PDA

View Full Version :  Bush Administration Relaxes Air Pollution RulesBush policies promote pollution


Pinto
Aug 28, 2003, 08:38 PM
link (http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/27/national/27WIRE-EPA.html&OQ=hp)



  WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration on Wednesday exempted thousands of older power plants, refineries and factories from having to install costly clean air controls when they modernize with new equipment that improves efficiency but increases pollution.

  In a major new revision to its air pollution rules, the Environmental Protection Agency will allow up to 20 percent of the costs of replacing each plant's production system to be considered "routine maintenance" that doesn't require costly antipollution controls, according to agency documents obtained by The Associated Press.

  A typical power plant has more than one "process unit" containing a boiler, generator, turbine and other equipment. In the case of a 1,500-megawatt plant with two 750-megawatt units that cost $1 billion to replace, each could be upgraded $200 million at a time, agency officials and outside experts say.

 The new rule signed Wednesday by EPA's acting administrator, Marianne L. Horinko, represents a fundamental shift away from a long-problematic 1971 maintenance standard.

  "We're going to really, I think, create certainty going forward for industrial facilities, by spelling out what specific replacement is exempt," Horinko told the AP.

 Until now, operators have been required to add more pollution-cutting devices if they do anything more than "routine maintenance" on a plant that causes emissions to increase significantly. The electric utility and oil industries have been lobbying the administration for the changes, saying the costs prohibit them from making energy-efficiency improvements.

  The White House-led reworking of the maintenance standard essentially allows industries including manufacturers, chemical plants and pulp and paper mills to modernize a fifth at a time each of a facility's essential production systems.

 They can do so even if the upgrades increase pollution, with no apparent restrictions on time intervals between modernization, though Horinko and other top EPA officials insist the plants still must comply with overall permit limits and other state and federal programs for pollutants.

At least we're seeing some consistency.

The US treats the atmosphere like it treats other countries.

S*&^s on them!

zimv20
Aug 28, 2003, 08:57 PM
i think it's time to rename the Environmental Protection Agency.

Pinto
Aug 28, 2003, 09:45 PM
Maybe where seeing some of the outcomes of those secretive energy meetings, that Cheney wont let the public know what went on.

So much for open Government.

Governemt of the people
for the benefit of big business
and bugger the planet and future generations

mactastic
Aug 28, 2003, 10:17 PM
In addition, CO2 is no longer considered a pollutant in their eyes.

Link (http://msnbc.com/news/958391.asp?0cv=CB10)

Following its controversial Clean Air Act exemption for industry, the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday rejected a petition that carbon dioxide ó a gas that many scientists fear is warming the Earth ó be categorized and regulated as an air pollutant.

The rejection is a big win for automakers and utilities that operate coal-burning power plants. While CO2 is emitted naturally by plants, animals and humans, the increase in industrial emissions in the last century has many scientists worried. Vehicles emit 20 percent of those emissions in the United States, power plants 40 percent.
The rejection follows the EPAís decision Wednesday to exempt thousands of older power plants, oil refineries and other industries from a Clean Air Act rule requiring pollution controls when certain maintenance changes are done.


Glad to know their watching out for me.:rolleyes:

zimv20
Aug 28, 2003, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
i think it's time to rename the Environmental Protection Agency.

i'm for:
Office of Natural Resource Allocation

Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 10:38 PM
Whoo Hooo lets kill the planet quicker. That is good. I am all for clean air, but they have to show me solid proof. They have not.

Pinto
Aug 29, 2003, 12:26 AM
There is a huge politcal problem happening in our country at the moment.

The farmers are being taxed on the amount of gasses that our cows are emitting (nice way of putting it).

There have been tractor protests happening in rural towns, but the Government wont back down.

It may sound a bit silly to you guys, but cow farts and burps are our biggest polluter in NZ and as we have signed the Kyoto agreement we have to do something about it.


Everyone has to do their bit and the money from these taxes are going toward research in stopping bovine flatulence!

The fact is that the majority of scientists (not in the pay of big corporations) say that global warming is happening.

Some people just don't care or don't mind taking the risk.

Backtothemac
Aug 29, 2003, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by Pinto
There is a huge politcal problem happening in our country at the moment.

The farmers are being taxed on the amount of gasses that our cows are emitting (nice way of putting it).

There have been tractor protests happening in rural towns, but the Government wont back down.

It may sound a bit silly to you guys, but cow farts and burps are our biggest polluter in NZ and as we have signed the Kyoto agreement we have to do something about it.


Everyone has to do their bit and the money from these taxes are going toward research in stopping bovine flatulence!

The fact is that the majority of scientists (not in the pay of big corporations) say that global warming is happening.

Some people just don't care or don't mind taking the risk.

Dear lord you have to be kidding me. Money is being collected to research how to stop cow farts. Isn't that a bit extreme? Cows have been farting for thousands of years. Why now, must we stop the cow farts. I am not making light of your country. I have a lot of respect for your country. But do you not think that there could be better things done than study cow farts.

simX
Aug 29, 2003, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Dear lord you have to be kidding me. Money is being collected to research how to stop cow farts. Isn't that a bit extreme? Cows have been farting for thousands of years. Why now, must we stop the cow farts. I am not making light of your country. I have a lot of respect for your country. But do you not think that there could be better things done than study cow farts.

Methane is actually a potent greenhouse gas, and you'd be surprised at how many people underestimate the effects that cattle can have on the environment because of this.

zimv20
Aug 29, 2003, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
do you not think that there could be better things done than study cow farts.

how about turning more people into vegetarians?

Sayhey
Aug 29, 2003, 07:01 AM
I think maybe Beano in the feed, but it will probably cause some new form of mad cow disease. Or I'm sure that there are some stores in SF that can sell you guys some oversized plugs, would that be helpful? :D ;)

Sorry - couldn't resist. If you folks in New Zealand have cow farts as your biggest environmental problem then believe me when I say I'm envious. Not of the problem itself, I hurry to say, but of the lack of others. ;)

bobindashadows
Aug 29, 2003, 10:12 AM
Maybe the U.S. government realized that the other Greenhouse Gases are more potent, since humans create more CO2 every day than do cars.

I'll go fetch the numbers.

Backtothemac
Aug 29, 2003, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by simX
Methane is actually a potent greenhouse gas, and you'd be surprised at how many people underestimate the effects that cattle can have on the environment because of this.

Its' nature. Can we please stop playing God on this planet, and let what will happen happen.

IJ Reilly
Aug 29, 2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Its' nature. Can we please stop playing God on this planet, and let what will happen happen.

Um, no thank you.

mactastic
Aug 29, 2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Its' nature. Can we please stop playing God on this planet, and let what will happen happen.

Sure! If by playing God you mean polluting the planet to the point it becomes a cesspool, I'll be glad to stop doing that.

But I have a feeling you mean playing God as in letting industry have pretty much a free hand in determining what is harmful, so probably not.

zimv20
Aug 29, 2003, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Its' nature. Can we please stop playing God on this planet, and let what will happen happen.

my vegetarian comment speaks to the fact that cows are bred in massive numbers to feed meateaters (of which i am one).

so while the methane gas production is a natural occurance, it's volume is a man-made problem.

also consider that carbon dioxide occurs in nature, but mankind produces too much for the environment to handle.

Desertrat
Aug 29, 2003, 01:00 PM
This "relaxation" is a return to the EPA standards as of (roughly) 1990 for both emisisons and percentage-maintenance. (They were put in place at an earlier time, but I don't recall the specific time.) They were administratively increased during the Clinton tenure.

Emission-control requirements have been progressively increased since the beginning of EPA. Future plants will have to meet requirements which are "tighter" than those now in place after this rollback.

The idea is to not have to go shutting down useful plants before the end of a normal lifetime cycle, at a time when we're on the ragged edge as to quantitiy of generating capability.

I can't help but be amused by the yowling and howling about today's levels of pollution, having been around a while. I can tell you from personal observation that on a comparative basis that Houston is danged near pristine, today, compared to 1968.

People are complaining, today, about pollution levels that are 10% or 20% of what they once were. This is not to say we shouldn't try for further improvement; I strongly favor an unending effort. My point is that without some perspective, it's ridiculous nattering and mouth music.

'Rat

mactastic
Aug 29, 2003, 02:54 PM
This is an increase in pollution in the same way a promised tax cut that is repealed is a tax increase.;)

shadowfax
Aug 29, 2003, 03:21 PM
someone correct me if i am wrong--these regulation revisions apply to currently existing power plants/industrial facilities, and not to future/currently constructed such facilities, right? so this is just allowing older facilities to become outdated and closed by their own decrepitude and intrinsic inefficiency by comparison with future, better facilities.

if that's true, then this doesn't seem like such a big issue. in the long term, facilities will get better. i think it's far more practical to just let these things die themselves; we don't still use the old plants that caused all that pollution in the 19th century. pollution has decreased over time, as 'rat mentioned, and not just a little bit at that. it doesn't have to occur all at once, all the time.

mactastic
Aug 29, 2003, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
someone correct me if i am wrong--these regulation revisions apply to currently existing power plants/industrial facilities, and not to future/currently constructed such facilities, right? so this is just allowing older facilities to become outdated and closed by their own decrepitude and intrinsic inefficiency by comparison with future, better facilities.

if that's true, then this doesn't seem like such a big issue. in the long term, facilities will get better. i think it's far more practical to just let these things die themselves; we don't still use the old plants that caused all that pollution in the 19th century. pollution has decreased over time, as 'rat mentioned, and not just a little bit at that. it doesn't have to occur all at once, all the time.

These regulations allow plants that would like to modernize to install equipment that is the "functional equivelent" of what comes out. Under previous rules, these plants would only have been allowed to modernize if they installed costly anti-pollution measures. Now they are allowed to install updated machinery without having to clean up their emmisions. It does not apply to new plants, these still require the stringent anti-pollution controls. It gives companies an incentive to upgrade just enough to slip by under the new regulations while operating plants at a higher level than they would have been able to without an upgrade to the facility.

Ugg
Aug 29, 2003, 04:41 PM
I believe they are now able to substantially change a plant 20% at a time without having to install new air pollution control equp. Over a 5 year time frame, a plant could be essentially all new but would be regulated by the old laws, not the new ones. This loophole is so big it's sort of hard to tell what the point of the law is.

shadowfax
Aug 29, 2003, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
I believe they are now able to substantially change a plant 20% at a time without having to install new air pollution control equp. Over a 5 year time frame, a plant could be essentially all new but would be regulated by the old laws, not the new ones. This loophole is so big it's sort of hard to tell what the point of the law is. that's true. this seems rather fishy, i have to admit, at second look. certainly i see that there has to be some kind of regulation on upgrading, which has to be different from maintenance. it sounds like, and i guess this has been said, that the "EPA" is allowing upgrades to be categorized as maintenance, which seems really skewed and wrong to me.

mactastic
Aug 29, 2003, 04:53 PM
The fact that the auto industry and the utility companies were fully in favor of this was enough to make me unhappy about it. I like regulations where everyone is left bitching about the results. That usually indicates some level of fairness to me.

pseudobrit
Aug 29, 2003, 06:17 PM
I'm just downwind (like half a mile) of a city of 55,000 with horrible traffic on the bypass.

I can step outside my apartment and smell the pollution most warm days. It chokes my lungs if I try to exercise in it.

A great deal of our pollution in Pennsylvania comes from generation plants in the Midwest, out in Michigan, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. The tall smokestacks push the junk very high into the atmosphere so it stays out of their state; it comes down in ours.

This regulation will encourage power companies to make older stations pollute more rather than build efficient new, cleaner stations.

If this ******* is re-elected, I'm leaving the country. I can't live where I can't breathe.

Desertrat
Aug 29, 2003, 09:56 PM
And then there's Mexico. They've been adding units to a generating complex not far south of Eagle Pass, Texas. They burn lignite. No scrubbers.

The haze has reduced summertime visibility in Big Bend National Park from a once-common 150 miles down to sometimes less than 15--and we're over 200 miles northwest.

'Rat

Sayhey
Aug 29, 2003, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
And then there's Mexico. They've been adding units to a generating complex not far south of Eagle Pass, Texas. They burn lignite. No scrubbers.

The haze has reduced summertime visibility in Big Bend National Park from a once-common 150 miles down to sometimes less than 15--and we're over 200 miles northwest.

'Rat

'Rat,

it sounds like there is a crying need to have trade agreements that have stiff pollution controls as part of the process. That and the lack of labor standards was my (and many others) main objection to NAFTA.

