Trump goes all KGB on EPA

[1signguy]

I'll give you one tiny example-
In our CA plants we pay someone to do nothing but weight paint coming out and back into our paint rooms. Mind you, this is water based paint we can legally wash down the drain. This allows the AQMD to track our emissions... We have never been inspected but the fine for not tracking starts at about 50k. From my standpoint, those wasted payroll dollars could have been spent on marketing, new product development... things that would create lots more jobs and better people's lives.
In the end this causes businesses to move processes and operations to more friendly states- in our case AZ, Mexico and China.
If the regulations are sensible and balanced we keep all of the operations stateside. But no! Instead- jobs are lost and moved to places with lax or no environmental regs. Places where many still use lead based paint, child labor etc...
So how did this help Mother Earth? It certainly didn't help the families who lost a bread winner or two either.
At the end of the day your efforts accomplished nothing but causing your neighbor to loose his or her job!
All things in moderation!

 

[mfolch]

After all, what good is clean air or clean water if you can't feed your children because you don't have a job?

This post had me laughing my a$$ off. Thought it was a complete joke, a parody even. Especially this line. After all what good is a job if your water and air are poisoned, your oceans are dead, your sealevels are rising inland, your extreme weather patterns are destroying your farms, your livestock, your markets?

 

[elkduds]

I'll give you one tiny example-
In our CA plants we pay someone to do nothing but weight paint coming out and back into our paint rooms. Mind you, this is water based paint we can legally wash down the drain. This allows the AQMD to track our emissions... We have never been inspected but the fine for not tracking starts at about 50k. From my standpoint, those wasted payroll dollars could have been spent on marketing, new product development... things that would create lots more jobs and better people's lives.
In the end this causes businesses to move processes and operations to more friendly states- in our case AZ, Mexico and China.
If the regulations are sensible and balanced we keep all of the operations stateside. But no! Instead- jobs are lost and moved to places with lax or no environmental regs. Places where many still use lead based paint, child labor etc...
So how did this help Mother Earth? It certainly didn't help the families who lost a bread winner or two either.
At the end of the day your efforts accomplished nothing but causing your neighbor to loose his or her job!
All things in moderation!

Signguy, reading your well-considered posts, to see what I can agree with after I respectfully disagree. Trying not to rehash all the standard arguments pro/con. Because we have an EPA and regs, there is a place in the world that veers away from those harmful industrial processes you named (your Mother Earth question above). Your examples illustrate that w/o regs, countries and even states have opted out of these processes. Doing so has a cost to the environment: it is cumulative and is always passed to the people and creatures living in the environment. So that is a false economy, since many of those unpaid environmental damages can never be righted. Chernobyl, Love Canal, Deep Water Horizon...

Remember the orange mine waste in the Las Animas River, blamed on EPA whose contractors were trying to remediate unreclaimed industrial waste from when there were no regs? That is the future in China, Mexico, AZ, and it is not the fault of those who were trying to fix it. There are hundreds of those type disasters, waiting for an earthquake or industrial mistake to turn loose the damage left from businesses long bankrupt, whose profits are long gone while the cost remain, and have multiplied.

Those old damages that can be remediated, cost far more to fix than would have been the cost of avoiding that pollution originally. Your plant does exactly that by using the process that you described above, and the potential fine is a (-) incentive not to pollute, which works as intended. You haven't been checked, yet you follow the regs. Without the (-) incentive and enforcement, there is no business reason for environmentally sound industrial practices, just like in 1885. Results will be much worse now than back then, because there is no more unused space to hide that waste in this country, and the population @ risk is more than 100 times greater nowhen. Do you want to live and raise your children in the industrial pollution of Mexico or China? California has relatively stringent environmental regulations, yet its economy far outpaces that of Mexico China, AZ. There are a lot of variables beyond environmental regs that differentiate those places from CA. However, CA shows a viable economy can coincide w a protected environment, if so regulated.

Agreements: Industrial destruction will follow the cheapest path of least resistance, to Mexico, AZ, ND, wherever. Sensible and balanced would be a good benchmark, if we quantify the true short and long term costs of consumption/extraction/pollution. Without that consideration no accurate balance can be determined, and what is sustainable on this finite world will continue to elude us. I'm not willing to leave my future generations or yours that unpaid and deadly environmental debt.

