You gotta love the NEW EPA!

#81
Lovely.

Just a question for those firm deniers of AGW. If you don't believe the whole greenhouse gas theory, do you deny the effects that other forms of pollution is having on our ecosystems? Stuff that human actions alone are causing? Any number of oil spills, mines seeping chemicals all over the place, coal plants and smelters releasing exorbitant levels of mercury (a neurotoxin and carcinogen) amongst other pollutants into the atmosphere and water? This has nothing to do with warming, simply the expulsion of mass amounts of pollutants into the water and air and the effects it has on our environment and the critters that live there, including humans.

I'm just confused. From what I've seen, most of y'all deniers lean towards the right. Many of you have been very outspoken in how you support developments such as pebble mine. The right is currently gung-ho for deregulation, cutting back air and water quality standards, decimating the EPA into a perverse joke of what it's purpose was, cutting back on national monuments to set up industrial sites (polluters).... how, as outdoorsmen and women, do you support this party's actions which leans against the idea of protecting the natural world in which you not only recreate, but receive sustenance, etc.

Maybe I'm naive, but doesn't that sound quite hypocritical?

Do we actually just say F it and build up as much profit as we can as a country before we die, and call it another generation's problem? Or do we try and mitigate it as much as we can, by cutting back practices and protecting vital areas of our world?

I'm not looking to start a fight, I'm looking for insight into how y'all view things.
 
#82
We rape the planet of all it's resources until there are none, and then we die off as a civilization, becoming just a dead rock orbiting a sun. But it's all good, because along the way a bunch of folks got very rich.
 

Klickrolf

Active Member
#83
Lovely.

Just a question for those firm deniers of AGW. If you don't believe the whole greenhouse gas theory, do you deny the effects that other forms of pollution is having on our ecosystems? Stuff that human actions alone are causing? Any number of oil spills, mines seeping chemicals all over the place, coal plants and smelters releasing exorbitant levels of mercury (a neurotoxin and carcinogen) amongst other pollutants into the atmosphere and water? This has nothing to do with warming, simply the expulsion of mass amounts of pollutants into the water and air and the effects it has on our environment and the critters that live there, including humans.

I'm just confused. From what I've seen, most of y'all deniers lean towards the right. Many of you have been very outspoken in how you support developments such as pebble mine. The right is currently gung-ho for deregulation, cutting back air and water quality standards, decimating the EPA into a perverse joke of what it's purpose was, cutting back on national monuments to set up industrial sites (polluters).... how, as outdoorsmen and women, do you support this party's actions which leans against the idea of protecting the natural world in which you not only recreate, but receive sustenance, etc.

Maybe I'm naive, but doesn't that sound quite hypocritical?

Do we actually just say F it and build up as much profit as we can as a country before we die, and call it another generation's problem? Or do we try and mitigate it as much as we can, by cutting back practices and protecting vital areas of our world?

I'm not looking to start a fight, I'm looking for insight into how y'all view things.
I'll give that a shot Ian.
I'm probably one of the most vocal here regarding CO2 and global warming. First off you begin by calling me a denier but I don't deny climate change. However, I do strongly deny the science supporting global warming because the science just plain does not exist, its' made up for another purpose and uses failed models to support itself. The earth's atmosphere is not a greenhouse, nor does it act like a greenhouse. Heat in all wavelengths cools as it rises in our atmosphere. The only heat trapping is done by clouds (water vapor). There is no demonstrated and repeatable science that supports global warming based on CO2 concentrations. There is a ton of science demonstrating atmospheric CO2 rises AFTER temps rise so therefore it cannot be the cause. It works in a lab or a greenhouse but for very different and well known reasons. For the sake of brevity I'm not going to get into the details but if you care to learn about it you certainly can. You need to look at all the evidence as opposed to only evidence that supports your views. You also need to be aware that CO2 is the fuel of life on this planet, atmospheric levels determine how productive the planet is. If we want more fish then we must also want more CO2, especially where habitat has been degraded!

I don't think any of the more conservative or right leaning people who visit this website approve of pollution of any kind. Trouble is we all use and need all these polluting products, whatever the form. We blame (and hate) "rich" corporations for destroying our environment while we buy their products because we "want" them. We certainly could go back to living in caves and riding horses and growing/harvesting our food but I'm confident NONE of us want to do that. Take your choice.

We need to transport oil and pipelines are far less likely to leak but because of resistance to pipelines sometimes rail is the only way...and spills will occur. Unrefined oil is a naturally occurring product of the planet and it all comes from mother earth, she made it and she holds it for us. Even unrefined oil is a pollutant, just like lead and mercury etc. Concentrations are where it becomes a problem though it is concentrated naturally in the earth.

We all make choices every day and those choices can put us in places where pollution problems are more severe. Take Bob Williams who lives in Chicago a short distance from a coal plant, he has a choice to live and work there, he doesn't like the pollution but apparently he makes enough money and likes where he lives and works enough to stay there, it's his choice. The USA is supposed to be a free country but as soon as we start making lifestyle choices for other people we have problems and lose freedoms.

The EPA has done great things for this country but in recent years has gone overboard. We all need jobs and we work for a better life and as populations increase there will be more and more competition for everything. Developed countries have the cleanest environments because we have money to pay for it.

That'll be enough for now and it should be interesting to read the responses.
 
#84
I'll give that a shot Ian.
I'm probably one of the most vocal here regarding CO2 and global warming.
Thanks for the insight Klick. I disagree with 99% of your reasoning put that's a difference in opinion and political orientation. I'm still trying to understand the other side of the argument so that's fine.

What I understand... forgive me if I'm misreading you... is that we are going to pollute regardless. That's true, it's inevitable in our day and age. And I believe that right-wingers don't like the idea of pollution. But, right wingers still are in favor of economic policies which cause more pollution. Corporations have no incentive to protect the environment or limit pollution, as doing so cuts into their profits. There is no economic motive.

By supporting deregulation of stuff such as air and water quality standards, for example, you support the idea that more pollution will occur at the expense of these corporations making more money. This increase in pollution (not even CO2, since you believe CO2 is a good thing...) from mercury, crude oil, harmful pesticides, drug components, wastewater and waste material, directly effects our natural world, including the fish that we so love to target. We CANNOT stop pollution, but we can cull it to less harmful levels, better protecting it for the future. That's my understanding. Why not protect our most valuable resources as much as we can?

Trains, pipelines, etc... both are dangerous. Lack of regulation on both has made them even more dangerous. That is why there is so much opposition, among other factors. Why not make them as safe as possible though? If we reduced the amount of incidents due to higher regulation standards, we'd save money in the long term and protect our ecosystems as well. That's what I don't get.

I can use gasoline, acknowledge that I'm a polluter, and want to protect the environment by regulating industry more so that we collectively pollute less. "Take your choice." It is NOT a black and white issue.

"We all make choices every day and those choices can put us in places where pollution problems are more severe."- Like choosing to support deregulation over regulation? I agree. Yes, privileged people have the ability to choose where they live. Many do not, and are forced to live in highly polluted areas based on factors they CANNOT control. That gets very complex.

"The USA is supposed to be a free country but as soon as we start making lifestyle choices for other people we have problems and lose freedoms." What freedoms are you referring too?

As expected, the water is no clearer than I thought it would be.
 
#85
Gotta get rid of all that excessive overreach, don't ya know?

The EPA is targeting two rules designed to prevent exposure to toxic chemicals by workers under the age of 18. The agency has filed notices with the federal register of its intent to either tweak or eliminate these protections for underage workers. These two rules the agency is looking to change is was adopted in 2015 which prohibited farmworkers under the age of 18 from handling and dispersing certain pesticides deemed too toxic for public sale. The rules were put in place in 2015 after doctors lobbied for tighter restrictions for underage workers due to the potential impacts of this class of chemicals on the still-developing bodies of children, and they warned about very severe health impacts that these chemicals could have on brain development.
 
#86
Gotta get rid of all that excessive overreach, don't ya know?

