Against the EPA

Why are so many people are against rules which try to clean up the enviroment so we all can lead healthier lives.Many people actually believe that the EPA is nothing but a left wing organization out to kill America's energy production causing us to pay higher prices from overseas nations.We all know that regulations cost companies more to produce their energy but who wants to breathe dirty air?Are the ones against it think cheaper energy is worth it ?Do they belive that the money gained is worth sacrificing people's lives?Some people are saying we don't have global warming when the consensus among all the scientists say we do.

Wrong forum, dude. Unless the EPA is a Christian rock band?

LOL

[quote="valentino, post:1, topic:243845"]
Why are so many people are against rules which try to clean up the enviroment so we all can lead healthier lives.Many people actually believe that the EPA is nothing but a left wing organization out to kill America's energy production causing us to pay higher prices from overseas nations.We all know that regulations cost companies more to produce their energy but who wants to breathe dirty air?Are the ones against it think cheaper energy is worth it ?Do they belive that the money gained is worth sacrificing people's lives?Some people are saying we don't have global warming when the consensus among all the scientists say we do.

[/quote]

There is no actual 'consensus' about anthropogenic global warming. There is an overwhelming body of evidence that the junk science known as 'climate change' is nothing more than a political baseball bat to bludgeon the public into forking over more money for a threat that doesn't exist.

The rest of what you said is true: the EPA is a government dinosaur that is designed to kill American business. In fact, 'green' is the new marxism.

And nobody's life is being sacrificed. People are living LONGER than ever before.

[quote="valentino, post:1, topic:243845"]
Why are so many people are against rules which try to clean up the enviroment so we all can lead healthier lives.Many people actually believe that the EPA is nothing but a left wing organization out to kill America's energy production causing us to pay higher prices from overseas nations

[/quote]

Cause there is little we can do to change the effect of global warming. The Earth goes through stages of extreme cold and heat. Remember the ice age? The Earth is warming up. But Science also shows that we cannot do much to help it. The damage has been done already. Shutting down the most energy and land effecient form of energy (fossil fuels), will lead to mass shortages of power. Wind and solar take far too much land to be serious replacements. Nuclear is an option, and imo the best option. But given the one accident in Japan, I doubt we will see an increase in that respect.

[quote="valentino, post:1, topic:243845"]

.We all know that regulations cost companies more to produce their energy but who wants to breathe dirty air?Are the ones against it think cheaper energy is worth it ?

[/quote]

Cities (as in population centers) have the dirtiest air anywhere. Believe it or not, factories are already regulated extensively on how much pollutants they can produce. If you want to have clean air, try convincing people to move from cities. It'll help more.

[quote="valentino, post:1, topic:243845"]

Do they belive that the money gained is worth sacrificing people's lives?Some people are saying we don't have global warming when the consensus among all the scientists say we do.

[/quote]

People's life expectancies are increasing. I don't think we are sacrificing any more lives by living as we have lived for around 200 years, than we did at the start of the industrial revolution.

And as I mentioned before. Scientists agree the earth is warming. They also agree that we cannot really help it. Its a natural process

Pope calls for safe, environment-friendly energy solutions

'Adopting a total way of life that respects the environment and supporting research and exploitation of clean energy that preserves the heritage of (God's) creation and are harmless to humans must be political and economic priorities,' Benedict said.

Pope Benedict: 'human ecology is an imperative

Pope Benedict appealed for a global lifestyle which respects the environment, develops clean energy and protects humanity, in a speech on Thursday, to six new ambassadors to the Holy See: Stefan Gorda of Moldavia, Narciso Ntugu Abeso Oyana of Equatorial Guinea, Henry Llewellyn Lawrence of Belize, Hussan Edin Aala of Syria, Genevieve Delali Tsegah of Ghana, and George Robert Furness Troup of New Zealand.

The Holy Father made one speech addressing all the new diplomats and then gave letters to each individually, which addressed the specific nations they represent.

In his introductory speech, referring to the "innumerable tragedies that have affected nature, technology, and the peoples" in the first semester of this year, Benedict XVI noted that "the States should reflect together on the short term future of the planet, on our responsibilities regarding our life and technology".

