Wow, EPA Lost One. (1 Viewer)

[Squawker]

May 10, 7:04 PM (ET)

By JOHN HEILPRIN
WASHINGTON (AP) - The government can no longer require chemical makers and users to account for how much methyl ethyl ketone, a widely used ingredient in plastics, textiles and paints, is released into the environment each year.
A federal appeals court Tuesday ruled in favor of the American Chemistry Council, which had petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to remove the chemical, known as MEK, from its annual Toxic Release Inventory List.
The yearly list, which began with a 1986 community right-to-know law, tracks the several billion pounds of toxic chemicals released each year. EPA officials consider it an important tool, but not all-inclusive, in helping the public keep tabs on chemical pollution.

The EPA has been so overboard in their regulations, it’s nice to see a common sense decision made by the court.
Source

 

[Arch Enemy]

without the full knowledge of this chemical, I cannot easily agree with the courts decision. There was a reason why the EPA did what they did for this chemical.. and anything that harms anything shouldn't be used at all. Support Hybrid cars!

 

[Squawker]

There was a reason why the EPA did what they did for this chemical.. and anything that harms anything shouldn't be used at all.

I don't agree with either of those statements. When Nixon formed the EPA, there was a need to clean up the environment. Thirty plus years later they are trying to justify keeping the agency and their jobs. I just heard a report -- will have to find it -- maybe someone can help me -- that said the air was so clean it is making "Global Warming" worse. :doh

 

[ShamMol]

yeah find that report cause it is bs. Clean air helps cut pollution...helps stop disease...helps a lot of things....except industry, and we love our industry don't we.

 

[Random Numbers]

yeah find that report cause it is bs. Clean air helps cut pollution...helps stop disease...helps a lot of things....except industry, and we love our industry don't we.

Nature magazine, one of the biggest scaremonger mags over the unproven theory of anthropomorphic global climate change, is now saying clean air is a threat. :screwy
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-8.html

 

[ShamMol]

Nature magazine, one of the biggest scaremonger mags over the unproven theory of anthropomorphic global climate change, is now saying clean air is a threat. :screwy
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-8.html

Well eat my shorts, he was telling the truth about there being an article...

 

[Squawker]

Saved by Random Numbers. :mrgreen: Thank you.

Random.

 

[stsburns]

Scare-tactics never helped the earth. Nor did lies. People didn't care about the air until the 60's and cars could fill up on gas for $0.70. Then EPA was formed because their were big vehicles using "to much" gas. Back then it was "Muscle Cars" today they blame "Sport Utility Vehicles". Any organization telling me what to breathe, and what to drive, should find better things to do with their time. :lol:

 

[GetVictd]

without the full knowledge of this chemical, I cannot easily agree with the courts decision. There was a reason why the EPA did what they did for this chemical.. and anything that harms anything shouldn't be used at all. Support Hybrid cars!

How can one support Hybrid cars.

Also can someone bring up the issue of a law allowing automobile companies to produce a new/better/best you've ever saw/get it while it's hot car once every five years (or more) and not every year. PLEASE.

 

[GetVictd]

Nature magazine, one of the biggest scaremonger mags over the unproven theory of anthropomorphic global climate change, is now saying clean air is a threat. :screwy
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050502/full/050502-8.html

LOL if I were to believe this I would've bought that bridge they were selling the other day.

BTW is GE trying to tell me that coal is now clean burning?

 

[stump]

I just heard a report -- will have to find it -- maybe someone can help me -- that said the air was so clean it is making "Global Warming" worse. :doh

I get to use the :spin: icon for the first time! :lol:

The report was referring to "global dimming" as in less sunlight reaching the Earth. With less particulate in the air more sunlight reaches the ground.

Global warming, however, is the theory regarding greenhouse gasses in the air and how an increase in them will create a greenhouse affect and increase the temperature of the globe.

Two very different matters. What is happening, according to the most likely scenario, is that global dimming has lessened the affects of global warming. Now that global dimming is lessening global warming is a larger concern. So while you're technically correct you're using correct facts to spin things your way.

I don't think anyone here wants to increase global dimming. Particulate in the air is not good for the lungs.

 

[Squawker]

Global warming, however, is the theory regarding greenhouse gasses in the air and how an increase in them will create a greenhouse affect and increase the temperature of the globe.

The basis of Global Warming is that man made "pollution" of the environment is what creates the "greenhouse effect". So :spin: it any way you want. I simply related the "story" which it all is anyway. The EPA has been finding excuses to keep and expand their staff for the last ten years. It needs to be reduced and incorporated into another department such as Health and Human Services IMO.

 

[stump]

The basis of Global Warming is that man made "pollution" of the environment is what creates the "greenhouse effect".

True, but we're talking about two different types of pollution. Global warming is about greenhouse gasses; global dimming is about particulates. Ash versus CO2. More light versus trapping light.