|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I suppose one might call it interesting; I'd just call it narrow minded and stupid. Believe it or not, there are people out there who find the humans in Avatar a sympathetic people 
|
On April 16 2014 04:16 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source It's interesting how Republicans favour certain big business interests over others. Why favour resource extraction industries, which provide an immediate large monetary benefit but exhaust on a fairly rapid timescale, over fisheries (another big business interest), which provide a moderate income over a long-term timeframe (infinite, if managed properly) while preserving the integrity of a critically important ecological species. That is some illogical shit :/. I know which one I would favour....
It's a local issue more so than a party issue. i.e. if you represent a coal mining area...
|
On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source
Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment.
While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier.
Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical.
With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive.
Source
|
It's interesting how Republicans favour certain big business interests over others. Why favour resource extraction industries, which provide an immediate large monetary benefit but exhaust on a fairly rapid timescale, over fisheries (another big business interest), which provide a moderate income over a long-term timeframe (infinite, if managed properly) while preserving the integrity of a critically important ecological species.
That is some illogical shit :/. I know which one I would favour....
Democrats do the same thing and:
It's a local issue more so than a party issue. i.e. if you represent a coal mining area...
There is the reason right there. And it's not all political, this is one fishery, one gold and copper mine, there are going to be tradeoffs everywhere. Right now in California there are farms that are going to be withering on the vine pretty soon thanks to water restrictions and regulations (some of those regulations resulting in the feds bringing in water for the fish that otherwise would 100% have gone to the farmers) protecting salmon and steelhead trout, and the issue is just as controversial.
Also Ted Cruz isn't stupid, he just pisses those on the left off. There's a difference. The man is incredibly intelligent and a skilled rhetorician when he's on his game. You either like him a lot or you don't like him a lot or you don't care which I don't because I don't think he'll be the nominee.
I suppose one might call it interesting; I'd just call it narrow minded and stupid. Believe it or not, there are people out there who find the humans in Avatar a sympathetic people
Of course the humans are more sympathetic, they actually have moral complexity and conflict. Blue cat people are almost all paper-thin (character-wise) cute and cuddlies or noble savage warrior tropes. throw in some noble savage earth motherism and the savage jungle girl love interest and you have your protagonist side stale as hell. the humans caused all the action and had an actual story arc and a moral lesson in that arc. at least some of the humans learned their lesson maybe most didn't who knows sequels are coming. There's actually shit going on with the humans. If I was a humanities professor I'd probably be outraged at the simplistic Eurocentric condescension shown by Cameron towards indigenous cultures blah blah blah.
we already know blue cat people are going to come out okay or at least the ones we are supposed to care about, what is going to happen with the humans is the only interesting question in the avatar series.
|
On April 16 2014 04:16 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source It's interesting how Republicans favour certain big business interests over others. Why favour resource extraction industries, which provide an immediate large monetary benefit but exhaust on a fairly rapid timescale, over fisheries (another big business interest), which provide a moderate income over a long-term timeframe (infinite, if managed properly) while preserving the integrity of a critically important ecological species. That is some illogical shit :/. I know which one I would favour....
The simple answer is because some big business interests are willing to pay more in "donations" then others.
Note this applies to both sides and not just the republicans.
|
On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source
Lol, thanks for the empty rhetoric.
|
On April 16 2014 04:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source Lol, thanks for the empty rhetoric.
He is right tho. Haven't you had enough spills recently in the US to show you the need for proper regulation and oversight?
|
On April 16 2014 04:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source Lol, thanks for the empty rhetoric.
I'm actually curious what you hold to be empty rhetoric given that he noted various figures and cited his source (and the fact that his other rhetoric holds true in reality).
|
On April 16 2014 04:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 04:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source Lol, thanks for the empty rhetoric. He is right tho. Haven't you had enough spills recently in the US to show you the need for proper regulation and oversight?
We do have regulation and oversight.
|
On April 16 2014 04:55 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 04:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source Lol, thanks for the empty rhetoric. I'm actually curious what you hold to be empty rhetoric given that he noted various figures and cited his source (and the fact that his other rhetoric holds true in reality).
he put up a caricature of what republicans think, rather than comment on what the proposed legislation actually does and why it is bad.
It's empty rhetoric, if you can't see that you're as dumb as him.
|
On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source
Those companies pay a huge share of the tax haul governments at the local state and federal level receive a year. The United States also has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Seems to me like the government is getting quite a big return on huge energy company profits.
