burns cleaner than coal which is a major reason emissions are at a 20 year low?

Because...liebrals?

These turds got it banned in NY. And they actually celebrated!

 

[Nyvin]

Oh this just keeps getting better...

So the Republicans back in the early 2000's took away the EPA's "Traditional" authority over the storage of large amounts of fertilizers and gave that to the DHS, namely because the chemical companies wanted it that way. This was specifically because the Republicans did not like the EPA having any authority at all and wanted it powerless.

The result? The DHS has no fricking clue how to handle large storage of ferilizers like ammonium nitrate and a plant filled with the stuff blows up in Waco Texas killing 15 people.

West Fertilizer Company explosion - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You are so full of propoganda crap it's hilarious...please keep going.

The authority was transferred to Homeland Security because it was a homeland security issue and they had personnel and resources more suited to protecting them than EPA did or does.

Frankly, the case you list shows that EPA enforcement is grossly undermanned.

It wasn't under EPA authority, it was specifically under Homeland Security to monitor chemical storages at large plants, even though they had almost no personal or tools to do so.

Either way, it clearly does show that the GOP takes authority away from the EPA pretty much any chance it gets, regardless of the risks.

...and it also blows away your silly little talking points about "The GOP only wants the EPA to stop focusing on climate change....errr...The GOP just doesn't want "new" laws for the EPA" which frankly we both know are nonsense.

But EPA didn't have the resources either. So I fail to see your point.

Is the GOP threatening to repeal the Clean Air Act? the Clean Water Act? RCRA? FIFRA? TSCA? CERCLA?

Noooooooo.

Of course they won't publicly announce they want to repeal the Clean Water Act...that's bad publicity. They do the same thing they did for the chemical companies....They attach riders or other subtle changes to regulation to weaken them to nothing.

The Authority to regulate large storage of fertilzer chemicals was TAKEN AWAY....what part of that don't you get??? Oh and your point makes perfect sense: "One agency is underfunded to handle something...so let's give it to an agency with NOTHING!!!" Great idea Republicans!!

What riders have they attached that you find so offensive.

The chemical storage enforcement was taken away from EPA (it was delegated to states, anyway) because it was a homeland security issue!!!!!!!

DHS has far from nothing when it comes to enforcement resources. Didn't you just call it a police state?

How about the rider the GOP put in cutting the EPA budget to it's lowest level since 1989, down from 10 billion in 2010 to 8 billion next year. It's a part of the spending bill the GOP REALLY wanted in there.

The PATRIOT act and Abu Ghraib was a homeland security issue too, the GOP loved milking that line hard.

The DHS didn't even KNOW the West Fertilzer company even HAD the chemicals...let alone have any clue about how they were managed. The DHS was a horrible agency to hand the regulation of chemicals to, but it was convenient because it was manufactured by Bush and so it could be weined to the chemical companies liking.

 

[Nyvin]

It's cleaner because of more environmental awareness, back 100 years ago there wasn't "any" environmental awareness.

Now the GOP wants to deregulate all environment protections and dismantle the EPA....as Colbert says: "If something's working why continue it?"

So it's about awareness then it;s about regulation!

Fucking LOLberals.

All the "awareness" in the world doesn't reduce pollution.

In fact, I read somewhere that recycling actually costs more in time and money than it saves. So much for awareness.

Right...these regulations just come up out of nowhere...there's never any public pressure to improve the environment.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

It's cleaner because of more environmental awareness, back 100 years ago there wasn't "any" environmental awareness.

Now the GOP wants to deregulate all environment protections and dismantle the EPA....as Colbert says: "If something's working why continue it?"

So it's about awareness then it;s about regulation!

Fucking LOLberals.

All the "awareness" in the world doesn't reduce pollution.

In fact, I read somewhere that recycling actually costs more in time and money than it saves. So much for awareness.

Right...these regulations just come up out of nowhere...there's never any public pressure to improve the environment.

As I said, in the Obama Administration, EPA's priorities are screwed up. EPA wants to regulate in new areas where they don't have the resources to deal with the old stuff that still needs attention.