And why would anyone defend government efforts to make these regulations, violations and lack of enforcement secret from the landowners and voters, We the People? Who will benefit most from that secrecy? Not you or me, brothers and sisters.

 

[castandblast]

Signguy, reading your well-considered posts, to see what I can agree with after I respectfully disagree. Trying not to rehash all the standard arguments pro/con. Because we have an EPA and regs, there is a place in the world that veers away from those harmful industrial processes you named (your Mother Earth question above). Your examples illustrate that w/o regs, countries and even states have opted out of these processes. Doing so has a cost to the environment: it is cumulative and is always passed to the people and creatures living in the environment. So that is a false economy, since many of those unpaid environmental damages can never be righted. Chernobyl, Love Canal, Deep Water Horizon...

Remember the orange mine waste in the Las Animas River, blamed on EPA whose contractors were trying to remediate unreclaimed industrial waste from when there were no regs? That is the future in China, Mexico, AZ, and it is not the fault of those who were trying to fix it. There are hundreds of those type disasters, waiting for an earthquake or industrial mistake to turn loose the damage left from businesses long bankrupt, whose profits are long gone while the cost remain, and have multiplied.

Those old damages that can be remediated, cost far more to fix than would have been the cost of avoiding that pollution originally. Your plant does exactly that by using the process that you described above, and the potential fine is a (-) incentive not to pollute, which works as intended. You haven't been checked, yet you follow the regs. Without the (-) incentive and enforcement, there is no business reason for environmentally sound industrial practices, just like in 1885. Results will be much worse now than back then, because there is no more unused space to hide that waste in this country, and the population @ risk is more than 100 times greater nowhen. Do you want to live and raise your children in the industrial pollution of Mexico or China? California has relatively stringent environmental regulations, yet its economy far outpaces that of Mexico China, AZ. There are a lot of variables beyond environmental regs that differentiate those places from CA. However, CA shows a viable economy can coincide w a protected environment, if so regulated.

Agreements: Industrial destruction will follow the cheapest path of least resistance, to Mexico, AZ, ND, wherever. Sensible and balanced would be a good benchmark, if we quantify the true short and long term costs of consumption/extraction/pollution. Without that consideration no accurate balance can be determined, and what is sustainable on this finite world will continue to elude us. I'm not willing to leave my future generations or yours that unpaid and deadly environmental debt.

And why would anyone defend government efforts to make these regulations, violations and lack of enforcement secret from the landowners and voters, We the People? Who will benefit most from that secrecy? Not you or me, brothers and sisters.

Temporarily stopping social media releases has you this up in arms? Wow.

The tree has needed pruning for a long time, and it's very eye opening to see who is crying "ouch" before the first branch has been clipped......

 

[1signguy]

As a job creator, my view point is clearly much different than some. I know the difficulties of making a payroll, covering health insurance costs... operating a business. Our government has done nothing but make the above harder for the last several decades mostly through over regulation.
I will never subscribe to the notion of man made global warming. It's a hoax- a massive redistribution scheme. But I celebrate a persons right to believe no matter how misguided and I'll informed I believe it to be.
From my standpoint, the environmental effort in the US has done little to nothing to "save the planet." The emissions, the drilling... is all still taking place. It's just that now we put everything on ships and planes and send it here. The carbon foot print of what you consume is therefore even higher...
The EPA and overburdensome government regulation have achieved one goal- it has redistributed the wealth. Its taken all the US manufacturing jobs and given them to the rest of the world who simply laugh at us- I have seen it first hand.
As I said in my first post- we all want clean water and air but we need a balanced and fair application of the rules and regulations. Otherwise nothing is achieved but the loss of US jobs and hurt families.
It's time to Make America Great Again and it starts by reigning in regulation and neutering the bureaucrats who have never run a business or had to look into the eyes of person who just lost their job.
These are just Trump baby steps- but you have to walk before you run...
I can't wait to grow the economy and put more people to work! So excited!!!

 

[airlocksniffer]

I will never subscribe to the notion of man made global warming. It's a hoax- a massive redistribution scheme.

^^This is what is known as an "alternative fact".

 

[HOT ROD]

Freebird U are so wright. If U ever had to deal with the epa or imsha. I have never dealt with epa. But I have dealt with imsha. And all I can say. They act and treat U like they are the kgb....... I know a few people that are in the oil industry... They will tell U the same... Change the laws as the see fit. When ever they want to. They answer to nobody.......

 

[5MilesBack]

I've been arguing for a while that things have changed, and most hunters have lost their way. This thread just confirms that.

I wouldn't say that most hunters have lost their way. It's just that we have an entirely new generation of hunters that haven't seen or experienced much in their lifetime yet, and all our education system has done over the past couple decades is brainwash them into what we see today. They haven't changed, it's just who they are. And it's not just hunters.

 

[tipsntails7]

I wouldn't say that most hunters have lost their way. It's just that we have an entirely new generation of hunters that haven't seen or experienced much in their lifetime yet, and all our education system has done over the past couple decades is brainwash them into what we see today. They haven't changed, it's just who they are. And it's not just hunters.

The funny thing is the generation before you said the same thing about you.

Regardless of the utter pussification of most in America at this point, discrediting science is a fools errand.

I respect peoples opinion when they feel humans have a smaller impact on the worlds climate whether that be correct or not, but to call it all a hoax and that we have zero effect is ridiculous.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dotman]

Temporarily stopping social media releases has you this up in arms? Wow.

The tree has needed pruning for a long time, and it's very eye opening to see who is crying "ouch" before the first branch has been clipped......

Pretty funny I think, especially since the blackout is suppposed to be lifted within a week. We have a new administration and things will change but doubt we see a change back to the 1800's.

I personally would like to see the removal off emissions systems for diesels that allow for inefficiency in consumption and over use of resources to burned out a canister. It amazes me that the EPA would prefer we used 25% more fuel, useing up more resources that really has hardly any impact on clean air.

 

[dotman]

As a job creator, my view point is clearly much different than some. I know the difficulties of making a payroll, covering health insurance costs... operating a business. Our government has done nothing but make the above harder for the last several decades mostly through over regulation.
I will never subscribe to the notion of man made global warming. It's a hoax- a massive redistribution scheme. But I celebrate a persons right to believe no matter how misguided and I'll informed I believe it to be.
From my standpoint, the environmental effort in the US has done little to nothing to "save the planet." The emissions, the drilling... is all still taking place. It's just that now we put everything on ships and planes and send it here. The carbon foot print of what you consume is therefore even higher...
The EPA and overburdensome government regulation have achieved one goal- it has redistributed the wealth. Its taken all the US manufacturing jobs and given them to the rest of the world who simply laugh at us- I have seen it first hand.
As I said in my first post- we all want clean water and air but we need a balanced and fair application of the rules and regulations. Otherwise nothing is achieved but the loss of US jobs and hurt families.
It's time to Make America Great Again and it starts by reigning in regulation and neutering the bureaucrats who have never run a business or had to look into the eyes of person who just lost their job.
These are just Trump baby steps- but you have to walk before you run...
I can't wait to grow the economy and put more people to work! So excited!!!

All climate change is is a way for professors and researchers to be published and receive tenure, there are no hard facts of truth and if you look at the history of the planet it has had global temperature swings for millions of years, we just think our tiny speck of time, which really is insignificant to the planets overall life cycle, is going to make a difference and I would love to see cold hard facts that prove this isn't a natural cycle for our planet.

Without a 1000 years of data from emissions we can not even start to develop an understanding of what effect they have. I also do not believe we have many unbiased scientists anymore, everyone has an opinion and belief they want to make sure is followed, ego is not a place for science and basing a theory on 100 years of data is like you deciding if you can retire at 55 based on your savings at age 12..

 

[gelton]

^^This is what is known as an "alternative fact".

There is no doubt the Earth is warming, but I dont believe it to be man made. Mars is warming to...should the Martians ban SUV's?

Earth isn't the only planet grappling with climate change, although this other orb doesn't have much in the way of fossil fuel emissions or a 97 percent of scientific “consensus” on global warming. Newly published evidence suggests Mars is experiencing global warming as it emerges from an ice age.May 31, 2016

Mars also undergoing climate change as ice age retreats, study shows - Washington Times

Or is it only on Earth that it is man made? Truth is - its a normal cycle that is driven by the sun not carbon.

 

[R_burg]

I'll give you one tiny example-
In our CA plants we pay someone to do nothing but weight paint coming out and back into our paint rooms. Mind you, this is water based paint we can legally wash down the drain. This allows the AQMD to track our emissions... We have never been inspected but the fine for not tracking starts at about 50k. From my standpoint, those wasted payroll dollars could have been spent on marketing, new product development... things that would create lots more jobs and better people's lives.
In the end this causes businesses to move processes and operations to more friendly states- in our case AZ, Mexico and China.
If the regulations are sensible and balanced we keep all of the operations stateside. But no! Instead- jobs are lost and moved to places with lax or no environmental regs. Places where many still use lead based paint, child labor etc...
So how did this help Mother Earth? It certainly didn't help the families who lost a bread winner or two either.
At the end of the day your efforts accomplished nothing but causing your neighbor to loose his or her job!
All things in moderation!

Regulation and oversight into your business for environmental reasons, hell any reason, is a job creator.

It might not be creating jobs in YOUR industry, but its creating jobs nonetheless.



Also, your ideas about manufacturing being outsourced to other countries being bad is not backed up by the economics of trade. The United States as a whole is better off by finding the cheapest and most efficient mode of production. This savings raises the Purchasing Power you and I have, which means we are better off as a whole. You would have an argument if unemployment was incredibly high right now, but its not. Even U6 is at reasonable levels.

 

[1signguy]

The funny thing is the generation before you said the same thing about you.

Regardless of the utter pussification of most in America at this point, discrediting science is a fools errand.

I respect peoples opinion when they feel humans have a smaller impact on the worlds climate whether that be correct or not, but to call it all a hoax and that we have zero effect is ridiculous.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When the UN's own scientists admit to falsifying the research criteria and numbers supporting "global warming..." the only science you have is science fiction.

Mankind's annual CO2 global impact pales in comparison to a single large volcanic eruption- which is generally considered to be 10-15 times greater in scale. (dependent on the kind of eruption and size) Does this absolve us of trying to do our part to protect the Earth? Of course not. Should we (mankind) make efforts to curb CO2 emissions? Why not? But the global accords, treaties and in country organizations have no policing authority outside the US. Many of the signers to these agreements have no intention of honoring the agreement. Consequently, all we have done is ship more jobs overseas.

I make no excuses for putting workers and their families first. They are the fabric that holds this country together and makes it work. I am tickled we have a President who feels the same way and I have no doubt our country will benefit greatly from the protection and growth of the important jobs they do and the things they create!

 

[gelton]

Regulation and oversight into your business for environmental reasons, hell any reason, is a job creator.

It might not be creating jobs in YOUR industry, but its creating jobs nonetheless.



Also, your ideas about manufacturing being outsourced to other countries being bad is not backed up by the economics of trade. The United States as a whole is better off by finding the cheapest and most efficient mode of production. This savings raises the Purchasing Power you and I have, which means we are better off as a whole. You would have an argument if unemployment was incredibly high right now, but its not. Even U6 is at reasonable levels.

You can hire people to dig a hole and fill it up again but that doesnt equate to production...its called the broken window fallacy. Someone standing there counting paint does not produce anything for anyone.

What is the broken window fallacy? | Investopedia

And your point about manufacturing is null and void, our current trade deficit is $40 Billion...and our current "not included in the workforce" is at a 40 year high, they arent even counted in the employment numbers. Waitresses and bartenders are consumers not producers and since 2014 we have added 574,000 jobs to the waitresses and bartender employment figures.

 

[tipsntails7]

When the UN's own scientists admit to falsifying the research criteria and numbers supporting "global warming..." the only science you have is science fiction.

Mankind's annual CO2 global impact pales in comparison to a single large volcanic eruption- which is generally considered to be 10-15 times greater in scale. (dependent on the kind of eruption and size) Does this absolve us of trying to do our part to protect the Earth? Of course not. Should we (mankind) make efforts to curb CO2 emissions? Why not? But the global accords, treaties and in country organizations have no policing authority outside the US. Many of the signers to these agreements have no intention of honoring the agreement. Consequently, all we have done is ship more jobs overseas.

I make no excuses for putting workers and their families first. They are the fabric that holds this country together and makes it work. I am tickled we have a President who feels the same way and I have no doubt our country will benefit greatly from the protection and growth of the important jobs they do and the things they create!

Notice how I didn't use the words "global warming"

I never said humans have more effect then natural disasters, but last I checked we can't stop volcanos from erupting.


Of course it's a smaller impact, but it is an impact.

It also depends on what you consider mankind's impact.

And your right, while the US, I believe is either the largest or second largest consumer per person on earth it won't matter unless everyone makes strides as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[R_burg]

You can hire people to dig a hole and fill it up again but that doesnt equate to production...its called the broken window fallacy. Someone standing there counting paint does not produce anything for anyone.

What is the broken window fallacy? | Investopedia

And yet, in today's modern society, we have proven time and time again that some forms of regulation are a necessary evil to reign in the natural tendencies of both capitalism and human nature to expand at any cost. Rather than the destruction entailed in Bastiat's theory, this regulation is done for the social good.

Some of these, such as the paint checker, may be redundant. Others are much more important.

 

[tipsntails7]

You can hire people to dig a hole and fill it up again but that doesnt equate to production...its called the broken window fallacy. Someone standing there counting paint does not produce anything for anyone.

What is the broken window fallacy? | Investopedia

Besides a job for the guy counting paint?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Idaho CTD]

Pretty funny I think, especially since the blackout is suppposed to be lifted within a week. We have a new administration and things will change but doubt we see a change back to the 1800's.

I personally would like to see the removal off emissions systems for diesels that allow for inefficiency in consumption and over use of resources to burned out a canister. It amazes me that the EPA would prefer we used 25% more fuel, useing up more resources that really has hardly any impact on clean air.

The new urea trucks get close to the same fuel mileage as the older pre-DPF trucks but at the cost of urea. The 2006-2007 Dodge trucks use to do 1ppm of particulate new from the factory in our emissions test. The 2007.5 trucks went to about .5ppm but lost 3-5mpg to do it. Granted these emissions test will let you have up to 40ppm and still pass. Now with 3-4000 dollars of extra emissions related crap on the trucks they got the mileage back up but it still cost owners fuel and urea. With the ULS fuel (another EPA mandate) costing upwards of 40-50 cents more a gallon and adding urea to the mix the cost of owning and operating a diesel has skyrocketed. When you have such a range to pass emission is it justifiable to look for .XXppm (that is fractions of 1ppm) with huge added cost like 3-4000 per truck? I understand wanting to make things as clean as possible but give them time to do it through fuel injection or turbos rather than urea and DPF's. The EPA mandated it so fast they had no choice but to use DPF's and urea. BTW Cummins could do like VW and tune it to pass emission by killing the throttle response in park. Another BTW......VW builds a motor in the US that gets 70mpg in the UK yet it doesn't pass emissions here in the US so we can't have it. Does that say something about our emissions testing? Yeah it says it's a ridiculous testing procedure. The same goes for the VW diesels that VW got in trouble for. They got better gas mileage then anything else on the road except maybe a Prius or full electric Volt yet they wouldn't pass emissions without tuning help. The EPA doesn't look at the big picture they just want more/stricter regulations. At some point you have to weigh fuel consumption with the emissions.

One more BTW...here emissions test are done as a snap test. A snap test has no load so the turbo can't spool to help provide more air to help burn the fuel. How many people drive around like that? Absolutely none. It's not a realistic test for a turbo charged diesel vehicle. They need load to spool turbos. Every modern diesel is turbo charged.

I got out of the diesel performance business because I didn't like where the EPA was headed with things. I was the first to build and market a compound turbo kit for the Duramax trucks and had been doing Dodge kits prior to that. At one time I had turbo kits on 4 of the top 5 fastest stock bodied Duramaxes in the country. There are still a lot of people hot rodding diesels but the hp levels of the stock trucks have risen to a level that it isn't needed nearly as much. It's a pretty cut throat business as well. I had people copy my stuff within 6 months of releasing something new.

 

[gelton]

Besides a job for the guy counting paint?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The broken window fallacy is often used to discredit the idea that going to war stimulates a country's economy. As with the broken window, war causes resources and capital to be funneled out of industries that produce goods to industries that destroy things, leading to even more costs. According to this line of reasoning, the rebuilding that occurs after war is primarily maintenance costs, meaning that countries would be much better off not fighting at all.

The broken window fallacy also demonstrates the faulty conclusions of the onlookers; by only taking into consideration the man with the broken window and the glazier who must replace it, the crowd forgets about the missing third party (such as the shoe maker). In this sense, the fallacy comes from making a decision by looking only at the parties directly involved in the short term, rather than looking at all parties (directly and indirectly) involved in the short and long term.



Read more: What is the broken window fallacy? | Investopedia What is the broken window fallacy? | Investopedia
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook