That's retarded - the EPA is filled with corporate sluts. EPA is not interested in really protecting Mother Earth - just interested in looking like they're "doing something." Just interested in satisfying donors/lobbyists.
As far as global warming, I don't know the exact stats but I think the past 10 years have been the hottest in recorded history. So far this year has been mild. Let's see what July & August do.
No, I was just saying that there aren't any actors in any government that really care about the Earth & her vulnerabilities. So what difference does it make?
As far as global warming - spewing out car exhaust & gas farts in a closed system can't be great. Seems like something we created & something we could change.
Once visited a Colorado town where they'd done a lot of fracking & mountaintop removal (you could see the mountains sliced down). The water there was nasty, cloudy and it tasted like metal. We couldn't drink it - had to buy a ton of bottled water because we were there for a couple days.
My boyfriend & I don't recycle because I know where recycling goes - direct to poorer countries where it gets burned and harms the lungs of the locals. But any ways, the trash we produce from two small people is huge. Like, two giant bags a week.
Our model of life is unsustainable - the packaging unsustainable. Eventually there's nowhere else to put the waste. It's dangerous to equate the care of our planet with a political ideology. It's not 'commie' to care about The Earth.
It's probably a great relief to blame solar/galactic variables for the damage to our home. And it certainly fits neatly with the rest of the 'right' or 'conservative' side. But we're all doing immense harm by participating in these toxic practices (driving all the time, eating meat & dairy, demanding products from far away, buying products from companies which are irresponsible and wasteful, etc). But I think you're right that everyone on the planet needs to decide to individually change/evolve but that ain't happenin. Instead of evolving we have people calling others 'soyboys' and talking about 'eating bugs' and showing videos of people eating burgers at vegan protests. Being environmentally irresponsible is now equated to being freedom-loving or gun-loving or believing in free speech. Being environmentally irresponsible is just being environmentally irresponsible. That's it - it's not tied to anything else.
My point is simply that if any agency should have more power it should be an agency that's genuinely looking out for the health of our water, land, air. But since the EPA is filled with paid-off pawns then the whole issue is mute any way.
Long story short, carbon dioxide wasn't a pollutant when the 1973 Clean Air Act was passed into law. Seeking to use the laaw a vehicle for the global warming scam they create regulations saying carbon dioxide was a pollutant. Congress never wrote the law to support these regulations. It was smoke and mirrors for legal authority.
So, if you want to regulate carbon emissions, it's going to take a new law, or an amended Clean Air Act, that explicitly says you can.
Except that's not what's happening here, the EPA is a federal entity so explain to me how the states are going to govern a federal entity. Congress gave the EPA and other similar agencies these powers because it is impossible to adequately legislate restrictions on chemicals and such through congress in enough time for it to matter. They aren't experts in the field and they won't legislate effectively on those topics which is why congress gave the EPA those powers in the first place. If you think this is a good thing for the common man and not just giving more power to corporations I suggest you give "the jungle" a read to see what things were like before federal regulatory agencies. Do YOU understand how this is supposed to work?
Do you know what an analogy is? I wasn't making one. You will forgive me if I don't take you seriously when you result to insults when presented with facts. Perhaps you can explain to me in detail exactly what it is you mean and why you think this ruling is good for the common person and not just a boon for profit seeking corporations.
and the administrative state.
That's retarded - the EPA is filled with corporate sluts. EPA is not interested in really protecting Mother Earth - just interested in looking like they're "doing something." Just interested in satisfying donors/lobbyists.
As far as global warming, I don't know the exact stats but I think the past 10 years have been the hottest in recorded history. So far this year has been mild. Let's see what July & August do.
No, I was just saying that there aren't any actors in any government that really care about the Earth & her vulnerabilities. So what difference does it make?
As far as global warming - spewing out car exhaust & gas farts in a closed system can't be great. Seems like something we created & something we could change.
I got bad news about volcanos for you.
That's an absurd comparison.
Once visited a Colorado town where they'd done a lot of fracking & mountaintop removal (you could see the mountains sliced down). The water there was nasty, cloudy and it tasted like metal. We couldn't drink it - had to buy a ton of bottled water because we were there for a couple days.
My boyfriend & I don't recycle because I know where recycling goes - direct to poorer countries where it gets burned and harms the lungs of the locals. But any ways, the trash we produce from two small people is huge. Like, two giant bags a week.
Our model of life is unsustainable - the packaging unsustainable. Eventually there's nowhere else to put the waste. It's dangerous to equate the care of our planet with a political ideology. It's not 'commie' to care about The Earth.
It's probably a great relief to blame solar/galactic variables for the damage to our home. And it certainly fits neatly with the rest of the 'right' or 'conservative' side. But we're all doing immense harm by participating in these toxic practices (driving all the time, eating meat & dairy, demanding products from far away, buying products from companies which are irresponsible and wasteful, etc). But I think you're right that everyone on the planet needs to decide to individually change/evolve but that ain't happenin. Instead of evolving we have people calling others 'soyboys' and talking about 'eating bugs' and showing videos of people eating burgers at vegan protests. Being environmentally irresponsible is now equated to being freedom-loving or gun-loving or believing in free speech. Being environmentally irresponsible is just being environmentally irresponsible. That's it - it's not tied to anything else.
My point is simply that if any agency should have more power it should be an agency that's genuinely looking out for the health of our water, land, air. But since the EPA is filled with paid-off pawns then the whole issue is mute any way.
Long story short, carbon dioxide wasn't a pollutant when the 1973 Clean Air Act was passed into law. Seeking to use the laaw a vehicle for the global warming scam they create regulations saying carbon dioxide was a pollutant. Congress never wrote the law to support these regulations. It was smoke and mirrors for legal authority.
So, if you want to regulate carbon emissions, it's going to take a new law, or an amended Clean Air Act, that explicitly says you can.
looks menacingly at the ATF
Hopefully this saves Permian basin gas extraction
Sweet now corporations can poison us and our fresh water supplies without consequence.
you do grasp the concept of stripping federal government and having the power moved to state level, right?
if your state legislature doesn't care, become it or replace it. do you understand how this is supposed to work.
Except that's not what's happening here, the EPA is a federal entity so explain to me how the states are going to govern a federal entity. Congress gave the EPA and other similar agencies these powers because it is impossible to adequately legislate restrictions on chemicals and such through congress in enough time for it to matter. They aren't experts in the field and they won't legislate effectively on those topics which is why congress gave the EPA those powers in the first place. If you think this is a good thing for the common man and not just giving more power to corporations I suggest you give "the jungle" a read to see what things were like before federal regulatory agencies. Do YOU understand how this is supposed to work?
Fuck off and go learn things.and your analogy is absolutely crap sue your teacher and parents for malpractice
Do you know what an analogy is? I wasn't making one. You will forgive me if I don't take you seriously when you result to insults when presented with facts. Perhaps you can explain to me in detail exactly what it is you mean and why you think this ruling is good for the common person and not just a boon for profit seeking corporations.
Your a halfwit on your best day.id say good luck but you would screw even that up
I understand. seems the federal governments involvement in the educational system stopped the people from understanding.
You may want to learn to be a thinker sometime before you completley destroy what's left of your future
Small government! Small government! Small government! Unless it has to do with a woman's right to her own body then it's "govern me harder Daddy."