Obviously regulation and government-business cooperation has been a great environmental success with the US being environmentally much better now (water, air, soil, forests, reintroduction of endangered species, etc.) than it was not so long ago. People still alive who aren't that old remember all kinds of pollution that back then was common and that is now considered outrageous and happens much much less.
I guess it works if people who already hate corporations read it...
He is right tho. Haven't you had enough spills recently in the US to show you the need for proper regulation and oversight?
googling around doesn't look like the US has had disproportionately more oil spills than the rest of the world recently (considering the US' status as a top 3 producer of oil)
|
On April 16 2014 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source Those companies pay a huge share of the tax haul governments at the local state and federal level pay a year. The United States also has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Seems to me like the government is getting quite a big return on huge energy company profits. Obviously regulation and government-business cooperation has been a great environmental success with the US being environmentally much better now (water, air, soil, forests, reintroduction of endangered species, etc.) than it was not so long ago. People still alive who aren't that old remember all kinds of pollution that back then was common and that is now considered outrageous and happens much much less. I guess it works if people who already hate corporations read it...
Yes things are better, the point is that these senators (and there sponsors) want to remove the very regulations that allowed the US to reach this better state.
Now you can argue that the EPA is abusing there power for some other agenda but if that is correct they need to be dealt with in a way other then to just remove there ability to punish violations.
And I wasn't talking about oil spills specifically. Didn't a large section of people have there tap water cut off because of spills from nearby mining?
|
On April 16 2014 03:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 03:15 Danglars wrote:On April 16 2014 03:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Louisiana legislators last week advanced a bill to make the Bible the official state book, according to the Advocate.
The bill passed in the Municipal, Parochial and Cultural Affairs Committee in an 8-5 vote, and the full state house will vote on the measure later this week, according to KTAL.
State Rep. Thomas Carmody (R), who sponsored the bill, told the Advocate that the bill was "appropriate" for Louisiana because of the state's religious ties.
However, state Rep. Wesley Bishop (D) said he felt the bill was a bad idea, warning that it could lead to litigation.
"You cannot separate Christianity from the Bible," he said. "If you adopt the Bible as the official state book, you also adopt Christianity as the state religion."
Carmody defended the bill, noting that the Louisiana could have more than one state book, just as it has multiple official jellies.
"This is not about establishing an official religion," he told the Times-Picayune.
Some lawmakers took issue with Carmody's decision to make the official book the King James Bible, rather than all versions of the text.
"Why not put all versions of the Bible? If there’s one, what are we saying about the rest of the people?" Rep. Robert Billiot (D) told the Advocate.
Rep. Ebony Woodruff (D) proposed an amendment to include "all books of faith," but the proposal, which Carmody opposed, failed in committee, according to the Times-Picayune. Source Blah blah blah ... woah Louisiana has multiple state jellies? That's amazing! It's times like these when I wonder how much I really would of disagreed with someone like John Adams "The proposition, that the people are the best keepers of their own liberties, is not true; they are the worst conceivable; they are no keepers at all; they can neither judge, act, think, or will, as a political body."This is attributed to Adams in The Life of Thomas Jefferson (1858) by Henry Stephens Randall, p. 587 It brings to my mind how blindly incorporation in the 14th amendment is accepted and blessed to the detriment of state's rights.
|
On April 16 2014 05:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 03:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:15 Danglars wrote:On April 16 2014 03:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Louisiana legislators last week advanced a bill to make the Bible the official state book, according to the Advocate.
The bill passed in the Municipal, Parochial and Cultural Affairs Committee in an 8-5 vote, and the full state house will vote on the measure later this week, according to KTAL.
State Rep. Thomas Carmody (R), who sponsored the bill, told the Advocate that the bill was "appropriate" for Louisiana because of the state's religious ties.
However, state Rep. Wesley Bishop (D) said he felt the bill was a bad idea, warning that it could lead to litigation.
"You cannot separate Christianity from the Bible," he said. "If you adopt the Bible as the official state book, you also adopt Christianity as the state religion."
Carmody defended the bill, noting that the Louisiana could have more than one state book, just as it has multiple official jellies.
"This is not about establishing an official religion," he told the Times-Picayune.
Some lawmakers took issue with Carmody's decision to make the official book the King James Bible, rather than all versions of the text.
"Why not put all versions of the Bible? If there’s one, what are we saying about the rest of the people?" Rep. Robert Billiot (D) told the Advocate.
Rep. Ebony Woodruff (D) proposed an amendment to include "all books of faith," but the proposal, which Carmody opposed, failed in committee, according to the Times-Picayune. Source Blah blah blah ... woah Louisiana has multiple state jellies? That's amazing! It's times like these when I wonder how much I really would of disagreed with someone like John Adams "The proposition, that the people are the best keepers of their own liberties, is not true; they are the worst conceivable; they are no keepers at all; they can neither judge, act, think, or will, as a political body."This is attributed to Adams in The Life of Thomas Jefferson (1858) by Henry Stephens Randall, p. 587 It brings to my mind how blindly incorporation in the 14th amendment is accepted and blessed to the detriment of state's rights.
Yeah, it's such an outrage that states don't have the right to completely disarm their citizens and jail them for saying the wrong things.
|
On April 16 2014 05:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source Those companies pay a huge share of the tax haul governments at the local state and federal level pay a year. The United States also has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Seems to me like the government is getting quite a big return on huge energy company profits. Obviously regulation and government-business cooperation has been a great environmental success with the US being environmentally much better now (water, air, soil, forests, reintroduction of endangered species, etc.) than it was not so long ago. People still alive who aren't that old remember all kinds of pollution that back then was common and that is now considered outrageous and happens much much less. I guess it works if people who already hate corporations read it... Yes things are better, the point is that these senators (and there sponsors) want to remove the very regulations that allowed the US to reach this better state. Now you can argue that the EPA is abusing there power for some other agenda but if that is correct they need to be dealt with in a way other then to just remove there ability to punish violations. And I wasn't talking about oil spills specifically. Didn't a large section of people have there tap water cut off because of spills from nearby mining?
Yes in probably the most backward state in the country West Virginia, a spill from storage tanks of some kind of mining byproduct or something. The company is basically out of business now and the state and federal governments have responded with preparing new regulations and going after the company. And things of that magnitude with the water supply of something around a hundred thousand people effected are pretty rare.
|
On April 16 2014 04:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +I suppose one might call it interesting; I'd just call it narrow minded and stupid. Believe it or not, there are people out there who find the humans in Avatar a sympathetic people Of course the humans are more sympathetic, they actually have moral complexity and conflict. Blue cat people are almost all paper-thin (character-wise) cute and cuddlies or noble savage warrior tropes. throw in some noble savage earth motherism and the savage jungle girl love interest and you have your protagonist side stale as hell. the humans caused all the action and had an actual story arc and a moral lesson in that arc. at least some of the humans learned their lesson maybe most didn't who knows sequels are coming. There's actually shit going on with the humans. If I was a humanities professor I'd probably be outraged at the simplistic Eurocentric condescension shown by Cameron towards indigenous cultures blah blah blah. we already know blue cat people are going to come out okay or at least the ones we are supposed to care about, what is going to happen with the humans is the only interesting question in the avatar series. There's also liberals that think every entrepreneur, businessman, and capitalist of another stripe is as culpable as the humans in Avatar. Immoral people that seek and relish wars and the death of nature and less advanced people.
I giggled at the Eurocentric condescension.
On April 16 2014 04:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 04:55 Roe wrote:On April 16 2014 04:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source Lol, thanks for the empty rhetoric. I'm actually curious what you hold to be empty rhetoric given that he noted various figures and cited his source (and the fact that his other rhetoric holds true in reality). he put up a caricature of what republicans think, rather than comment on what the proposed legislation actually does and why it is bad. It's empty rhetoric, if you can't see that you're as dumb as him. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Rules for radicals 101.
|
On April 16 2014 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source The United States also has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
Do you have a source on that? (not the nominal rate, the effective rate)
|
On April 16 2014 05:21 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source The United States also has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Do you have a source on that? (not the nominal rate, the effective rate)
It's false information.
|
On April 16 2014 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source Those companies pay a huge share of the tax haul governments at the local state and federal level receive a year. The United States also has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Seems to me like the government is getting quite a big return on huge energy company profits.
Obviously regulation and government-business cooperation has been a great environmental success with the US being environmentally much better now (water, air, soil, forests, reintroduction of endangered species, etc.) than it was not so long ago. People still alive who aren't that old remember all kinds of pollution that back then was common and that is now considered outrageous and happens much much less. I guess it works if people who already hate corporations read it... Show nested quote +He is right tho. Haven't you had enough spills recently in the US to show you the need for proper regulation and oversight? googling around doesn't look like the US has had disproportionately more oil spills than the rest of the world recently (considering the US' status as a top 3 producer of oil)
What a fucking joke. Only 10% of the federal government's income comes from corporate taxes in 2013. Individual taxes account for 81%. This is the polar opposite from what it was back in the 50's and 60's, aka the golden age of capitalism in America, where everyone was prospering with a little house out in Levittown. 50 years ago the corporate income tax provided ~40-50% of the tax income. Corporations are paying less than ever, while payroll taxes have grown enormously.
How you could possibly say this when 26 of the top corporations paid no tax at all from 2008 to 2012 blows my mind.
|
On April 16 2014 06:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2014 05:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 16 2014 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2014 03:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- A pair of senators have introduced legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using its authority to preemptively block or to revoke permits for mine waste disposal. The move has roiled those in Alaska who want EPA to use this authority to block a massive copper and gold mine that could put a major salmon fishery at risk.
The bill, from Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), would limit the time period in which the EPA can deny permits. It would preclude the agency from invoking its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to protect certain areas before a company has formally applied for a permit, and would also prevent the agency from revoking a permit once it has been issued.
The senators have named the bill the Regulatory Fairness Act of 2014. In announcing the bill last month, Manchin argued that the EPA "has been waging a destructive war against energy production." Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and James Risch (R-Idaho) have also signed on as co-sponsors.
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to prohibit or restrict the dumping of dredge or fill material into waterways if the agency finds that doing so will have an "unacceptable adverse impact" on resources.
There have been several recent cases where the EPA has used this authority to block or revoke mining permits. The first was the EPA's decision in 2011 to withdraw a permit for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia. In issuing its decision, the EPA's assistant administrator for water said that the mine "would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend." Mine owner Mingo Logan Coal Co. sued over the EPA's decision, and just last month the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the company's challenge. Source Obviously the self regulation in the mining and energy sectors has a spotless record with no reason to think they would do anything to risk the environment. While they appreciate profit, above all else comes their commitment to the success of the United States followed by their undying desire to do the right thing. There are no examples of mining or energy companies poisoning water, destroying habitat, or intentionally avoiding rules and regulations intended to protect the people on the front lines of the energy frontier. Obstacles like the EPA (and Clean-Water Act) are impediments in the progress of the mining and energy sectors. Energy and mining companies have given no reason for people to believe that they would place profit above the safety and health of Americans. Removing the EPA's ability to revoke permits, protects vulnerable corporations who never give the EPA a good reason to do so. There are no reliable studies that show any significant danger to the environment or people around energy projects. To legislate as if there is, seems tyrannical. With only $23 billion in 3rd quarter profits for the top 5 energy companies it's clear regulations like these are devastating to the industry. Considering they only net ~$280 in profit for each ~$1 spent on lobbying it's obvious why they need senators to introduce legislation protecting them from the dire situation they are in. If senators don't stand up for these innocent defenseless Americans getting trampled by the government, they may not survive. Source Those companies pay a huge share of the tax haul governments at the local state and federal level receive a year. The United States also has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Seems to me like the government is getting quite a big return on huge energy company profits.
Obviously regulation and government-business cooperation has been a great environmental success with the US being environmentally much better now (water, air, soil, forests, reintroduction of endangered species, etc.) than it was not so long ago. People still alive who aren't that old remember all kinds of pollution that back then was common and that is now considered outrageous and happens much much less. I guess it works if people who already hate corporations read it... He is right tho. Haven't you had enough spills recently in the US to show you the need for proper regulation and oversight? googling around doesn't look like the US has had disproportionately more oil spills than the rest of the world recently (considering the US' status as a top 3 producer of oil) What a fucking joke. Only 10% of the federal government's income comes from corporate taxes in 2013. Individual taxes account for 81%. This is the polar opposite from what it was back in the 50's and 60's, aka the golden age of capitalism in America, where everyone was prospering with a little house out in Levittown. 50 years ago the corporate income tax provided ~40-50% of the tax income. Corporations are paying less than ever, while payroll taxes have grown enormously. How you could possibly say this when 26 of the top corporations paid no tax at all from 2008 to 2012 blows my mind.
The good old days? When corporate profits were higher and the government taxed less?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
