1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

And The Fool Strikes Again

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Old_Trapper70, May 8, 2017.

  1. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,247
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    The OP was regarding the EPA and BOSC panel replacement - you have given no evidence that the replacements to that panel are going to impact or undermine the roles of BOSC or the functionality of the EPA.

    I've enjoyed this conversation so far I hope we are not going downhill...?
     
  2. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,691
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Didn't know I had to draw you a picture, however, I cannot grasp why it is so hard to understand how the industrialists are going to prevent much of what the EPA has done just as they are doing now through Trump, and his EO's.
     
  3. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,247
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    Which industrialists?
     
  4. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,247
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    ...has so far been deficient is I posted above in reply to you articles
     
  5. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,691
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Doesn't matter which ones. Their intent is the same as is that of Trump.

    Don't know how I can make it any simpler for you to understand. Before the EPA industries of all kinds just dumped their waste where they felt like. Streams, lakes, ditches, didn't matter. So, the EPA was formed by Nixon, and regulations were implaced under the watchful eye of scientists. And while the effects are not perfect, the water is cleaner, the air is cleaner, and the environment is better off for it. Now the trend by Trump is to reverse that. The costs to industry to comply with these regulations is cutting into the profits. Even now coal sludge is once again allowed to be dumped into rivers, etc. Fracking can once again dump their waste deep below the earths surface where it will further destroy the faults, and the tectonic plates. And as more scientists are replaced by industrialists the matter will get worse, not better.

    I could go into the mistakes that the EPA has made such as their designation of what is a "wetland", however, that would not solve the problem arising now. What was intended to be solved by scientific research will not be "solved" by industrial profits. That is what the concern is over "regulations". It is costlier to have to transport, or clean up ones mess, then it is to just dump it in the nearest stream, or lake. It costs far more to have to install "cleaners" on an smoke stack then to just let it run free. It is costlier to convert to natural gas rather then just continue to burn coal.

    But, it appears that you do not understand how these changes will be made even though it has been explained to you that Trump wants these changes, the new director of the EPA wants these changes, and it is unlikely that anyone who is appointed to replace the scientists is going to be one that does not also want these changes.
     
    Openmind likes this.
  6. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,247
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    ... as well as human health care professions, academia, industry, public and private research institutes and organizations, and other relevant interest areas - so quite a full bag really. Or is this wrong?

    name the 3 appointees.
     
  7. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,247
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    Okay now I have it - your central contention based on the New York Times article and your points above is that all laws both state and federal/regulations bot state and federal and codes of practice both state and federal pertaining to and offering redress under, the laws regarding seepage, pollution and contamination, disposal and treatment and its effects and consequences will be annulled and/or revoked through legislation and Executive Order by Congress and the Senate and this will be done by replacing current employees/appointees of the EPA?
     
  8. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,691
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Not even close. One can still sue, and seek redress. If you could even slightly understand what I said is that the regulations concerning pollution will be eliminated even as they are being eliminated by Trump now. The next hurdle will be trying to end pollution when you have a hand picked group of industrialists on the board preventing the findings of the scientific community from going forward.

    However, I am certain you are smarter then your dog, and now you are just being contentious.
     
  9. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,247
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    Indeed, thats' exactly what is said above.
    on the contray I'm just trying to pick the bones out of your viewpoints and see where your thought train is going. I know you have an issue with Trump and his environmental flights of fancy (as do I) but there is also a legacy of fault and failure within the EPA and to some degree I can sympathise with the tenets of HR1430 and to some degree HR1431 - especially when you review the SST sub-committee hearings! I just don't think that reverting to the mandated BOSC panel profile is a step in the wrong direction until we know who the new panelists will be - that is my issue with the NY Times article. Knee-jerk reactions are not productive.

    As I said I am not trying to be contentious I am interested in the topic and trying to pick the bones out of an issue which needs to be looked at with calm heads. I have no issues with people looking vociferously at environmental impacts of industrial activity but am interested in the real world applications and implications of scientific method in the industrustrial and environmental processes.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
  10. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,691
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    But once again you ignore the history of the industrialists, and the environment, and the current actions of Trump that favor the industrialists not the environment, or the science of the matter. Ever since the EPA was founded by Nixon, and the Clean Air Act was signed, the air has improved. However, once again we are seeing an increase in air pollution. My G/F just went to California for a few days, and she was telling me of the pollution one can see from the air as they were landing. It was like a dirty brown layer over the city of San Jose. Here in Central Oregon at a elevation of 4300 feet we have days when the pollution blows in from the valley, and we have the "warnings". Even the lakes at this elevation have mercury warnings, and this is a result of the wind blowing the pollution up over the mountains not only from the West side, but from China, and Asia. Recent studies show where 43% of the groundwater sources are polluted, and other parts of the country, such as Iowa, are even worse. And we have no major industry here in Central Oregon.

    And now we are to return to the "good ol days" where industry reigned supreme? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. And as I said before, the EPA has gone overboard in the past, like my example of the definition of a "wetland", yet for the most part they have done good. I do not believe placing industrialists in the issue with their profit interests, and their disdain for the environment, is good for the country. The contentions they would create, thus justifying the actions of Trump, can only add to the confusion, and the further loss of a healthy environment.

    And the idea that one can just up and sue these industries, shows a lack of understanding of our legal system. As an example, a paint company recently received their settlement of a case with Trump. The original debt was around 34,000 dollars. The Court ordered Trump to pay $300,000 dollars of which over $260,000 in attorneys fees. Then you have the case of the Court battle regarding the use of asbestos, and mesothelioma. 30 years since asbestos was done away with, a minimum of 30 billion spent on Court cases, and no end in sight. Then there was the Agent Orange matter.
     
  11. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,247
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    Yes to some extent. The world has moved on from the dump it and don't worry about it era. I think you would agree that most industries are now ready to accept they have an environmental impact and work to mitigate their environmental footprint.
    Yeah...keeping a watch on that....it remains to be seen how this bozo, congress and the senate performs so the jury is out for the moment.
    Yeah I was interested in that as well - it slightly confused me as Kurt Schrader voted for HR1431 - he expends much verbage railing against the industrialists and their damage to the environment and water quality impairment and then starts banging on about how the timber industry needs to be beefed with better access etc. etc. up in Oregon as jobs are being lost! What's your view on this guy? Jobs or environment?
    What About academics who work with industry - take the major oil comapnies for example? Some pioneering work is being done by in the oil industry for the mitigation and "clean" applications for horizontal drilling/fracturing technologies and its environmental impact, look at the work of Dr. Krishnamoorti and his teams collaborative works - would he be acceptable? This guy is quite interesting as the associations that he and his teams have are actively involved in researching next generaltion drilling/fracturing techniques in collaboration with industry, national laboritories, environmental bodies and scientific bodies in order to maximise output whilst mitigating the impact on the environment. He and his team basically work with applied science, reseach and technology companies to provide solutions to industry so that they can lower cost structures whilst minimising environmental impact and its long term disputive impact. Would Dr. Krishnamoorti count as an industrialist or an acedemic? Where do you draw the line of distiction between the two?

    Continuing on the fracturing theme - for the time being it seems that there won't be any ban or hiatus in this practise therefore research and development will be needed to protect the environment current and future disruption? Some of the most advanced reseach in the fields of nano-technology, life sciences, data analytics and cognative computing are being undertaken in tandem with industry - should leading researchers in these fields be regarded as industrialists? An interesting point to consider is the effective "crew" change that will take place over the next 5-10 years in the oil and gas sector. Quite a large proportion of the current crop of geo-physicists, geo-scientists and engineers retire taking with them a vast amount of experience within that field. The next generation will be scientists and engineering from academia who will work with industry and within public/private organisations.
     
  12. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,691
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Not at all. The coal industry still wants to dump in waterways thus Trump eliminating Obama regulations on the matter. Farmers still want to use chemicals that are polluting the waterways especially groundwater which is also being polluted by oil companies especially with fracking. Nuclear waste keeps growing as was seen by the recent Hanford Project mishap. I do not know of any industry that has accepted their role in the pollution of the earth with a few exceptions in the world of renewals, and eco systems.

    You rarely see me post about an individual congress critter since I expect little from them. I do know that Oregon has lost jobs in the timber industry for decades as more of our timber is sold to China, and Asia. They mill it, then send it back to the US at an inflated price. And then we place an additional tariff on Canada for their soft wood products. The only way that problem is going to be solved is quit selling our timber overseas, and mill it ourselves.

    Dr. Krishnamoorti is a scientist with expertise in internal medicine, and while he, and others, are studying the effects of chemicals used in fracturing, and trying to find out how many different chemicals are actually used, and which ones they are, this has nothing to do with the use of these chemicals, and their effect on faults, or tectonic plates. The question you should ask is will his results be accepted by the Trump crowd, and industry. So far there is no evidence it is.

    A "Wait and See" moment.
     
  13. Aus22

    Aus22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,664
    Likes Received:
    125
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I do not understand all the details about American approach to climate change. I support action on climate change. We have already lost most of the Great Barrier Reef. We would like to save what left. I know Trump has attacks
    environment supports. But I don't think even he was to see the end of Florida.
    In Australia only extreme conservatives do not support action on climate warming. While the liberal Federal government still allows some fracking and coal generation the State Labour governments are opposed. The cost of coal mining is now greater than renewables.
    You should elect people in state governments who want action on climate warming. The issue is more a State issue than a federal issue.
     
  14. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,247
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    That's a farming issue - contamination from farm runoff.
     
  15. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,247
    Likes Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    All human endevours come at a cost! Do you own an oven? Do you own a house? Do you buy food? Humanity advances at a price that includes the emergent "green" alternatives which incidentally also come at a price. Should we discuss how Tesla "recycles" lithium? Should we discuss the damage to watertables and the environment of the mining companies digging Lithium salts for processing and the vast amount of energy expended to obtain metalic Lithium? What are the downsides of owning an EV for example?..... but thats for another time :)

    so you would agree with Congressman Schader to jobs over the environment then?

    must be a different one? Dr. Ramanan Krishnamoorti- Professor of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering; Professor of Petroleum Engineering; Professor of Chemistry.

    He's a respected panelist on the current SST Oil and Gas sub-committee therefore his testemony is taken into consideration.

    Exactly my point. The EPA has issues as we've both agreed so taking a look at its output and who provides that output and how that output is derived is a valid concern and should be open to scrutiny since the taxpayer is funding the EPA to the tune of $5.7billion per year. The US needs to debate these issues but needs to debate them with viewpoints from all sides of the argument so that informed descisions can be made and not produced by knee-jerking reports from ill infomed axe grinding journalists at the NY Times.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2017
Loading...

Share This Page