ÊBush Administration Relaxes Air Pollution RulesBush policies promote pollution

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Pinto, Aug 28, 2003.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #1
    link



    At least we're seeing some consistency.

    The US treats the atmosphere like it treats other countries.

    S*&^s on them!
     
  2. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #2
    i think it's time to rename the Environmental Protection Agency.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #3
    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
     
  4. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    In addition, CO2 is no longer considered a pollutant in their eyes.

    Link

    Glad to know their watching out for me.:rolleyes:
     
  5. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #5
    i'm for:
    Office of Natural Resource Allocation
     
  6. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #6
    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.
     
  7. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #7
    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.
     
  8. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors 6502a

    simX

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    #9
    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.
     
  10. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #10
    how about turning more people into vegetarians?
     
  11. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #11
    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. ;)
     
  12. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    #12
    CO2

    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.
     
  13. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #13
    Its' nature. Can we please stop playing God on this planet, and let what will happen happen.
     
  14. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    Um, no thank you.
     
  15. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    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.
     
  16. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #16
    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.
     
  17. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #17
    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
     
  18. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    This is an increase in pollution in the same way a promised tax cut that is repealed is a tax increase.;)
     
  19. macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    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.
     
  21. Ugg
    macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #21
    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.
     
  22. macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #22
    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.
     
  23. macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #24
    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.
     
  25. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #25
    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
     

Share This Page