'Secret dealing'? Emails show cozy relationship between EPA, environmental groups

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: 'Secret dealing'? Emails show cozy relationship between EPA, environmental groups

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    Anything to protect the "favored industry" status of fossil fuel production and consumption and their strings on the levers of government...

    ...all at the expense of the environment and the public: public safety, public health and american lands preserved on behalf of the enduring public interest.

     

    Meanwhile in WV, the next man-made chemical disaster is likely queued up to poison the drinking water for tens of thousands of people (or worse)...

    ...the cause of which was not environmental regulation but the lack of enforcement of the same.

    These industries and others have proven incapable and/or unwilling to regulate themselves.  For them, profits come first; people are a distant second, at best.

     


    Perhaps the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ought to worry less about shutting down every coal-fired power plant in the country and more about safeguarding Americans against toxic tap water.




    You do realize that requires regulation, right?

    And you understand that the WV company responsible for the toxic spill was exempt from EPA regulations, right?



    And they were aptly named Freedom Industries.  Freedom to do whatever you want to make a buck.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: 'Secret dealing'? Emails show cozy relationship between EPA, environmental groups

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    plenty of hypocrite libruls are loving fossil fuels today. they'd be might chilly without them



    Libruls need to stay warm while they decide if the rest of us should be warm.

    That's how elitism works.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: 'Secret dealing'? Emails show cozy relationship between EPA, environmental groups

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    Anything to protect the "favored industry" status of fossil fuel production and consumption and their strings on the levers of government...

    ...all at the expense of the environment and the public: public safety, public health and american lands preserved on behalf of the enduring public interest.

     

    Meanwhile in WV, the next man-made chemical disaster is likely queued up to poison the drinking water for tens of thousands of people (or worse)...

    ...the cause of which was not environmental regulation but the lack of enforcement of the same.

    These industries and others have proven incapable and/or unwilling to regulate themselves.  For them, profits come first; people are a distant second, at best.

     


    Perhaps the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ought to worry less about shutting down every coal-fired power plant in the country and more about safeguarding Americans against toxic tap water.




    You do realize that requires regulation, right?

    And you understand that the WV company responsible for the toxic spill was exempt from EPA regulations, right?



    I am sure they are not exempt from EPA regulation.  

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: 'Secret dealing'? Emails show cozy relationship between EPA, environmental groups

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    Anything to protect the "favored industry" status of fossil fuel production and consumption and their strings on the levers of government...

    ...all at the expense of the environment and the public: public safety, public health and american lands preserved on behalf of the enduring public interest.

     

    Meanwhile in WV, the next man-made chemical disaster is likely queued up to poison the drinking water for tens of thousands of people (or worse)...

    ...the cause of which was not environmental regulation but the lack of enforcement of the same.

    These industries and others have proven incapable and/or unwilling to regulate themselves.  For them, profits come first; people are a distant second, at best.

     



    My experience, having worked in and around the chemical and oil industry for years, is that most companies have their priorities in order and take a great deal of pride in a solid safety record.  Unfortunately, when something goes wrong in these industries it's catastrophic and usually preventable.  This leads to unfair generalizations of these industries as "profits first, people a distant second" monsters who will do everything they can to destroy the environment and community around them.

    I wish the EPA along with OSHA had sharper teeth in levying fines for companies who have had issues but choose not do correct the identified problems before a disaster occurs.  I can't remember how many times I've seem or read about a fine being reduced to peanuts or tossed out when it goes to court.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: 'Secret dealing'? Emails show cozy relationship between EPA, environmental groups

    In response to Rushfan2112's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    Anything to protect the "favored industry" status of fossil fuel production and consumption and their strings on the levers of government...

    ...all at the expense of the environment and the public: public safety, public health and american lands preserved on behalf of the enduring public interest.

     

    Meanwhile in WV, the next man-made chemical disaster is likely queued up to poison the drinking water for tens of thousands of people (or worse)...

    ...the cause of which was not environmental regulation but the lack of enforcement of the same.

    These industries and others have proven incapable and/or unwilling to regulate themselves.  For them, profits come first; people are a distant second, at best.

     



    My experience, having worked in and around the chemical and oil industry for years, is that most companies have their priorities in order and take a great deal of pride in a solid safety record.  Unfortunately, when something goes wrong in these industries it's catastrophic and usually preventable.  This leads to unfair generalizations of these industries as "profits first, people a distant second" monsters who will do everything they can to destroy the environment and community around them.

    I wish the EPA along with OSHA had sharper teeth in levying fines for companies who have had issues but choose not do correct the identified problems before a disaster occurs.  I can't remember how many times I've seem or read about a fine being reduced to peanuts or tossed out when it goes to court.



    Thanks for your perspective.  I have little doubt what you say is true: most companies are responsible, law-abiding and conscientious.  The problem is that the rest of the trouble-makers make it worse for everyone...these are what I'm referring to as just trying to make a buck.  (the coal ash disaster in TN in 2008 comes to mind)  So, I appreciate the clarification.

    The EPA has very limited enforcement powers when matched up against powerful industries/lobbies like the coal industry in appalachia or oil in the west.  I do not absolve the agencies from failing to enforce the laws.  But the laws are also set by congress and state legislatures, and some of their current efforts to eliminate the EPA completely or to gut clean air and water rules will only make things worse.

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: 'Secret dealing'? Emails show cozy relationship between EPA, environmental groups

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to Rushfan2112's comment:

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    Anything to protect the "favored industry" status of fossil fuel production and consumption and their strings on the levers of government...

    ...all at the expense of the environment and the public: public safety, public health and american lands preserved on behalf of the enduring public interest.

     

    Meanwhile in WV, the next man-made chemical disaster is likely queued up to poison the drinking water for tens of thousands of people (or worse)...

    ...the cause of which was not environmental regulation but the lack of enforcement of the same.

    These industries and others have proven incapable and/or unwilling to regulate themselves.  For them, profits come first; people are a distant second, at best.

     


    Perhaps the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ought to worry less about shutting down every coal-fired power plant in the country and more about safeguarding Americans against toxic tap water.




    You do realize that requires regulation, right?

    And you understand that the WV company responsible for the toxic spill was exempt from EPA regulations, right?



    I am sure they are not exempt from EPA regulation.  



    According to Department of Environmental Protection officials, Freedom Industries, which owns the chemical tank that ruptured, is exempt from Department of Environmental Protection inspections and permitting since it stores chemicals and does not produce them, the Associated Press reported.



    If the report is true and the Department officials said they are exempt, then they don't understand or are unaware of the law, which would be disturbing.  More likely, the reporter got it wrong in the interpretation.  At the very least, the facility is subject to EPCRA.  Also, if the AST capacity is greater than 1320 gallons, they have to prepare an SPCC plan, which must be stamped by a PE.  The SPCC plan and the facility it covers is subject to inspection. So they are not exempt from EPA regulation.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: 'Secret dealing'? Emails show cozy relationship between EPA, environmental groups

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to Rushfan2112's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    Anything to protect the "favored industry" status of fossil fuel production and consumption and their strings on the levers of government...

    ...all at the expense of the environment and the public: public safety, public health and american lands preserved on behalf of the enduring public interest.

     

    Meanwhile in WV, the next man-made chemical disaster is likely queued up to poison the drinking water for tens of thousands of people (or worse)...

    ...the cause of which was not environmental regulation but the lack of enforcement of the same.

    These industries and others have proven incapable and/or unwilling to regulate themselves.  For them, profits come first; people are a distant second, at best.

     



    My experience, having worked in and around the chemical and oil industry for years, is that most companies have their priorities in order and take a great deal of pride in a solid safety record.  Unfortunately, when something goes wrong in these industries it's catastrophic and usually preventable.  This leads to unfair generalizations of these industries as "profits first, people a distant second" monsters who will do everything they can to destroy the environment and community around them.

    I wish the EPA along with OSHA had sharper teeth in levying fines for companies who have had issues but choose not do correct the identified problems before a disaster occurs.  I can't remember how many times I've seem or read about a fine being reduced to peanuts or tossed out when it goes to court.



    Thanks for your perspective.  I have little doubt what you say is true: most companies are responsible, law-abiding and conscientious.  The problem is that the rest of the trouble-makers make it worse for everyone...these are what I'm referring to as just trying to make a buck.  (the coal ash disaster in TN in 2008 comes to mind)  So, I appreciate the clarification.

    The EPA has very limited enforcement powers when matched up against powerful industries/lobbies like the coal industry in appalachia or oil in the west.  I do not absolve the agencies from failing to enforce the laws.  But the laws are also set by congress and state legislatures, and some of their current efforts to eliminate the EPA completely or to gut clean air and water rules will only make things worse.

     

     



    Yeah, the limited enforcement of EPA and OSHA has always really bothered me for a lot of reasons.  First for the lack of concern for the workers that opposing lawyers and the courts have.  But also for the other companies who do the right thing, spend the time and resources hiring and training the right people, and generally do a fine job of keeping themselves and their neighbors safe.

    That coal ash spill was quite preventable, as was the alumina tailings dam failure in Hungary a few years ago.  Terrible disasters that were really quite preventable.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: 'Secret dealing'? Emails show cozy relationship between EPA, environmental groups

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to Rushfan2112's comment:

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to Rushfan2112's comment:

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    Anything to protect the "favored industry" status of fossil fuel production and consumption and their strings on the levers of government...

    ...all at the expense of the environment and the public: public safety, public health and american lands preserved on behalf of the enduring public interest.

     

    Meanwhile in WV, the next man-made chemical disaster is likely queued up to poison the drinking water for tens of thousands of people (or worse)...

    ...the cause of which was not environmental regulation but the lack of enforcement of the same.

    These industries and others have proven incapable and/or unwilling to regulate themselves.  For them, profits come first; people are a distant second, at best.

     


    Perhaps the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ought to worry less about shutting down every coal-fired power plant in the country and more about safeguarding Americans against toxic tap water.




    You do realize that requires regulation, right?

    And you understand that the WV company responsible for the toxic spill was exempt from EPA regulations, right?



    I am sure they are not exempt from EPA regulation.  



    According to Department of Environmental Protection officials, Freedom Industries, which owns the chemical tank that ruptured, is exempt from Department of Environmental Protection inspections and permitting since it stores chemicals and does not produce them, the Associated Press reported.



    If the report is true and the Department officials said they are exempt, then they don't understand or are unaware of the law, which would be disturbing.  More likely, the reporter got it wrong in the interpretation.  At the very least, the facility is subject to EPCRA.  Also, if the AST capacity is greater than 1320 gallons, they have to prepare an SPCC plan, which must be stamped by a PE.  The SPCC plan and the facility it covers is subject to inspection. So they are not exempt from EPA regulation.




    I cede to your experience in the field but I am only relating the reporting I've seen.



    Unless reported in a technical news rag or peer-reviewed publication, I always read news articles that have a technical twist with a little sketicism because I have found over the years they get it wrong to one degree or another.  I still chuckle over the Globe's coverage of the anthrax scare in 2001... calling it a virus and bacteria in the same paragraph.

    Events like what is happening in WV really aggravate me because they are so preventable, and tend to diminish (in the public eye) the legitimate efforts by above board companies to do the right thing.  

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: 'Secret dealing'? Emails show cozy relationship between EPA, environmental groups

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to Rushfan2112's comment:

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to Rushfan2112's comment:

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to Rushfan2112's comment:

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    Anything to protect the "favored industry" status of fossil fuel production and consumption and their strings on the levers of government...

    ...all at the expense of the environment and the public: public safety, public health and american lands preserved on behalf of the enduring public interest.

     

    Meanwhile in WV, the next man-made chemical disaster is likely queued up to poison the drinking water for tens of thousands of people (or worse)...

    ...the cause of which was not environmental regulation but the lack of enforcement of the same.

    These industries and others have proven incapable and/or unwilling to regulate themselves.  For them, profits come first; people are a distant second, at best.

     


    Perhaps the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ought to worry less about shutting down every coal-fired power plant in the country and more about safeguarding Americans against toxic tap water.




    You do realize that requires regulation, right?

    And you understand that the WV company responsible for the toxic spill was exempt from EPA regulations, right?



    I am sure they are not exempt from EPA regulation.  



    According to Department of Environmental Protection officials, Freedom Industries, which owns the chemical tank that ruptured, is exempt from Department of Environmental Protection inspections and permitting since it stores chemicals and does not produce them, the Associated Press reported.



    If the report is true and the Department officials said they are exempt, then they don't understand or are unaware of the law, which would be disturbing.  More likely, the reporter got it wrong in the interpretation.  At the very least, the facility is subject to EPCRA.  Also, if the AST capacity is greater than 1320 gallons, they have to prepare an SPCC plan, which must be stamped by a PE.  The SPCC plan and the facility it covers is subject to inspection. So they are not exempt from EPA regulation.




    I cede to your experience in the field but I am only relating the reporting I've seen.



    Unless reported in a technical news rag or peer-reviewed publication, I always read news articles that have a technical twist with a little sketicism because I have found over the years they get it wrong to one degree or another.  I still chuckle over the Globe's coverage of the anthrax scare in 2001... calling it a virus and bacteria in the same paragraph.

    Events like what is happening in WV really aggravate me because they are so preventable, and tend to diminish (in the public eye) the legitimate efforts by above board companies to do the right thing.  




    I also read a blurb (which I can't find now) that stated the chemical MCHM was not a dangerous enough chemical to be regulated by the EPA.

    Could that be true?



    Yeah, that is more than likely a true report.  In terms of regulation as a EPA priority pollutant, I think there are only something like 130 compounds and elements on the list.  The ASTDR priority list is longer, but still less than 300 or so.  But this wouldn't exempt them from preparing a SPCC plan, or from NPDES permit rules (NPDES permitting is run by the states in accord with EPA guidelines and oversight).  Depending on the source, there are between 70,000 and 90,000 chemicals that have been used or are still being used in industry.  

    The permitting and regulating process of chemicals has been very weak with regard to obtaining valid tox data prior to using a compound in industry is the reason for this.  The rules here are bass akwards in my opinion.  The approach should be very precautionary, and the company should prove the product doesn't trip an established tox threshold before it is allowed into commerce.  The problem is that tox data is very expensive to obtain.  It costs millions in lab fees for each compound.  Add to that, the process is takes months to finish.  I'm starting to stray from the topic... I'll stop there.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: 'Secret dealing'? Emails show cozy relationship between EPA, environmental groups

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [[/QUOTE]

    The EPA has very limited enforcement powers when matched up against powerful industries/lobbies like the coal industry in appalachia or oil in the west.   

    [/QUOTE]

    Limited enforcement powers? LOL.  The zealots at the EPA are destroying the coal industry, with no such mandate from Congress!!!

    They are delaying some rules until after the 2014 elections...
    The EPA is using the Clean Air Act to basically close down many coal mines, which will cost thousands of jobs.   Republicans in the Senate are doing what they can to stop the EPA from imposing onerous regulations that will destroy the coal industry in the US; but given Obama’s Executive Orders, it will be tough.   Generations of Americans have been coal miners in states like West Virginia and many others.   They are paid very well with many earning more than $80,000 a year.  Once these jobs are gone, we will see incredible poverty in Appalachia and other regions of the country. 

    The House has already acted to fix the structural problem that allows bureaucrats to implement economy-changing rules without congressional approval when they passed the REINS Act last year, a bill that would require prior-approval from Congress for major new regulations. 

    The Senate has refused to act on the legislation.

    Fortunately, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has already promised to introduce a resolution of disapproval that will put every senator on the record on this global warming power grab. Because the resolution is privileged under the Congressional Review Act, Harry Reid cannot prevent it from coming to the floor and it cannot be filibustered.

    Whatever the result of that Senate vote is, it will ultimately be up to the American people to hold Congress and the president accountable for the actions taken by rogue EPA bureaucrats...

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rushfan2112. Show Rushfan2112's posts

    Re: 'Secret dealing'? Emails show cozy relationship between EPA, environmental groups

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [



    The EPA has very limited enforcement powers when matched up against powerful industries/lobbies like the coal industry in appalachia or oil in the west.   



    Limited enforcement powers? LOL.  The zealots at the EPA are destroying the coal industry, with no such mandate from Congress!!!

Yes, limited enforcement.  When a problem is identified, the company is given ample opportunity to correct it.  Some choose to ignore the problem, which leads to fines.  The fines are contested and are often overturned or reduced to peanuts.  That's what is meant by limited enforcement.  I suppose you think the good folks at MSHA are zealots too, right?

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: 'Secret dealing'? Emails show cozy relationship between EPA, environmental groups

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    The zealots at the EPA are destroying the coal industry, with no such mandate from Congress!!!

    And yet the only thing you offer in support of that claim are that GOPers say that they want to stop the EPA and passed a bill in the house.

    Republicans saying things about the EPA isn't evidence that the EPA is doing anything.

     

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: 'Secret dealing'? Emails show cozy relationship between EPA, environmental groups

    In response to Rushfan2112's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to Rushfan2112's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    Anything to protect the "favored industry" status of fossil fuel production and consumption and their strings on the levers of government...

    ...all at the expense of the environment and the public: public safety, public health and american lands preserved on behalf of the enduring public interest.

     

    Meanwhile in WV, the next man-made chemical disaster is likely queued up to poison the drinking water for tens of thousands of people (or worse)...

    ...the cause of which was not environmental regulation but the lack of enforcement of the same.

    These industries and others have proven incapable and/or unwilling to regulate themselves.  For them, profits come first; people are a distant second, at best.

     



    My experience, having worked in and around the chemical and oil industry for years, is that most companies have their priorities in order and take a great deal of pride in a solid safety record.  Unfortunately, when something goes wrong in these industries it's catastrophic and usually preventable.  This leads to unfair generalizations of these industries as "profits first, people a distant second" monsters who will do everything they can to destroy the environment and community around them.

    I wish the EPA along with OSHA had sharper teeth in levying fines for companies who have had issues but choose not do correct the identified problems before a disaster occurs.  I can't remember how many times I've seem or read about a fine being reduced to peanuts or tossed out when it goes to court.



    Thanks for your perspective.  I have little doubt what you say is true: most companies are responsible, law-abiding and conscientious.  The problem is that the rest of the trouble-makers make it worse for everyone...these are what I'm referring to as just trying to make a buck.  (the coal ash disaster in TN in 2008 comes to mind)  So, I appreciate the clarification.

    The EPA has very limited enforcement powers when matched up against powerful industries/lobbies like the coal industry in appalachia or oil in the west.  I do not absolve the agencies from failing to enforce the laws.  But the laws are also set by congress and state legislatures, and some of their current efforts to eliminate the EPA completely or to gut clean air and water rules will only make things worse.

     

     



    Yeah, the limited enforcement of EPA and OSHA has always really bothered me for a lot of reasons.  First for the lack of concern for the workers that opposing lawyers and the courts have.  But also for the other companies who do the right thing, spend the time and resources hiring and training the right people, and generally do a fine job of keeping themselves and their neighbors safe.

    That coal ash spill was quite preventable, as was the alumina tailings dam failure in Hungary a few years ago.  Terrible disasters that were really quite preventable.



    As I understand it, those agencies simply don't have enough resources or people to inspect all of these facilities and workplaces...so the onus is upon the companies themselves to "self-regulate".

    Again, this probably works fine for the majority of firms which are ethical and well-managed.  For the rest though, it seems like they're teenagers home alone with a full bar and no chance of mom/dad coming home...bad things will happen, it's just a matter of when.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: 'Secret dealing'? Emails show cozy relationship between EPA, environmental groups

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    The zealots at the EPA are destroying the coal industry, with no such mandate from Congress!!!

     

    And yet the only thing you offer in support of that claim are that GOPers say that they want to stop the EPA and passed a bill in the house.

    Republicans saying things about the EPA isn't evidence that the EPA is doing anything.

     



    "Vice President Joe Biden made  it clear during the 2008 campaign when he said the Obama policy was “No coal plants here in America.” Similarly, candidate Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that he would ensure that building a coal plant would “bankrupt” the operator because of the cost of complying with new carbon-dioxide emission regulations.   Deliberate government efforts to end an industry are not part of normal competitive market pressures and bad for the U.S. economy for three reasons.   First, virtually all our coal production goes directly to generate electricity. Changing that is costly: our electric grid was designed based on generation patterns dominated by multiple coal plants. Eliminating coal requires both costly new generation facilities and expensive grid modifications.   Moreover, while the rapid development of domestic natural gas is cutting generation costs today, it is not guaranteed to continue indefinitely. If anti-fracking activists — who often are anti-coal activists — succeed in their campaign to restrict natural gas production and pipeline construction, natural gas costs will rise.   Second, diversity in sources enhances our energy security by minimizing the chance that politics or wars in unstable and unfriendly countries will disrupt our energy supplies.   America is called the “Saudi Arabia of coal” because it has more than a quarter of world coal reserves. Energy security is vital because energy is embedded in most goods and services. Almost half of our energy use is indirect and so invisible to consumers. Among the most energy intensive sectors of our economy are health care and food; we risk much more than higher utility bills if we remain vulnerable to unfriendly and unstable energy suppliers.   Third, the coal industry is a significant source of jobs. The typical coal miner earns $73,000 a year, says the National Mining Association, which represents the mining industry in Washington.   An estimated 60,000 Americans work in coal-fired power plants. These are high-productivity jobs because the employees work with large amounts of capital. Electricity generated by coal takes just 0.18 employees per megawatt of plant capacity. Coal-fired power plant jobs pay high wages because their employees are skilled. Yet new EPA regulations are estimated to cut total coal employment by 1.4 million job-years between 2011 and 2020.  

    Sen James Inhofe, R-Okla., said the EPA's actions show a double standard by the Obama administration on climate change.

    "On the one hand, the president says we don't have time to delay action on global warming," Inhofe said. "But on the other hand, his actions show it is OK to wait to finalize rules that will harm the economy until after the elections so they won't have an impact on vulnerable Senate Democrats who face voters this fall" in coal-producing states.

    EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the agency submitted the rules for publication last fall and "tried very hard" to get them published in the Federal Register.

    "As soon as that proposal was released, we had submitted it to the Federal Register office. The delay was solely the backup in the Federal Register office," McCarthy told the committee at a hearing this week.   

    Meanwhile, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning announced this week that his office is suing the EPA over the power plant standards, arguing the rules overstep the agency's authority and will hurt Nebraska businesses.    

    “The impossible standards imposed by the EPA will ensure no new power plants are built
    in Nebraska,” Bruning said in a statement. "This federal agency continues to overstep its authority at the detriment of Nebraska businesses." 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: 'Secret dealing'? Emails show cozy relationship between EPA, environmental groups

    Another unattributed article...   

     

    1. What regulations has the EPA passed that are "destroying" the coal industry?

    For example,

    "Yet new EPA regulations are estimated to cut total coal employment by 1.4 million job-years between 2011 and 2020.  "

    Which regulations? Who is doing the estimating?

     

    2. Also, are 60,000 jobs more important that not poisoning the air, earth, and water that 300,000,000 people rely on?

    Is there anything that "jobs" doesn't trump?

     

     

    3. If the EPA really killed the coal industry, then wouldn't we need other energy production sources that hired people...say...those 60,000 people?

    If they're skilled workers presumably they're intelligent enough to pick up new, related skills, yes?

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share