Pinto
Sep 1, 2003, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
how about turning more people into vegetarians?

The cows are generally dairy herds rather than for beef.

NZ is a huge producer of milk and cheese products that no one wants.

One idea is maybe to produce a type of grass that will produce less gas in the cow's several stomachs.

Pinto
Sep 1, 2003, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Dear lord you have to be kidding me. Money is being collected to research how to stop cow farts. Isn't that a bit extreme? Cows have been farting for thousands of years. Why now, must we stop the cow farts. I am not making light of your country. I have a lot of respect for your country. But do you not think that there could be better things done than study cow farts.

I kid you not.

Bovine Link (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2572576a3600,00.html)

They are the biggest polluters in the country and pollution matters, no matter where it comes from.

Number of humans in NZ: almost 4 million.

Number of Cows 9 million

Number of sheep (also prodigious farters): 39 million.

This is the sort of country that during the 1/2 time break in the top Rugby matches (our version of superbowl), you're far more likely to see adds for sheep drenches and farm parasite controls, than for an Apple Mac.

The fact is that gas, is gas. Whether from a cows arse or a factory smoke stack.

shadowfax
Sep 1, 2003, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by Pinto
The fact is that gas, is gas. Whether from a cows arse or a factory smoke stack. i bet that animal stuff smells a lot richer than the smokestack variety, too ;)

Sayhey
Sep 1, 2003, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by Pinto
I kid you not.

Bovine Link (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2572576a3600,00.html)

They are the biggest polluters in the country and pollution matters, no matter where it comes from.

Number of humans in NZ: almost 4 million.

Number of Cows 9 million

Number of sheep (also prodigious farters): 39 million.

This is the sort of country that during the 1/2 time break in the top Rugby matches (our version of superbowl), you're far more likely to see adds for sheep drenches and farm parasite controls, than for an Apple Mac.

The fact is that gas, is gas. Whether from a cows arse or a factory smoke stack.

Are they really trying to figure a way to lower each animal's "emissions" or they just trying to figure the number of animals the country needs to reduce the herds to? In some ways it seems simple, reduce the number of cows. I'm sure there are many animal rights advocates that would object, but if the country reimburses the farmers in the form of a subsidy to keep the level of the herds at a lower size it seems managable. It makes a lot more sense than trying to genetically produce cows that emit less gas.

I just hope they never get around to studying the emissions of computer users! I'm sure there is a major source of greenhouse gasses coming from alot of folks on the web.

shadowfax
Sep 1, 2003, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Are they really trying to figure a way to lower each animal's "emissions" or they just trying to figure the number of animals the country needs to reduce the herds to? In some ways it seems simple, reduce the number of cows. I'm sure there are many animal rights advocates that would object, but if the country reimburses the farmers in the form of a subsidy to keep the level of the herds at a lower size it seems managable. It makes a lot more sense than trying to genetically produce cows that emit less gas.

I just hope they never get around to studying the emissions of computer users! I'm sure there is a major source of greenhouse gasses coming from alot of folks on the web. maybe though they could do something sciency and flashy like altering the diet of the cows, or supplementing it, with something that would reduce emissions of the cattle... i dunno, it's a thought.

simX
Sep 1, 2003, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
The fact that the auto industry and the utility companies were fully in favor of this was enough to make me unhappy about it. I like regulations where everyone is left bitching about the results. That usually indicates some level of fairness to me.

Hahahahahahahaha. *** simX wipes away a tear.

That's great, mactastic. Your statement is so true. I have to give you a high five for that comment. :)

Pinto
Sep 1, 2003, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
[B]Are they really trying to figure a way to lower each animal's "emissions" or they just trying to figure the number of animals the country needs to reduce the herds to? In some ways it seems simple, reduce the number of cows. I'm sure there are many animal rights advocates that would object, but if the country reimburses the farmers in the form of a subsidy to keep the level of the herds at a lower size it seems managable. It makes a lot more sense than trying to genetically produce cows that emit less gas.
/B]

lowering the number of animals would cripple the country financially, as they are the produce or are the major export earning overseas currency.

Perhaps this link would answer some of your questions:
Eighty million cows, sheep and deer are burping their way into a major methane headache for New Zealand (http://www.agresearch.cri.nz/agr/media/press/75_press.htm)

Some highlights:



Although still an area of debate, the consensus view internationally is that global warming increases atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and that net greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced. The Kyoto Protocol is a co-ordinated international attempt to reduce those global greenhouse gas emissions, and developed countries, including New Zealand, that ratify the Protocol agree to legally binding greenhouse gas emission targets. New Zealand is committed to limiting greenhouse gas emissions from 2008 to 2012 to 1990 levels - a very challenging target.



The main greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane. Although carbon dioxide is the major greenhouse gas globally, New Zealand is unique among OECD countries in that methane is the major greenhouse gas, so it is therefore our major target for reduction. Methane makes up most of our greenhouse gases because of the high number of dairy cows, beef cattle, sheep and other ruminants relative to our human population. Our total greenhouse gas emissions (expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents) are about 74 million tonnes a year, nearly 20 tonnes for each person.The challenge is to come up with methods to manipulate methane production in livestock therefore reducing emissions, without adversely affecting production on-farm, and in a way that is manageable for farmers. Current research projects:

1. A study of rumen microbes
This work focuses on the different rumen microbes involved in methane formation in the rumen. 2. This study focuses on evaluating grasses, legumes and silages fed to cows and sheep to better understand the contribution these species make to methane production. 3. Studies to quantify greenhouse gas emissions
As part of the Kyoto Protocol, New Zealand is required to produce annual inventories of greenhouse gas emissions.

So there you have it. More than you ever wanted to know about animal emissions.

20 tons of methane per human in the country. A lot more than can be accounted for from just from eating beans and curry.

Pinto
Sep 1, 2003, 06:36 AM
Looks like more of the same from Bush.

Fresh off the news today:

George "the despoiler" Bush (http://truthout.org/docs_03/090103E.shtml)

Bush Administration: Carbon Dioxide Not a Pollutant

WASHINGTON - Carbon dioxide, the chief cause of global warming, cannot be regulated as a pollutant, the Environmental Protection Agency ruled Thursday.

The decision reverses a 1998 Clinton administration position. It means that the Bush administration won't be able to use the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from cars.

Had the Bush administration decided that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and harmful, it could have required expensive new pollution controls on new cars and perhaps on power plants, which together are the main sources of so-called greenhouse gases.



Seems a bit pointless, little ol NZ reducing its cow emissions, when the US Govt constantly puts its industry and campaign donors first.

mactastic
Sep 1, 2003, 09:28 AM
Three words: Bovine Catalytic Converters!

Lets strap one to each cow!

Seriously though, it's quite amusing that NZ is "fully committed" to meeting it's Kyoto Protocol goals that it is considering some form of amelioration on it's #1 source of income. Now that's caring about the rest of us. If only we had that same level of commitment about our highest polluting industries.

Desertrat
Sep 1, 2003, 09:57 AM
So the world would be better off if we got back to the emissions levels of the 1990s. Hmmm. Why not the 1890s? And on a world-wide basis, since fair is fair; no more industrial emissions per capita in China, e.g., than in the US.

"We'll all be drinking that free Bubble-Up, and eating that Rainbow Stew."--Merle Haggard

(It occurs to me that while it's okay to bring back the wolf, we shouldn't think about bringing back the buffalo. :D)

There are times I'm glad I'm old, and retired. All these wondrous solutions to the problem of Globular Worming won't negatively impact my billfold nearly so much as if I were in my thirties with a family to support.

How many deer equal a cow? We need to kill more deer, given the numerous over-populated areas around the country.

:), 'Rat

mactastic
Sep 1, 2003, 10:00 AM
Ah yes, the "pass it off to future generations" mentality. What about your kids 'Rat? You said you have a son, so base your thought on how current policy will affect him and his kids. Actually, think about the effects your decisions have on the next 7 generations. It's a good rule of thumb to live by.

The reason I care about that statement is because I am in my 30's with a family to support. :mad:

Sayhey
Sep 1, 2003, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Pinto
lowering the number of animals would cripple the country financially, as they are the produce or are the major export earning overseas currency.

