• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The EPA...Do We Really Want to Abolish it?

Patrickt said:
I wasn't obsessing. Obsessing is what the government is doing. Obsessing over control. You will change the pronouns you use. Why? Because. I was simply curious and thought it was interesting that you can't easily find how many.

Perhaps that's because regulations are being written at such a rate it would have to be a clock like the national debt clock that clicks every second?

Yes, there is an absolute number but I have no idea what it is. When lying to the government gets you prison time and selling raw milk gets a SWAT response there is something seriously wrong.
Click to expand...

Ok. Let's say we hit that absolute number.

And then somebody discovers a new chemical that is useful as a rocket fuel, but is dangerous and should be carefully stored. Are you suggesting:

1) No regulations can be added for this chemical
2) Regulations should be added to cover this chemical, but you have to eliminate other regulations to keep within the arbitrary limit
3) The arbitrary limit changes arbitrarily to cover the new chemical
 
Deuce said:
Ok. Let's say we hit that absolute number.

And then somebody discovers a new chemical that is useful as a rocket fuel, but is dangerous and should be carefully stored. Are you suggesting:

1) No regulations can be added for this chemical
2) Regulations should be added to cover this chemical, but you have to eliminate other regulations to keep within the arbitrary limit
3) The arbitrary limit changes arbitrarily to cover the new chemical
Click to expand...
That is a poor analogy as OSHA already does that with MSDS sheets.
 
Deuce said:
Ok. Let's say we hit that absolute number.

And then somebody discovers a new chemical that is useful as a rocket fuel, but is dangerous and should be carefully stored. Are you suggesting:

1) No regulations can be added for this chemical
2) Regulations should be added to cover this chemical, but you have to eliminate other regulations to keep within the arbitrary limit
3) The arbitrary limit changes arbitrarily to cover the new chemical
Click to expand...

I would suggest #2. They could eliminate some regulations which regulate non-existent substances, discontinued products, or for things that never existed.

"Question: Do you fill your car’s tank with gasoline that is part cellulosic ethanol, an environment-friendly distillate of wood chips, corn cobs, and switch grass? Let me answer for you: No, you don’t. You couldn’t if you wanted to. Petroleum products blended with cellulosic ethanol aren’t commercially available, because the technology for mass-producing cellulosic ethanol hasn’t been perfected. None of which has stopped the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing hefty yearly fines on oil refiners. According to the The New York Times, in 2011 automotive fuel producers were assessed $6.8 million in penalties. That amount is expected to climb dramatically this year. Guess who ends up footing the bill for the difference?"
EPA fines oil refiners for failing to use nonexistent biofuel « Hot Air

If the EPA eliminates regulations are rigorously as the government discontinued unneeded committees or communities eliminate out-of-date laws then elimination never occurs.
 
Patrickt said:
I would suggest #2. They could eliminate some regulations which regulate non-existent substances, discontinued products, or for things that never existed.

"Question: Do you fill your car’s tank with gasoline that is part cellulosic ethanol, an environment-friendly distillate of wood chips, corn cobs, and switch grass? Let me answer for you: No, you don’t. You couldn’t if you wanted to. Petroleum products blended with cellulosic ethanol aren’t commercially available, because the technology for mass-producing cellulosic ethanol hasn’t been perfected. None of which has stopped the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing hefty yearly fines on oil refiners. According to the The New York Times, in 2011 automotive fuel producers were assessed $6.8 million in penalties. That amount is expected to climb dramatically this year. Guess who ends up footing the bill for the difference?"
EPA fines oil refiners for failing to use nonexistent biofuel « Hot Air

If the EPA eliminates regulations are rigorously as the government discontinued unneeded committees or communities eliminate out-of-date laws then elimination never occurs.
Click to expand...

So, that covers one new addition to the world. How about the next one?
 
Deuce said:
Were you really unable to discern the point?
Click to expand...
Your point was that without a EPA no new chemical could be safely brought to market,
and that was not correct.
 
longview said:
Your point was that without a EPA no new chemical could be safely brought to market,
and that was not correct.
Click to expand...

...

So yes, you really were unable to discern the point.

Because that wasn't it at all.
 
Deuce said:
...