"Human ecology", he emphasized, "is an imperative. Adopting a lifestyle that respects our environment and supports the research and use of clean energies that preserve the patrimony of creation and that are safe for human beings should be given political and economic priority".

The Pope highlighted that "a change in mentality" is necessary in order to "quickly arrive at a global lifestyle that respects the covenant between humanity and nature, without which the human family risks disappearing.... Every government must commit themselves to protecting nature and assisting it to carry out its essential role in the survival of humanity. The United Nations seem to be the natural framework for this type of reflection, which should not be obscured by blindly partisan political or economic interests in order to give preference to solidarity over particular interests".

"It is also helpful to ask ourselves", he continued, "about the appropriate role of technology" because "believing it is the exclusive agent of progress or happiness carries a reification of humanity that leads to blindness and misery. ... Technology that dominates human beings deprives them of their humanity. The pride that it generates has created an impossible economism in our societies as well as a hedonism that subjectively and selfishly regulates behavior. The debilitation of the primacy of the human person provokes a loss of the meaning of life".

Benedict noted that "it is urgent that we match technology with a strong ethical dimension. ... Technology should help nature develop along the lines envisioned by the Creator. In working together, the researcher and the scientist adhere to God's plan that desired humanity as the apex and the administrator of creation. Solutions based on this principle will protect human life and its vulnerability, as well as the rights of the present and future generations".

[quote="TheRealJuliane, post:2, topic:243845"]
Wrong forum, dude. Unless the EPA is a Christian rock band?

LOL

[/quote]

What forum should ive put it in?thanks for advice.

thanks all for the info.Prodigal Son 1:How am i to interpret this.Its rather vague.Do you personally think we aren't paying enough attention to the enviorment and what is the pope actually saying in respect to global warming?

Has anyone thought about how a version of Pascal's Wager might apply here? Humans are notorious for having been wrong about things that were held as fact for long periods of time. If there is even a chance that global warming exists and that there is something we can do about it, shouldn't we err on the side of caution? If it doesn't exist, and we behave as if it has, the worst result is that we've spent a lot of money to create an environment that will still be VASTLY cleaner in the long run.

[quote="Rolltide, post:8, topic:243845"]
Has anyone thought about how a version of Pascal's Wager might apply here? Humans are notorious for having been wrong about things that were held as fact for long periods of time. If there is even a chance that global warming exists and that there is something we can do about it, shouldn't we err on the side of caution? If it doesn't exist, and we behave as if it has, the worst result is that we've spent a lot of money to create an environment that will still be VASTLY cleaner in the long run.

[/quote]

The worst result **could **also be ruined industries, destitute families and money spent on worthless technologies that could have been spent on other initiatives (eduacation, feeding the poor, etc.).

[quote="Corki, post:9, topic:243845"]
The worst result **could **also be ruined industries, destitute families and money spent on worthless technologies that could have been spent on other initiatives (eduacation, feeding the poor, etc.).

[/quote]

Actually, I suppose the WORST result would be that global warming WAS real, reversible, and we failed to do anything at all. Both tackling the issue and ignoring the issue have serious risks, that's true.

[quote="valentino, post:7, topic:243845"]
thanks all for the info.Prodigal Son 1:How am i to interpret this.Its rather vague.Do you personally think we aren't paying enough attention to the enviorment and what is the pope actually saying in respect to global warming?

[/quote]

The possibility of global warming is only a part of environmental concern, and I don't see it as a political point. I think everyone can agree that some water resources have been polluted by industrial, and chemical, 'wastes',that can impact life. .We also know that air can be impacted. If an area can impact a river, or cause it so that we have 'smog' alerts in areas, then why couldn't global actions impact us globally?

If we were to be wrong on global warming future generations will pay the price, and I don't think they will care which political party was right or wrong.

Personally, I think the Pope is telling us to be responsible locally and globally.

"a change in mentality" is necessary in order to "quickly arrive at a global lifestyle that respects the covenant between humanity and nature, without which the human family risks disappearing.... Every government must commit themselves to protecting nature and assisting it to carry out its essential role in the survival of humanity. The United Nations seem to be the natural framework for this type of reflection, which should not be obscured by blindly partisan political or economic interests in order to give preference to solidarity over particular interests".

Perhaps because of the EPA's history of absolute and utter lack of common sense and human reason in application of regulations to real world problems.

Exhibit A: I'm working on a project right now regulated by the EPA because of some chemical contamination in the soil. It is an old quarry site that was partially refilled back in the 1950's with construction rubble and demolition debris. The remainder of the quarry is still a hole in the ground actively being filled with similar materials. Only now, those materials are much more highly regulated by the EPA (what is allowed in and what has to go to the sealed landfill). So far, so good.

The filled portion is being redeveloped into a long term end use. Because there is some low grade contamination (asphalt shingles, lead paint, etc) in the soil, the site must be covered with asphalt pavement or several feet of imported clean soil at the top to protect the public. But excess soil can't be relocated to the newer portion of the quarry 500 feet away.

The end result is that the EPA is perfectly fine with this material being left as-is, untreated or sealed in its current location forever. But moving it 500 feet to the right and covering it with 70 feet of clean material (instead of 4 feet in its current location) will land you in jail or facing 6 digit fines. So instead, any leftover soil that can't be incorporated into the site design needs to be trucked about 50 miles away to a special waste landfill at a cost of about $200/ton. The outcome: the land owner will build a steep hill of dirty soil covered with 4 feet of clean soil to avoid paying huge trucking and disposal costs. So instead of being safely buried 70 feet underground, every kid within 10 miles will be sledding on it every winter. Duh.

It is so stupid as to defy explanation, but my client is faced with hundreds of thousands of dollars of extra cost to ABSOLUTELY ZERO benefit to the environment.
And this is only my CURRENT example of the insanity. Ask any environmental engineer if the EPA operates rationally or not. You'll get an earful.

I'm all for common sense and environmental protection. But it can and must be done by people with a grip on reality.

Manualman: you make a very good case.ive been hearing the debates for along time.But the reps.very seldom bring up specific cases.There are a few which everyone has heard about but most of the time its the reps.saying they want to get rid of the EPA.I can't understand why the two parties can't agree on the outrageous regulations on the really bad programs and keep the good ones.Your's is obviously a bad one why can't they get rid of it?There has to be some kind of balance.The pro should outwiegh the cons and just get rid of it.

[quote="valentino, post:1, topic:243845"]
Why are so many people are against rules which try to clean up the enviroment so we all can lead healthier lives.Many people actually believe that the EPA is nothing but a left wing organization out to kill America's energy production causing us to pay higher prices from overseas nations.

[/quote]

The point is, as others have pointed out in this thread, the EPA does much more harm than good. Their regulations and the way they implement them, being an overbloated government bureaucracy, cause more harm than good. For example, the EPA is effectively regulating the coal industry out of business. Just recently a large energy company has announced closures of multiple coal mines because of expensive government regulations.

These regulations primarily increase the cost of nearly all commodities (since they raise energy costs, which trickles down to everything that is transported). As a result, this hurts the poor the most (as do most environmental regulations).

Some people are saying we don't have global warming when the consensus among all the scientists say we do.

The so-called consensus among scientists about man-made global warming is another fabrication of the media. There is serious disagreement among real scientists about this theory. In fact, here's a link to a petition that's been signed by over 31,000 American scientists who say that there is no scientific basis for man-made global warming:
petitionproject.org/index.php

Fossil fuels run the engines of our modern world. Cutting back on them when there are no viable alternatives in the near future (solar & wind power are not practical) will produce a lower standard of living, poorer health and more poverty.

Since the EPA unilaterally declared CO2 a "pollutant" shows it is not interested in real science.

How can we judge that we would be in better shape without the EPA? We have cities that have 'smog alerts' from emissions and industrial output. We have polluted water sources from 'wastes'. We have land pollution.

Where's the 'majority' of scientists denying that CO2 is harmful? Why are the polar icecaps melting at the rate they are? What do we have to lose if the warming is a product of technology?

I still don't see it as political as much as I see it as being responsible. If there were no regulations could we trust big industry to monitor themselves?

[quote="Professor_Bunky, post:14, topic:243845"]
Just recently a large energy company has announced closures of multiple coal mines because of expensive government regulations.

[/quote]

For me, this is what cuts to the heart of the matter: All the EPA (and other, similar organizations) know how to do is make laws. So when people break the laws, government agencies make new ones. And then they can feel good about themselves and tell the politicians who vote to fund them that they did something about it, by golly. And the politicians can turn around and say the same thing to the voters.

The problem is that increasing regulations only makes things harder for honest people who are trying to follow the rules, and does nothing to stop people who were already breaking the law from breaking it some more. This holds true whether we're talking about environmental regulations, worker safety regulations, or whatever.

[quote="Prodigal_Son1, post:15, topic:243845"]
How can we judge that we would be in better shape without the EPA? We have cities that have 'smog alerts' from emissions and industrial output. We have polluted water sources from 'wastes'. We have land pollution.

Where's the 'majority' of scientists denying that CO2 is harmful? Why are the polar icecaps melting at the rate they are? What do we have to lose if the warming is a product of technology?

I still don't see it as political as much as I see it as being responsible. If there were no regulations could we trust big industry to monitor themselves?

[/quote]

Global Warming, but not man made. Its the stages the earth goes through. We had a (relatively) recent ice age, now we are getting the alternate of that

[quote="valentino, post:13, topic:243845"]
....I can't understand why the two parties can't agree on the outrageous regulations on the really bad programs and keep the good ones.Your's is obviously a bad one why can't they get rid of it?There has to be some kind of balance.The pro should outwiegh the cons and just get rid of it.

[/quote]

It's a systemic problem that neither I nor anybody I know knows how to solve. Government bureacracy requires clear and rigid rules. Almost nobody in government employment is of the sort of mindset that truly likes to lead and make effective difference. That kind of behavior gets you noticed by politicians and either promoted by them (good) or fired by them (bad). But politicians come and go, so even if you make one happy and get promoted, when he loses and is replaced by his opposition, you will be labeled as the "enemy" and marginalized until you quit. The only way to stay safe in long term public employment is to follow the rules carefully, do what you are told by the elected guys and don't draw excessive attention to yourself.

The other problem with allowing bureacrats to excercise judgement and common sense beyond rigid and clear rules is the potential for corruption. Once a government employee has authority to make judgement calls, motive is created for bribes.

Historically, the approach taken was punitive. You make things illegal and then prosecute those who do it. Problem with that is that no action is taken until after the damage is done and those who can afford the best lawyers often get away with it or if it is an airtight case, declare corporate bankruptcy and walk away free. So they've moved to the up front regulation model, which creates the problems we're discussin here.

Every approach has its advantages and disadvantages. But the disadvantages always seem to keep growing as a larger and hard to predict burden on commerce.

[quote="linebyline, post:16, topic:243845"]
For me, this is what cuts to the heart of the matter: All the EPA (and other, similar organizations) know how to do is make laws. So when people break the laws, government agencies make new ones. And then they can feel good about themselves and tell the politicians who vote to fund them that they did something about it, by golly. And the politicians can turn around and say the same thing to the voters.

The problem is that increasing regulations only makes things harder for honest people who are trying to follow the rules, and does nothing to stop people who were already breaking the law from breaking it some more. This holds true whether we're talking about environmental regulations, worker safety regulations, or whatever.

[/quote]

Sounds like these politians are incredably stupid.How were such stupid people get elected?

I imagine a lot of people will be upset with what Michael Voris has had to say about global warming.

youtu.be/uMFAhW_ZmV8

youtu.be/qwQEoCANZsQ

youtu.be/6A6UBqEWRD8

However, it really says something when even Jesse "The Body" Ventura (admittedly not a Catholic) has been rather skeptical about the concept. Click on the following link:

youtu.be/QRuzVbAODHw

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.