• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Wow, EPA Lost One.

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,470
Reaction score
2,085
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
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

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Saved by Random Numbers. :mrgreen: Thank you.

Random.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
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

New member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Arch Enemy said:
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

New member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Random Numbers said:
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

Member
Joined
May 23, 2005
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
Squawker said:
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. :cool:

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

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

Member
Joined
May 23, 2005
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
Squawker said:
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.
 
Top Bottom