So yes, you really were unable to discern the point.

Because that wasn't it at all.
Click to expand...

Then maybe your communications skills are worse than your understanding of common words.

Words have meaning!
 
Lord of Planar said:
Then maybe your communications skills are worse than your understanding of common words.

Words have meaning!
Click to expand...

They do, and I didn't use any words that point towards his conclusion.
 
Patrickt said:
I went looking to find out how many regulations the EPA had foisted on the country. I could not find a number anywhere. Surely someone knows and isn't saying. Could we possibly have this hive of obsessive/compulsive twits cranking out regulations and no one keeps track?
Click to expand...


Go here:

https://www.regulations.gov/


Just do yourself a favor and be prepared to be shocked by what you learn about the EPA, as well as all the other regulations government agencies have passed, or are under consideration.
 
I say get rid of the EPA, what we do is collect ground water and air samples and the CEO and board members would be required to build their homes and live on the sites where the most pollution they created is found.
 
American said:
It's powers need to be SEVERELY curtailed.
Click to expand...

My first response as well. It's gone too far over the line of it's powers, EPA overreach, in this administration in pursuit of Obama's ideological agenda.
Yet another weaponized government department of his.
 
blaxshep said:
I say get rid of the EPA, what we do is collect ground water and air samples and the CEO and board members would be required to build their homes and live on the sites where the most pollution they created is found.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's definitely something Congress would do to all their golf buddies.
 
eohrnberger said:
My first response as well. It's gone too far over the line of it's powers, EPA overreach, in this administration in pursuit of Obama's ideological agenda.
Yet another weaponized government department of his.
Click to expand...

I hear this a lot but most of the time people don't actually point out any specific overreach.
 
Deuce said:
I hear this a lot but most of the time people don't actually point out any specific overreach.
Click to expand...

Supreme Court Rejects Effort to Halt EPA Mercury Rule
Error Page - Wsj.com...
The Wall Street Journal
Mar 3, 2016 - The Supreme Court denied a request by states seeking to block an ... Justice John Roberts Denies States' Effort to Halt EPA Emissions Rule.
Chief Justice Rejects Effort to Block E.P.A. Limit on Power Plants - The ...
The New York Times on the Web: Update Error...
The New York Times
Mar 3, 2016 - In that 5-to-4 decision, Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court ruled that the agency had run afoul of the Clean Air ...
Supreme Court puts the brakes on the EPA's Clean Power Plan - The ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../supreme-court-puts-the-brakes...
The Washington Post
Feb 9, 2016 - In a surprise move, a 5-4 Supreme Court places a hold on the EPA's ... particularly where (as here) the D.C. Circuit had denied a similar request. ... EPA, in which the court invalidated another EPA rule to little practical effect.

You can keep Googling. Been quite a number of them.
 
eohrnberger said:
My first response as well. It's gone too far over the line of it's powers, EPA overreach, in this administration in pursuit of Obama's ideological agenda.
Yet another weaponized government department of his.
Click to expand...

Consider this overreach of the EPA under Obama's directives, and hand picked directors:

https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice

It boggles the mind to think how an agency like the EPA believes it's mission is that of a social justice warrior.

How is it possible that "race, color, national origin, or income" would have any relationship to regulations applying to all people? Why would any one of those criteria need to be considered?

If one checks into their Environmental Justice agenda, it becomes clear the EPA is planning on using it's unilateral regulatory powers to circumvent state and local control.

While there are many reasons to reign in the EPA, this program is a glaring example of why it must be done.
 
ocean515 said:
Consider this overreach of the EPA under Obama's directives, and hand picked directors:

https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice

It boggles the mind to think how an agency like the EPA believes it's mission is that of a social justice warrior.

How is it possible that "race, color, national origin, or income" would have any relationship to regulations applying to all people? Why would any one of those criteria need to be considered?

If one checks into their Environmental Justice agenda, it becomes clear the EPA is planning on using it's unilateral regulatory powers to circumvent state and local control.

While there are many reasons to reign in the EPA, this program is a glaring example of why it must be done.
Click to expand...

