Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Off Topic > Off Topic - General


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 03-14-2017, 09:47 AM   #16
HalvOnHorseracing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 4,163
I had more than my share of fights with EPA, but I think to a great degree people don't have a full awareness of what they regulate and how. That's not to say they haven't over-expanded their mission, in some cases in a heavy-handed way. They could use an overhaul, but not elimination. Most of the important stuff they do is invisible to the average person, but we'd be worse without an effective environmental agency.

I'll just say two things. Of course they've cost industry a lot more money. Adding catalysts to cars wasn't cheap, especially since many of the converters use expensive rare earth metals. Same with adding pollution control equipment. But, people in places like Los Angeles and Houston breathe a lot easier than they did in the 70's.

The other thing is that you have to remember one of those fine mining companies created the problem EPA wound up having to clean up. You can blame the contractor they used for screwing up, but they didn't cause the original crap field that needed cleaning up. I've been from Durango to Silverton along the Las Animus a number of times, and the area near Silverton was a heavy mining area during a time when there were no regulations. It is a crap field near the headwaters. What was the alternative? Letting the poisonous residual continue to leach into the river? Cleaning up the area had to be done, albeit more competently.
HalvOnHorseracing is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-14-2017, 11:12 AM   #17
chadk66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
don't need the EPA to solve those problems anymore nor do we need them to regulate them. state dept's of health can manage the existing regulations now and handle any administrative issues in that regard. Funnel some of the money that was spent on the EPA to the states to manage this. We don't need anymore new regulations. We need to rid ourselves of quite a few actually.
chadk66 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-14-2017, 12:10 PM   #18
HalvOnHorseracing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 4,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadk66 View Post
don't need the EPA to solve those problems anymore nor do we need them to regulate them. state dept's of health can manage the existing regulations now and handle any administrative issues in that regard. Funnel some of the money that was spent on the EPA to the states to manage this. We don't need anymore new regulations. We need to rid ourselves of quite a few actually.
The states already do quite a bit of the field work and receive federal grant money. States also are responsible for choosing control strategies (beyond federally mandated standards like catalytic converters) to meet standards. However, there is a role for setting standards nationally and to have an oversight agency. Mind you, I'm not saying North Dakota would be all loose-goosey with regulation and enforcement, but you know, just in case.

You know as well as I do that most industries demand national standards so they don't have to figure out how to meet 50 different requirements. What do you think this is? Horseracing?

In the story I cited yesterday, confirmation bias drives the way most people think. As an example, if everyone in the world was working except for one guy, if you asked that guy he would think unemployment is out of control. Just about everybody figures their perspective is the right one and it's a head scratcher why everyone doesn't think that way.
HalvOnHorseracing is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-14-2017, 01:22 PM   #19
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing View Post
You know as well as I do that most industries demand national standards so they don't have to figure out how to meet 50 different requirements. What do you think this is? Horseracing?
This is patently false! The lousy, crappy, worthless domestic lawnmowers sold here in the Florida market (and elsewhere) are manufactured according to the stringent CA emissions standards. Companies aren't stupid. They will manufacture according to one standard, proving federal standards are not necessary.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-14-2017, 04:31 PM   #20
chadk66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
there are plenty of laws/regulations on the books regarding the EPA already. we need zero new ones. given that, turn it over to the states to enforce them. and if the states see fit to change something they can lobby congress and congress can decide. we need the epa like a hole in the head.
chadk66 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-14-2017, 05:11 PM   #21
HalvOnHorseracing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 4,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadk66 View Post
there are plenty of laws/regulations on the books regarding the EPA already. we need zero new ones. given that, turn it over to the states to enforce them. and if the states see fit to change something they can lobby congress and congress can decide. we need the epa like a hole in the head.
I'm reading my stuff to see where I said we need more regulations. All I said is that EPA should be responsible for setting national standards (which actually are required by Congress to be evaluated every few years.) I also said the states are already enforcing air, water, and TSCA and EPA is providing oversight, which as i said is necessary because occasionally you get a state that doesn't take enforcement seriously. What is it that EPA does exactly that we don't need? I'm just curious.
HalvOnHorseracing is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-14-2017, 05:16 PM   #22
tucker6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing View Post
I'm reading my stuff to see where I said we need more regulations. All I said is that EPA should be responsible for setting national standards (which actually are required by Congress to be evaluated every few years.) I also said the states are already enforcing air, water, and TSCA and EPA is providing oversight, which as i said is necessary because occasionally you get a state that doesn't take enforcement seriously. What is it that EPA does exactly that we don't need? I'm just curious.
everything. They are redundant with the states. I'd keep 10% of the employees around to ensure the states are applying the federal laws appropriately, but I'd get rid of 90% of them. The EPA should not be an advocate for anything. They are a watchdog only and should apply themselves as such.
tucker6 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-14-2017, 05:41 PM   #23
chadk66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing View Post
I'm reading my stuff to see where I said we need more regulations. All I said is that EPA should be responsible for setting national standards (which actually are required by Congress to be evaluated every few years.) I also said the states are already enforcing air, water, and TSCA and EPA is providing oversight, which as i said is necessary because occasionally you get a state that doesn't take enforcement seriously. What is it that EPA does exactly that we don't need? I'm just curious.
I wasn't saying you did. What I was saying is they have set enough national standards for things. time to eliminate them and let the states enforce those standards. The U.S. AG can step in if the states don't take enforcement seriously. They are a bloated governmental agency with an enormous budget. They stick their nose in stuff they shouldn't be now because they are running out of rules/regs to implement. Just the recent debacle over navigable waters was a clear indication. The new push for coal fired power plant regs will solve nothing and cost hundreds of millions. Like the unions, they have outlived their usefulness.
chadk66 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-14-2017, 05:42 PM   #24
HalvOnHorseracing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 4,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by tucker6 View Post
everything. They are redundant with the states. I'd keep 10% of the employees around to ensure the states are applying the federal laws appropriately, but I'd get rid of 90% of them. The EPA should not be an advocate for anything. They are a watchdog only and should apply themselves as such.
There is a reason why I am intimately familiar with what the EPA does, what the states do, and how they interact.

EPA functions in accordance with the federal enabling statutes. That makes them statutorily required to advocate for Congress' mandates. You might want to check out the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act sometime to see what Congress thinks EPA's job is.

You should listen to this story. It's 11 minutes of your life, but it really explained for me some of your posts.

http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/...th-tom-nichols
HalvOnHorseracing is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-14-2017, 05:53 PM   #25
HalvOnHorseracing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 4,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadk66 View Post
I wasn't saying you did. What I was saying is they have set enough national standards for things. time to eliminate them and let the states enforce those standards. The U.S. AG can step in if the states don't take enforcement seriously. They are a bloated governmental agency with an enormous budget. They stick their nose in stuff they shouldn't be now because they are running out of rules/regs to implement. Just the recent debacle over navigable waters was a clear indication. The new push for coal fired power plant regs will solve nothing and cost hundreds of millions. Like the unions, they have outlived their usefulness.
I've already agreed that the agency structure and mission should be re-examined. I've also agreed that sometimes EPA can be arbitrary and heavy handed. I still think they are a necessary agency.

The number of speeders is far less than it would be if the cops weren't enforcing speed laws. Having a low non-compliance rate doesn't mean we don't need the cops.

Depending on the state, they can be just as vigorous in enforcing environmental laws as EPA. I don't have any problem with the states doing what they've been doing for years, but I can tell you occasionally you'll get a state that would rather fight with EPA than do their job. Perhaps sometimes they have a point, but that's why there are courts.
HalvOnHorseracing is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-14-2017, 08:15 PM   #26
chadk66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing View Post
I've already agreed that the agency structure and mission should be re-examined. I've also agreed that sometimes EPA can be arbitrary and heavy handed. I still think they are a necessary agency.

The number of speeders is far less than it would be if the cops weren't enforcing speed laws. Having a low non-compliance rate doesn't mean we don't need the cops.

Depending on the state, they can be just as vigorous in enforcing environmental laws as EPA. I don't have any problem with the states doing what they've been doing for years, but I can tell you occasionally you'll get a state that would rather fight with EPA than do their job. Perhaps sometimes they have a point, but that's why there are courts.
and what did we do nationwide? Raise speed limits I'd go along with reducing the EPA employees by 80% and their budget by 75%.
chadk66 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-14-2017, 09:12 PM   #27
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadk66 View Post
and what did we do nationwide? Raise speed limits I'd go along with reducing the EPA employees by 80% and their budget by 75%.
And to be fair to liberals, we could in turn allow them to lower the speed limit on the highways 5 mph. I could live with that.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-15-2017, 05:16 PM   #28
HalvOnHorseracing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 4,163
Although boxcar is still on ignore, I've discovered if you aren't signed in you can read all the posts from someone on ignore. When he makes a statement like, that is patently false, you can be sure he yanked it out of his ass (highest probability).

With regard to national standards, I'll stand by what I said. Most industries would like only one standard to meet. That is true for air, water, and toxic substances, and for the most part there is only a national standard, with one exception.

Now in the case of boxcar's lawn mower, there are in fact national standards for small engines. Similarly, there are national standards for larger engines (automobiles). When the EPA regulations were promulgated for cars, they allowed California to retain their standard, although no other state can adopt its own standard. They can, however, adopt the California standard. This used to drive vehicle manufacturers nuts - they had to produce one car for CA, and one for the rest of the country. Since that time 11 other states have adopted CA clean car standards. This has become far less of a problem since cars now have between 30 and 100 computers on board to control everything.

Remember the VW diesel fiasco? All software.

Small engines are certified by the EPA (like cars are). California also has proposed amendments to its own small engine standards which go beyond the national standards, although in the past EPA has caught up to CA eventually. Most sales of lawn and garden equipment go to commercial companies. And given California is a huge market, they drive manufacturing of a lot of items. It's not surprising that companies would certify their engines to CA standards, especially considering you don't have the sophisticated on board computers like cars.

California is often the exception to the rule given the size of its problems. Most states simply adopt federal standards. I'm not sure if any other state has separate small engine standards because I didn't bother to google it, but then again I didn't have to google most of this.

Typical boxcar. Find a lawnmower with a CA certification sticker, draw a conclusion about every environmental standard the EPA has promulgated.
HalvOnHorseracing is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-15-2017, 06:22 PM   #29
boxcar
Registered User
 
boxcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing View Post
Although boxcar is still on ignore, I've discovered if you aren't signed in you can read all the posts from someone on ignore. When he makes a statement like, that is patently false, you can be sure he yanked it out of his ass (highest probability).

With regard to national standards, I'll stand by what I said. Most industries would like only one standard to meet. That is true for air, water, and toxic substances, and for the most part there is only a national standard, with one exception.

Now in the case of boxcar's lawn mower, there are in fact national standards for small engines. Similarly, there are national standards for larger engines (automobiles). When the EPA regulations were promulgated for cars, they allowed California to retain their standard, although no other state can adopt its own standard. They can, however, adopt the California standard. This used to drive vehicle manufacturers nuts - they had to produce one car for CA, and one for the rest of the country. Since that time 11 other states have adopted CA clean car standards. This has become far less of a problem since cars now have between 30 and 100 computers on board to control everything.

Remember the VW diesel fiasco? All software.

Small engines are certified by the EPA (like cars are). California also has proposed amendments to its own small engine standards which go beyond the national standards, although in the past EPA has caught up to CA eventually. Most sales of lawn and garden equipment go to commercial companies. And given California is a huge market, they drive manufacturing of a lot of items. It's not surprising that companies would certify their engines to CA standards, especially considering you don't have the sophisticated on board computers like cars.

California is often the exception to the rule given the size of its problems. Most states simply adopt federal standards. I'm not sure if any other state has separate small engine standards because I didn't bother to google it, but then again I didn't have to google most of this.

Typical boxcar. Find a lawnmower with a CA certification sticker, draw a conclusion about every environmental standard the EPA has promulgated.
You should google more things. Perhaps you'd disguise your ignorance better.

A leading lawn mower dealer in my area told me what was going on with lawn mowers. Two or three years ago, the leading lawn mower manufacturers decided to make all their machines by the CA standard (the most stringent in the nation) to cut down on manufacturing costs, which is why domestic lawn mowers these days suck raw eggs. The next machine I'll buy will be a commercial grade.

And you're another one with reading comp problems I never drew any conclusions about "every environmental standard the EPA has promulgated".
For health considerations, you should refrain from your dumpster-diving to come up with garbage like this.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
boxcar is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 03-15-2017, 06:54 PM   #30
HalvOnHorseracing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 4,163
Read what I said you moron. That's why I put you on ignore. I've said multiple times your reading comprehension would have to improve by double to hit 3rd grade level.

Small engines are certified by the EPA (like cars are). California also has proposed amendments to its own small engine standards which go beyond the national standards, although in the past EPA has caught up to CA eventually. Most sales of lawn and garden equipment go to commercial companies. And given California is a huge market, they drive manufacturing of a lot of items. It's not surprising that companies would certify their engines to CA standards, especially considering you don't have the sophisticated on board computers like cars.


You wrote the same thing I said in my post. I tried to keep it simple, but there is no such thing as simple enough for you.

You talked to a guy who said the company decided to manufacture to CA standards. What exactly do the words I used, "certify to CA standards" mean to you?
HalvOnHorseracing is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.