Perhaps this link would answer some of your questions:
Eighty million cows, sheep and deer are burping their way into a major methane headache for New Zealand (http://www.agresearch.cri.nz/agr/media/press/75_press.htm)

Some highlights:



So there you have it. More than you ever wanted to know about animal emissions.

20 tons of methane per human in the country. A lot more than can be accounted for from just from eating beans and curry.


Pinto,
thanks for the information. I'm with mactastic in my admiration of your government's committment to Kyoto, while my own continues to alter reports to deny the crisis. I'm sure the solutions you New Zealanders come up with will be helpful to us when we have an administration that is again interested in the environment for something other than company profits.

Desertrat
Sep 1, 2003, 06:26 PM
mactastic, my sin is that of not always agreeing that the "solution" to some problem will actually solve the problem. Or, that some particular solution might work--but its application is proposed in some Draconian manner which I find repugnant.

I've often found that disagreement with "everybody knows" is not necessarily a bad thing.

That I disagree does not at all mean I have no concern.

'Rat

mactastic
Sep 1, 2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
mactastic, my sin is that of not always agreeing that the "solution" to some problem will actually solve the problem. Or, that some particular solution might work--but its application is proposed in some Draconian manner which I find repugnant.

I've often found that disagreement with "everybody knows" is not necessarily a bad thing.

That I disagree does not at all mean I have no concern.

'Rat

'Rat I totally agree with you about solutions not being all they're cracked up to be and that some solutions may impose onerous conditions on some people more than others. I'm glad to know you are not unconcerned in these matters. I just think our society has a very hard time with the long view on things.

Pinto
Sep 1, 2003, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
mactastic, my sin is that of not always agreeing that the "solution" to some problem will actually solve the problem. Or, that some particular solution might work--but its application is proposed in some Draconian manner which I find repugnant.

I've often found that disagreement with "everybody knows" is not necessarily a bad thing.

That I disagree does not at all mean I have no concern.

'Rat

Whether you show concern or not is irrelevant.

Action is what counts, and inaction is just as damaging as having no concern.

zimv20
Sep 3, 2003, 12:27 AM
it's a "reinterpretation," so congress and public comment are irrelevent...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-01-epa-usat_x.htm


The Bush administration has ended a 25-year-old ban on the sale of land polluted with PCBs. The ban was intended to prevent hundreds of polluted sites from being redeveloped in ways that spread the toxin or raise public health risks.

The Environmental Protection Agency decided the ban was "an unnecessary barrier to redevelopment (and) may actually delay the clean-up of contaminated properties," according to an internal memo issued last month to advise agency staff of the change.

Ugg
Sep 3, 2003, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
it's a "reinterpretation," so congress and public comment are irrelevent...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-01-epa-usat_x.htm

I cannot believe this!!! I'll agree that some of the laws surrounding toxic cleanups could use a little work but to totally dismiss them is insane! They are just setting themselves up for a mass of lawsuits in the future. Love Canal II.

zimv20
Sep 3, 2003, 12:50 AM
Originally posted by Ugg
I cannot believe this!!! I'll agree that some of the laws surrounding toxic cleanups could use a little work but to totally dismiss them is insane! They are just setting themselves up for a mass of lawsuits in the future. Love Canal II.

you must admit -- it _is_ unfair to trust manufacturing to reduce their own emissions, but not give developers a chance to clean up the land before selling it off.

:rolleyes:

Desertrat
Sep 5, 2003, 02:53 PM
"Whether you show concern or not is irrelevant."

Pinto, do you work at taking statements completely out of context? Or just not read what went before?

"Action is what counts, and inaction is just as damaging as having no concern."

That though is all well and good, if one considers that motion equals accomplishment. One person's "inaction" might just be another person's thinking things through before diving into an empty swimming pool.

I put in four years of professional work in environmental protection stuff, which contributed to some protective land-use legislation. Et vous, Pinto? I've lobbied legislators on matters environmental since before NEPA 1969, signed by Nixon in 1972. I spend a fair amount of time, labor and money on environmental enhancement for wildlife. Et vous? I laid out $40 thousand on land to both protect my view and to create a wildlife preserve--nobody's tax money needed. Et vous? How often do you speak to your elected officials about environmental matters? Letters? Campaign funds?

I made my bones decades ago. I don't need lectures from wannabes.

'Rat