When someone claims social justice or environmental justice, I just keep thinking that it's exactly the opposite of any sort of 'justice'.
 
eohrnberger said:
Supreme Court Rejects Effort to Halt EPA Mercury Rule
Error Page - Wsj.com...
The Wall Street Journal
Mar 3, 2016 - The Supreme Court denied a request by states seeking to block an ... Justice John Roberts Denies States' Effort to Halt EPA Emissions Rule.
Chief Justice Rejects Effort to Block E.P.A. Limit on Power Plants - The ...
The New York Times on the Web: Update Error...
The New York Times
Mar 3, 2016 - In that 5-to-4 decision, Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court ruled that the agency had run afoul of the Clean Air ...
Supreme Court puts the brakes on the EPA's Clean Power Plan - The ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../supreme-court-puts-the-brakes...
The Washington Post
Feb 9, 2016 - In a surprise move, a 5-4 Supreme Court places a hold on the EPA's ... particularly where (as here) the D.C. Circuit had denied a similar request. ... EPA, in which the court invalidated another EPA rule to little practical effect.

You can keep Googling. Been quite a number of them.
Click to expand...

All three of those links are broken, sorry.
 
Deuce said:
All three of those links are broken, sorry.
Click to expand...

(*sigh*) forgot that you can't copy / paste from Google search results it seems.

Lots to choose from. This is only page #1 of About 12,800,000 results

Supreme Court puts the brakes on the EPA’s Clean Power Plan

Supreme Court overturns landmark EPA air pollution rule

List of examples of federal regulatory overreach is way too long - See more at: List of examples of federal regulatory overreach is way too long

Supreme Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Efforts to Regulate Coal Emissions

Supreme Court rules against White House in water pollution case

Court rules against EPA’s invasive species rule

`Unprecedented' Supreme Court Stay Reflects An Audacious EPA Rule

U.S. top court rules against Obama administration over air pollution rule

Supreme Court rules against EPA on pollution rules

EPA Losses Shed Light on Supreme Court’s Blocking of Carbon Rule

Supreme Court blocks Obama climate change rules

Who's Regulating the Regulators?
Federal agencies like the EPA shouldn't be able to issue expensive new rules without external checks and balances.
 
eohrnberger said:
(*sigh*) forgot that you can't copy / paste from Google search results it seems.

Lots to choose from. This is only page #1 of About 12,800,000 results

Supreme Court puts the brakes on the EPA’s Clean Power Plan

Supreme Court overturns landmark EPA air pollution rule

List of examples of federal regulatory overreach is way too long - See more at: List of examples of federal regulatory overreach is way too long

Supreme Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Efforts to Regulate Coal Emissions

Supreme Court rules against White House in water pollution case

Court rules against EPA’s invasive species rule

`Unprecedented' Supreme Court Stay Reflects An Audacious EPA Rule

U.S. top court rules against Obama administration over air pollution rule

Supreme Court rules against EPA on pollution rules

EPA Losses Shed Light on Supreme Court’s Blocking of Carbon Rule

Supreme Court blocks Obama climate change rules

Who's Regulating the Regulators?
Federal agencies like the EPA shouldn't be able to issue expensive new rules without external checks and balances.
Click to expand...

Redundant links in an effort to make it seem like it happens more often. And some of the blocks are temporary pending further hearings.

Are you trying to suggest to me that the EPA has overstepped its bounds 12,800,000 times? Do you not know how internet works?

One of the key objections is that the EPA "didn't consider compliance costs" when forming the rules on mercury emissions. Which is a very strange claim seeing as they did have such an estimate.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
On hold pending appeals is hardly a massive rebuke of the EPA's actions.

Speaking of which, did these decisions get finalized in last week's SCOTUS flurry? I hadn't been paying much attention this year.
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose it depends on point of view as to whether having the SCOTUS halt an action is a massive rebuke. Pretty far up there I would suggest, but then again, that is my point of view.

Don't know about decisions last week. I would think they would have been reported if action was taken.
 
ocean515 said:
Well, I suppose it depends on point of view as to whether having the SCOTUS halt an action is a massive rebuke. Pretty far up there I would suggest, but then again, that is my point of view.

Don't know about decisions last week. I would think they would have been reported if action was taken.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ignore that last bit. I was mixing up a case about mercury with another one about carbon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom