EPA now under attack

[zico20]

Trump has selected Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA. He is an outspoken critic of the EPA. Now we can start getting rid of all of these unnecessary regulations that has burdened companies. :jump:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/07/trump-to-nominate-epa-critic-pruitt-to-lead-agency.html

[boxcar]

Trump has selected Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA. He is an outspoken critic of the EPA. Now we can start getting rid of all of these unnecessary regulations that has burdened companies. :jump:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/07/trump-to-nominate-epa-critic-pruitt-to-lead-agency.html

Great pick! An enemy of my enemy is my friend!

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Trump has selected Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA. He is an outspoken critic of the EPA. Now we can start getting rid of all of these unnecessary regulations that has burdened companies. :jump:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/07/trump-to-nominate-epa-critic-pruitt-to-lead-agency.html
What are your favorite three regulations that need to go?

[JustRalph]

What are your favorite three regulations that need to go?

All of them

[HalvOnHorseracing]

All of them
Just give me the top three. The worst of the worst.

[LottaKash]

Just give me the top three. The worst of the worst.

Over the years I have read horror stories about people and jobs that were ruined by the EPA's Nazi like tactics..

For instance, a very close friend of mine, who owned his own trucking enterprise, was near the end of his run, where he was going to refuel upon the return...He had one side of his two 150 Gal tanks closed off, and he estimated that he had about 20 gals left to finish the day...More than enough as he was so near.. While sitting in traffic a car was changing lanes and that driver somehow managed to kiss the left side diesel tank of my friends big-rig...A slow leak was the result of that encounter...So, he pulled off the road, and the next thing you know, the police were on the scene, and a "hazmat crew" soon showed up...Sirens blaring and men in plastic jumpsuits all over the place !

The EPA fined him $25,000 for that "SPILL" and the minor cleanup....He managed to get it down to $5G's...

But still, when he took the truck in for repairs to the leaking tank, there was almost 15 gals that had to be drained before the repair...About a 5-gal loss...

And, it wasn't even his fault to begin with...But not to the EPA, it didn't matter, as he was the one responsible for his rig...

Crazy Law...I think..

[zico20]

Just give me the top three. The worst of the worst.

You want me to go through hundreds of thousands of regulations and pick the worst three. That would take me years, so I won't do it. But here is one that must go ASAP.

The Unions Rule Rule. New rules require government contractors to give first preference in hiring to the workers of the company that lost the contract. Tens of thousands of companies will be affected, with compliance costs running into the tens of millions of dollars—costs ultimately borne by taxpayers. The rule effectively ensures that a non-unionized contractor cannot replace a unionized one. That’s because any new contractor will be obliged to hire its predecessors’ unionized workers and thus be forced by the “Successorship Doctrine” to bargain with the union(s).

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You want me to go through hundreds of thousands of regulations and pick the worst three. That would take me years, so I won't do it. But here is one that must go ASAP.

The Unions Rule Rule. New rules require government contractors to give first preference in hiring to the workers of the company that lost the contract. Tens of thousands of companies will be affected, with compliance costs running into the tens of millions of dollars—costs ultimately borne by taxpayers. The rule effectively ensures that a non-unionized contractor cannot replace a unionized one. That’s because any new contractor will be obliged to hire its predecessors’ unionized workers and thus be forced by the “Successorship Doctrine” to bargain with the union(s).
That is not an EPA rule. That is a Department of Labor Rule. I asked you to give me the three most offensive EPA rules. There aren't hundreds of thousands of EPA regulations to go through. I just want to know what you see the EPA doing that doesn't constitute legitimate environmental protection. You must have some idea of what would cause you to think we need to repeal existing environmental rules. Just off the top of your head - what has affected you personally, or just generally pissed you off.

You realize there is no governmental rule that doesn't occur as a result of federal legislation passed by the Congress, right? The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, etc. Did you think agencies just decided for themselves when to pick on companies? No federal agency has power that wasn't granted to them specifically by Congress.

[dartman51]

What are your favorite three regulations that need to go?

How about the one that prevents California farmers from getting water because of the "delta smelt". Just one in a long list of RIDICULOUS regulations, that do more harm than good.

You can find more here. http://wastefraudandabuse.org/stupid-epa-regulations/

[Ocala Mike]

Halv, the climate science deniers who are denizens of PA are against the EPA and everything it stands for because it is in their "government is the enemy" playbook. I would posit that three things that would be attacked first would be anything having to do with the Paris accords, the Clean Waters Act, and the new rule about release of methane into the atmosphere.

I liken this announcement nominating the former AG of the Sooner State as head of the EPA as akin to hiring Dracula to head up a blood bank.

[JustRalph]

1. Ethanol can be as high as 15% per gallon= ruins engines

2. Avg fuel economy standards......tampers with the car market

3. Demanding coal fired factories scrub down to limits less than appears naturally in some areas


Just off the top of my head. Pretty sure these are all EPA regs

[Clocker]

I wrote off the EPA as a credible or responsible organization some years ago when the head of the agency announced that one of its high priorities was "environmental justice". I have seen no evidence that Congress ever charged the EPA with maintaining "environmental justice", and have no trust for any governmental organization that assumes powers not specifically granted to it. It should have been reined in long ago.

[tucker6]

That is not an EPA rule. That is a Department of Labor Rule. I asked you to give me the three most offensive EPA rules. There aren't hundreds of thousands of EPA regulations to go through. I just want to know what you see the EPA doing that doesn't constitute legitimate environmental protection. You must have some idea of what would cause you to think we need to repeal existing environmental rules. Just off the top of your head - what has affected you personally, or just generally pissed you off.

You realize there is no governmental rule that doesn't occur as a result of federal legislation passed by the Congress, right? The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, etc. Did you think agencies just decided for themselves when to pick on companies? No federal agency has power that wasn't granted to them specifically by Congress.
Very much not true. Ever hear of Executive Orders??

As for the EPA, it needs to be burned to the ground. Here is an article for you to read:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/new-epa-regs-issued-under-obama-are-38-times-long-bible

Since President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued 2,827 new final regulations, equaling 24,915 pages in the Federal Register, totaling approximately 24,915,000 words.

The Gutenberg Bible is only 1,282 pages and 646,128 words. Thus, the new EPA regulations issued by the Obama Administration contain 19 times as many pages as the Bible and 38 times as many words.

It's insane that 2,827 new EPA regulations were required in the first five years of Obama's presidency. Since Congress is in session about 140 days per year, then according to you, four new EPA regulations were passed every day Congress was 'working' during Obama's first five years in office! How does a business keep up with that pace of regulatory over reach?

[Tom]

We don't deny climate, we just understand it is not going to be changed by anything a bunch of idiots do.

Bat Boy is a bigger threat than the climate.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Very much not true. Ever hear of Executive Orders??

As for the EPA, it needs to be burned to the ground. Here is an article for you to read:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/new-epa-regs-issued-under-obama-are-38-times-long-bible

Since President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued 2,827 new final regulations, equaling 24,915 pages in the Federal Register, totaling approximately 24,915,000 words.

The Gutenberg Bible is only 1,282 pages and 646,128 words. Thus, the new EPA regulations issued by the Obama Administration contain 19 times as many pages as the Bible and 38 times as many words.

It's insane that 2,827 new EPA regulations were required in the first five years of Obama's presidency. Since Congress is in session about 140 days per year, then according to you, four new EPA regulations were passed every day Congress was 'working' during Obama's first five years in office! How does a business keep up with that pace of regulatory over reach?
First, Executive Orders are not regulations. If the President could make rules about anything he pleased, we wouldn't need the Constitution or the Congress. The question isn't whether I've heard of Executive Orders, but whether you know what an Executive Order is and how it differs from a regulation.

The Bible is more like the enabling legislation - The Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act - and the regulations are the implementation of the Acts. So the comparison is not direct. Now if you wanted to cite the number of words that had been written interpreting the Bible you'd have an appropriate comparison. What may sound like a lot of words is business as usual under every recent president.

To paraphrase the Emperor in Amadeus, if there are too many words, which ones need to go?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I wrote off the EPA as a credible or responsible organization some years ago when the head of the agency announced that one of its high priorities was "environmental justice". I have seen no evidence that Congress ever charged the EPA with maintaining "environmental justice", and have no trust for any governmental organization that assumes powers not specifically granted to it. It should have been reined in long ago.
So how do they get away with implementing EJ? Are you sure there is no Congressional authority for enforcing non-discrimination when it comes to environmental protection?

And that's the best you've got? EPA considers EJ (because they are required to) in completing the mission Congress has given them and the whole agency is corrupt? Has to go?

What is so bad about non-discrimination in the implementation of environmental law? Any law for that matter.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

How about the one that prevents California farmers from getting water because of the "delta smelt". Just one in a long list of RIDICULOUS regulations, that do more harm than good.

You can find more here. http://wastefraudandabuse.org/stupid-epa-regulations/
Endangered species are regulated by the Department of Interior, not EPA.

I think the important point is that most people don't know what EPA does that is critical to protecting the health of Americans, and even if there are regulations that should be adjusted, on balance the good far outweighs the bad.

[Clocker]

So how do they get away with implementing EJ? Are you sure there is no Congressional authority for enforcing non-discrimination when it comes to environmental protection?

And that's the best you've got? EPA considers EJ (because they are required to) in completing the mission Congress has given them and the whole agency is corrupt? Has to go?

What is so bad about non-discrimination in the implementation of environmental law? Any law for that matter.

Environmental justice as considered by the EPA, at least during the Lisa Jackson regime, was not about non-discrimination, it was about disparate outcomes.

[boxcar]

All of them

:lol: :lol:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Environmental justice as considered by the EPA, at least during the Lisa Jackson regime, was not about non-discrimination, it was about disparate outcomes.
So now that we'll have a president Trump, EJ can be about what it was supposed to be about - non-discrimination. So apparently your problem with the EPA will disappear.

[Clocker]

So apparently your problem with the EPA will disappear.

And if there is any environmental justice in the world, so will the EPA.:cool:

[boxcar]

You realize there is no governmental rule that doesn't occur as a result of federal legislation passed by the Congress, right? The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, etc. Did you think agencies just decided for themselves when to pick on companies? No federal agency has power that wasn't granted to them specifically by Congress.

You know not of what you speak!

A number of laws serve as EPA's foundation for protecting the environment and public health. However, most laws do not have enough detail to be put into practice right away.
More Information

Basics of the Regulatory Process
External Resources

EPA is called a regulatory agency because Congress authorizes us to write regulations that explain the critical details necessary to implement environmental laws. In addition, a number of Presidential Executive Orders (EOs) play a central role in our activities.

https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders

This is precisely why the EPA has far too much power that must be reigned in! They very often make up their own regulations with virtually no congressional oversight. Congress has unleashed this beast upon Americans and now the beast needs to be put back in the cage.

[chadk66]

yep first and foremost is blow the new power plant scrubber rule up. In ND they are forcing our plants to install over 800 million in equipment that will not reduce pollution by one ounce. And quit trying to control all water even sloughs in farmers fields:mad:

[tucker6]

First, Executive Orders are not regulations. If the President could make rules about anything he pleased, we wouldn't need the Constitution or the Congress. The question isn't whether I've heard of Executive Orders, but whether you know what an Executive Order is and how it differs from a regulation.

The Bible is more like the enabling legislation - The Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act - and the regulations are the implementation of the Acts. So the comparison is not direct. Now if you wanted to cite the number of words that had been written interpreting the Bible you'd have an appropriate comparison. What may sound like a lot of words is business as usual under every recent president.

To paraphrase the Emperor in Amadeus, if there are too many words, which ones need to go?
you completely missed the point :lol:

[boxcar]

Very much not true. Ever hear of Executive Orders??

As for the EPA, it needs to be burned to the ground. Here is an article for you to read:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/new-epa-regs-issued-under-obama-are-38-times-long-bible

Since President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued 2,827 new final regulations, equaling 24,915 pages in the Federal Register, totaling approximately 24,915,000 words.

The Gutenberg Bible is only 1,282 pages and 646,128 words. Thus, the new EPA regulations issued by the Obama Administration contain 19 times as many pages as the Bible and 38 times as many words.

It's insane that 2,827 new EPA regulations were required in the first five years of Obama's presidency. Since Congress is in session about 140 days per year, then according to you, four new EPA regulations were passed every day Congress was 'working' during Obama's first five years in office! How does a business keep up with that pace of regulatory over reach?

It doesn't and it can't and it was designed that way so that the EPA could levy very stiff fines for non-compliance. Organized Crime could study the ways and methods of the EPA to learn from them!

[HalvOnHorseracing]

yep first and foremost is blow the new power plant scrubber rule up. In ND they are forcing our plants to install over 800 million in equipment that will not reduce pollution by one ounce. And quit trying to control all water even sloughs in farmers fields:mad:
Not an ounce? Wow, you think that sort of abuse of power would be all over the news, instead of something that shows the three dirtiest power plants in America are in North Dakota.

Leland Olds
Basin Electric Power Coop

Milton R Young
Minnkota

Coyote
Otter Tail

[HalvOnHorseracing]

you completely missed the point :lol:
No, I got the point. You believe EPA is out of control when it comes to issuing regulations. My point was you don't know the difference between rule making and executive orders, and what you see as excessive has a context that you ignored.

Like most here, you believe a blind dislike of EPA should be self-evident.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Just give me the top three. The worst of the worst.

I'd have to go through the thousands to select the worst three. But Obamacare, ethanol, Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank come to mind. Both SOX and Dodd-Frank should remain - but EXTREEEEEEEMELY watered down versions.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I'd have to go through the thousands to select the worst three. But Obamacare, ethanol, Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank come to mind. Both SOX and Dodd-Frank should remain - but EXTREEEEEEEMELY watered down versions.
I was actually only asking for the worst three that EPA promulgated. Ethanol counts as one. The other three may be offensive, but they are other agencies (HHS, SEC). I'm actually very familiar with how we wound up with the ethanol requirements and if anyone cares to know I'd be happy to tell them.

[chadk66]

Not an ounce? Wow, you think that sort of abuse of power would be all over the news, instead of something that shows the three dirtiest power plants in America are in North Dakota.

Leland Olds
Basin Electric Power Coop

Milton R Young
Minnkota

Coyote
Otter Tailyou'll have to provide the link to those and the years that data was taken. I'm pretty sure that isn't correct

[AndyC]

You realize there is no governmental rule that doesn't occur as a result of federal legislation passed by the Congress, right? The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, etc. Did you think agencies just decided for themselves when to pick on companies? No federal agency has power that wasn't granted to them specifically by Congress.

You do realize that there are thousands of pages of regulations that are written on these laws passed by Congress by members of the various agencies. It's these pesky regulations that are a pain in the ass.

[davew]

Congress makes vague laws and the departments determine how to interpret them. I suspect the EPA interpretations are going to change as well as being downsized. The employees that go out of their way to make things worse will be the first to go. I am shocked how they can go to old mines that have been closed for decades, and decide that they need to move all the tailings because there are high concentrations of carcinogenic chemicals. They are protecting the people who have to hike 9 hours to get to this site, and then eat the dirt to get enough to be a problem.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You do realize that there are thousands of pages of regulations that are written on these laws passed by Congress by members of the various agencies. It's these pesky regulations that are a pain in the ass.
Yes, I said that earlier. I understand the process of rule promulgation very well.

So if the Congress says the EPA should promulgate National Ambient Air Quality Standards and they do, the problem is the regulations?

EPA has no independent authority to decide what to regulate. All empowerment comes from the Congress. Structurally, there is a very simple fix to the problem of EPA promulgating rules in any area. Congress simply removes their authority to regulate in that area.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Congress makes vague laws and the departments determine how to interpret them. I suspect the EPA interpretations are going to change as well as being downsized. The employees that go out of their way to make things worse will be the first to go. I am shocked how they can go to old mines that have been closed for decades, and decide that they need to move all the tailings because there are high concentrations of carcinogenic chemicals. They are protecting the people who have to hike 9 hours to get to this site, and then eat the dirt to get enough to be a problem.
No, they are protecting the people who are at risk because the carcinogens leach into ground water and surface water. You don't have to hike 9 hours if you happen to live in Leadville or Silverton or a hundred other mining towns I could mention. You can just look out your window.

Great policy. Let sleeping carcinogens lie.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

you'll have to provide the link to those and the years that data was taken. I'm pretty sure that isn't correct
To be precise, it actually depends on how you define dirty. If you include carbon emissions, the number would be correlated to plant size (more megawatts, more carbon). If you are only looking at NAAQS pollutants (SOx, NOx, PM10) then the coal burning plants, especially the lignite plants look much worse. I'm sure you know ignite is a soft coal — more plant than rock. It doesn’t burn as hot as older, denser coals. That means power plants have to burn more of it to generate the same amount of electricity.

This came from a 2011 article in Inforum.

According to EPA and U.S. Department of Energy studies, today, North Dakota's Leland Olds, Milton R. Young and Coyote plants are the three most polluting power plants in the nation.

http://www.inforum.com/content/clean-dirty-north-dakota-coal-plants

[AndyC]

Yes, I said that earlier. I understand the process of rule promulgation very well.

So if the Congress says the EPA should promulgate National Ambient Air Quality Standards and they do, the problem is the regulations?

EPA has no independent authority to decide what to regulate. All empowerment comes from the Congress. Structurally, there is a very simple fix to the problem of EPA promulgating rules in any area. Congress simply removes their authority to regulate in that area.

Yes, the problem is the regulations. If the specifics of the intent of Congress is found in the committee reports then agencies should be bound to write regulations supporting the specifics. Free-range law writing to fit a political agenda should be verboten.

[chadk66]

To be precise, it actually depends on how you define dirty. If you include carbon emissions, the number would be correlated to plant size (more megawatts, more carbon). If you are only looking at NAAQS pollutants (SOx, NOx, PM10) then the coal burning plants, especially the lignite plants look much worse. I'm sure you know ignite is a soft coal — more plant than rock. It doesn’t burn as hot as older, denser coals. That means power plants have to burn more of it to generate the same amount of electricity.

This came from a 2011 article in Inforum.

According to EPA and U.S. Department of Energy studies, today, North Dakota's Leland Olds, Milton R. Young and Coyote plants are the three most polluting power plants in the nation.

http://www.inforum.com/content/clean-dirty-north-dakota-coal-plantsthat article is meaningless considering they have installed new technology since then. That's why they are pissed. The EPA wants them to install "their" approved technology that will not improve emissions at all over what they have recently installed.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

that article is meaningless considering they have installed new technology since then. That's why they are pissed. The EPA wants them to install "their" approved technology that will not improve emissions at all over what they have recently installed.
I have a feeling you're talking about CO2 emissions EPA wants to regulate under the Clean Power Plan. Part of that issue is that EPA moved the goal posts so that ND has to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants by 45% instead of the original 11%. I couldn't find anything about ND and EPA arguing about which control technology should be installed on power plants. If you have a source on that, send it along.

[davew]

the EPA does not understand dilution

they should of had higher standards so that the Japanese nuclear power plant did not contaminate the west coast....

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Yes, the problem is the regulations. If the specifics of the intent of Congress is found in the committee reports then agencies should be bound to write regulations supporting the specifics. Free-range law writing to fit a political agenda should be verboten.
I get that there is a great deal of enmity toward EPA. I think a lot of it is based on conjecture and anecdote. When I've asked for specifics, I've gotten mostly things that are in the purview of other agencies or broad generalities like too many words in the regulations or EPA making up their own law.

I think it's fine to have a negative opinion of any agency (my personal target for eradication is the Department of Education) but it at least should be based on something that can actually be attributed to them. The other thing that I find difficult is that the tremendous good that has been done by the agency seems to count for nothing. I can think of a large number of EPA programs that have changed millions of people's lives for the better.

I'll also mention that anytime EPA oversteps, there is always the potential to go to court, and EPA doesn't win there every time.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

the EPA does not understand dilution

they should of had higher standards so that the Japanese nuclear power plant did not contaminate the west coast....
EPA does not understand dilution? Since you apparently do, perhaps you could explain what you mean.

This is part of what I am talking about. Disliking EPA for something not even in their purview. First, EPA doesn't regulate nuclear power plants in the US or in Japan. That is done by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission within the Department of Energy. Second, if you understood atmospheric chemistry, you'd realize that anything emitted anywhere can be found everywhere. For people in the West who were around when Mt St Helen's erupted, they will remember ash covering cars a thousand miles from Washington. The atmosphere is a big cauldron of soup. You can't put salt on one side of the pot and not have it infuse throughout the pot.

Just how will your life get better without EPA? Especially since you really don't know how it got worse with EPA.

[chadk66]

I have a feeling you're talking about CO2 emissions EPA wants to regulate under the Clean Power Plan. Part of that issue is that EPA moved the goal posts so that ND has to reduce CO2 emissions from power plants by 45% instead of the original 11%. I couldn't find anything about ND and EPA arguing about which control technology should be installed on power plants. If you have a source on that, send it along.I don't remember all the details regarding it. It was a hot button issue here about two years ago. Listened to numerous programs with the heads of all the power plants. They had just completed hundreds of millions of dollars of updates to be beyond the EPA regulations at the time. Then in just a matter of a few years the EPA was going to mandate a certain scrubber that wasn't going to remove any more pollutants than their existing ones. But it was going to cost 850 million. I don't recall all the pollutants involved but it wasn't just CO2. I'll see if I can find something regarding that when I get some time.

[chadk66]

The biggest problem people have with the EPA is they are trying to choke the life out of any business they can. Therefore, the uncertainty in those business's are killing hiring. And to this point it has seemed like they answer to no one. Just their attacks on farmers alone should have their nuts in a vice.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The biggest problem people have with the EPA is they are trying to choke the life out of any business they can. Therefore, the uncertainty in those business's are killing hiring. And to this point it has seemed like they answer to no one. Just their attacks on farmers alone should have their nuts in a vice.
Every agency can get overzealous. In my mind the biggest issue - and this has been true for every president - is that no one is setting a consistent policy and departments act as islands in the stream. Where Departmental policies intersect - agriculture is a good one because it intersects with commerce, labor, environment, and interior - there should be someone making sure they all stay on the same page.

And I'm happy to concede there are regulations that need either revision or excision. A lot of the problems emanate from the fact that agencies often operate academically instead of realistically.

I've had more than my share of knock-down-drag-outs with the EPA. I wouldn't get rid of them, but I think there are better ways to run the agency.

[davew]

EPA does not understand dilution? Since you apparently do, perhaps you could explain what you mean.

This is part of what I am talking about. Disliking EPA for something not even in their purview. First, EPA doesn't regulate nuclear power plants in the US or in Japan. That is done by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission within the Department of Energy. Second, if you understood atmospheric chemistry, you'd realize that anything emitted anywhere can be found everywhere. For people in the West who were around when Mt St Helen's erupted, they will remember ash covering cars a thousand miles from Washington. The atmosphere is a big cauldron of soup. You can't put salt on one side of the pot and not have it infuse throughout the pot.

Just how will your life get better without EPA? Especially since you really don't know how it got worse with EPA.

I heard that blast, but EPA does not cover volcanos in Washington. The Department of Ecology runs rampant in Washington.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I heard that blast, but EPA does not cover volcanos in Washington. The Department of Ecology runs rampant in Washington.
The point I was making with the example of Mt St Helen's was that once something gets into the atmosphere it makes its way everywhere. Sensibly EPA has no jurisdiction over volcanoes anywhere.

[Tom]

Nor do they cover emission from China, India......

[chadk66]

Every agency can get overzealous. In my mind the biggest issue - and this has been true for every president - is that no one is setting a consistent policy and departments act as islands in the stream. Where Departmental policies intersect - agriculture is a good one because it intersects with commerce, labor, environment, and interior - there should be someone making sure they all stay on the same page.

And I'm happy to concede there are regulations that need either revision or excision. A lot of the problems emanate from the fact that agencies often operate academically instead of realistically.

I've had more than my share of knock-down-drag-outs with the EPA. I wouldn't get rid of them, but I think there are better ways to run the agency.here is another that just jumped in my head. EPA made all farmers that had over 500 gallons of fuel in a single tank put in a containment system. nearly every farmer has a 1000 gallon tank. which means they had to empty tank, remove tank, hire concrete contractor to come in and pour a concrete containment and then reset and fill tank. Absolutely no reason for. All to solve a problem that doesn't exist. All it did is cost them a bunch of money for no reason.

[Tom]

Our economy has no greater foe than the government.

[FantasticDan]

Bullshit righty talking points debunked. Stunner. :rolleyes:

https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/971030183728877568

[woodtoo]

Bullshit lefty posts gobbly gook article based on speculative bullcrap ....again!

[FantasticDan]

Bullshit lefty posts gobbly gook article based on speculative bullcrap ....again!:D :bang:

White House Office of Management and Budget:

OMB gathered data and analysis on “major” federal regulations (those with $100 million or more in economic impact) between 2006 and 2016, a period that includes all of Obama’s administration, stopping just short of Trump’s. The final tally, reported in 2001 dollars:

Aggregate benefits: $219 to $695 billion
Aggregate costs: $59 to $88 billion

By even the most conservative estimate, the benefits of Obama’s regulations wildly outweighed the costs.

According to OMB — and to the federal agencies upon whose data OMB mostly relied — the core of the Trumpian case against Obama regulations, arguably the organizing principle of Trump’s administration, is false.

[Tom]

According to OMB — and to the federal agencies upon whose data OMB mostly relied

OK, Federal Agencies tell the truth.
OK, sure. I buy it.



:pound::pound::pound::pound::pound::pound::pound:

Of course Hillary is innocent - we asked her and she said so!