The EPA is targeting two rules designed to prevent exposure to toxic chemicals by workers under the age of 18. The agency has filed notices with the federal register of its intent to either tweak or eliminate these protections for underage workers. These two rules the agency is looking to change is was adopted in 2015 which prohibited farmworkers under the age of 18 from handling and dispersing certain pesticides deemed too toxic for public sale. The rules were put in place in 2015 after doctors lobbied for tighter restrictions for underage workers due to the potential impacts of this class of chemicals on the still-developing bodies of children, and they warned about very severe health impacts that these chemicals could have on brain development.
A-fucking-men. In what way is a choice like that not a total cash grab by corporations at the expense of workers? One could argue that "they don't have to work there, it's their choice, they know the risks"--- and many employers have been known to withhold this information (toxicity) from employees-- but somebody needs to do the work, right? Someone has to do the dirty work, so why not protect them? Do we just send people to take the L for us, knowing they're at super high risk of neurological and developmental disorders?

Much of these regulations deal with the chemical usage of farmworkers stemming from California and other border states. Most of these farmworkers are Mexican. We know what Trump thinks of Mexicans. We've seen anti-Mexican rhetoric throughout Republican and Neo-Liberal campaigns for the past 50 years. I wonder if racial bias plays a role in these decisions, I wonder....
 

Klickrolf

Active Member
#87
...These two rules the agency is looking to change is was adopted in 2015 which prohibited farmworkers under the age of 18 from handling and dispersing certain pesticides deemed too toxic for public sale. The rules were put in place in 2015 after doctors lobbied for tighter restrictions for underage workers due to the potential impacts of this class of chemicals on the still-developing bodies of children, and they warned about very severe health impacts that these chemicals could have on brain development.
No mention of required on the job training while mixing or applying pesticides? Employees are not the public while on the job. Got any links to support those words Trip?

There is an absolutely necessary economic argument here that none of you will like but I think you know is true. Cost vs. Benefit
First $5 gets 10% benefit
Next $15 gets 50% benefit
Next $20 gets 15% benefit
Next $25 gets 2% benefit
Next $30 gets .03% benefit
Next $35 gets .00001% benefit
Should we spend the next $40? Should we go back a bit and look at the numbers?

What amount of regulation is most beneficial? Lots involved here but jobs and business and corporations are what makes our economy work and why people from around the world try to immigrate to the US.

I suspect a bunch of you guys who hate the Trump administration are beginning to benefit from it. I also suspect you'll see more benefits that you'll like or at least appreciate a little bit.
 

FinLuver

Active Member
#88
In what way is a choice like that not a total cash grab by corporations at the expense of workers? One could argue that "they don't have to work there, it's their choice, they know the risks"--- and many employers have been known to withhold this information (toxicity) from employees-- but somebody needs to do the work, right? Someone has to do the dirty work, so why not protect them? Do we just send people to take the L for us, knowing they're at super high risk of neurological and developmental disorders?
I agree with what you are saying (about the past and sometimes continued safety practices today) and used to have that way of thinking too. However, knowing what I know now...Safety and knowing the job hazards is an EMPLOYEE'S responsibility. And, I'm not saying that employers are not responsible as well. But, at the end of the day, it's an employee's responsibility to make sure he and his co-workers return home safely at the end of the work shift. Know what a job entails... Then and only then, can one weigh the "risk to monetary benefit" of going into a profession.

In today's information and internet society, there's really no excuse for "ignorance" regarding workplace hazards.

https://www.osha.gov/
https://www.osha.gov/opengov/healthsamples.html
http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/clinical-proceedings/RHE/Workplace
https://sis.nlm.nih.gov/enviro.html

(Sorry ladies for using the male pronouns...just didn't want to do the "He/She" thing...)
 
Last edited:

FinLuver

Active Member
#90
Two stupid fucks are actually trying to defend poisoning children. Holy. Fucking. Shit. I shouldn't be surprised given both their rhetoric so far. But I find myself still surprised. They would literally argue if you said the sky was blue, for fucks sake!
Coming from the biggest stupid fuck on here...no surprise.
 

Latest posts