AP Interview: Gingrich calls for replacing EPA

[killerbee99]

:doh: I just don't get it, why do certain people just want to dismantle good regulation and let businesses run wild?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110125/ap_on_go_ot/us_gingrich_iowa#mwpphu-container



DES MOINES, Iowa – Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called Tuesday for the elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency, which he wants to replace with a new organization that would work more closely with businesses and be more aggressive in using science and technology.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Gingrich said the EPA was rarely innovative and focused only on issuing regulations and litigation.

"What you have is a very expensive bureaucracy that across the board makes it harder to solve problems, slows down the development of new innovations," Gingrich said.
Gingrich, who has acknowledged that he's mulling a run for the Republican presidential nomination, was in Iowa to talk to the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association. He also met privately with Republican legislators, often a sign in Iowa that people are laying the groundwork for a campaign. The state has the nation's first presidential caucuses.

Gingrich, who has made several visits to Iowa recently, said the EPA was founded on sound ideas but has become a traditional Washington bureaucracy. Gingrich had previously mentioned his desire to change the EPA, but Tuesday's explanation was the first time he made a specific proposal for replacing the agency, Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond said.
"We need to have an agency that is first of all limited, but cooperates with the 50 states," Gingrich said. "The EPA is based on bureaucrats centered in Washington issuing regulations and litigation and basically opposing things."

EPA spokesman Brenden Gilfillan in Washington declined to comment on Gingrich's statements.

Gingrich denied his proposal would result in environmental damage, saying he would replace the EPA with what he called the Environmental Solution Agency.
"I think you have an agency which would get up every morning, very much like the National Institutes for Health or the National Science Foundation, and try to figure out what do we need to do today to get a better environment that also gets us a better economy," he said.


Click link for rest of article..........

[AsburySkinsFan]

"Regulation is evil
Businesses doing whatever they want to make a profit is good"

Keep repeating that until you believe it.

[Larry]

I think we should dismantle the FBI and replace it with an organization that works more closely with criminals. One that doesn't just focus on laws and punishing people.

Edit: I wonder how he'd feel about doing the same thing with the border patrol and immigration enforcement.

[killerbee99]

I think we should dismantle the FBI and replace it with an organization that works more closely with criminals. One that doesn't just focus on laws and punishing people.

I lol'd

[Destino]

Anyone surprised? We've all known the GOP position on the environment is "just leave the hunting areas alone because we need their votes, everything else is fair game"

[Larry]

Anyone surprised? We've all known the GOP position on the environment is "just leave the hunting areas alone because we need their votes, everything else is fair game"

No pun intended.

[mboyd784]

"Regulation is evil
Businesses doing whatever they want to make a profit is good"

Keep repeating that until you believe it.

http://flaglerlive.com/wp-content/uploads/Bill-OReilly-thug.jpg
http://www.treehugger.com/hannity.jpg
http://thefastertimes.com/nonsensenews/files/2010/03/behindthescenesglennbeckflv-300x225.jpg
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2009/07/340x_FF_Gumbo.flv.jpg

Bought and paid for.

[Riggo-toni]

Quite frankly, the Dept of Energy is far far worse, much more bureaucratic, and way more litigious than the EPA. It's also deeper in the pockets of trial lawyers. Replacing the DOE with something aimed solely at alternative energy sources makes far more sense than scrapping the EPA, but it's too hard of a sell. The irony/hypocrisy here is that Gingrich was first elected as a moderate pro-environment Republican, who used his stance on cleaning up local industry in GA (specifically a bad-smelling paper plant) to get elected during the midst of the anti-GOP Watergate backlash.

[Wrong Direction]

If you guys would take the chance to read his book (A contract with the environment) you might realize that he's still a pro environment politician. It seems like you didn't make it to the bottom of the post.


"I think you have an agency which would get up every morning, very much like the National Institutes for Health or the National Science Foundation, and try to figure out what do we need to do today to get a better environment that also gets us a better economy," he said.

[Teller]

I don't get it, why can't some people understand the definition of "replace?"

[Wrong Direction]

I don't get it, why can't some people understand the definition of "replace?"

It's easier to read a headline and assume things than it is to understand issues.

[Darth Tater]

:doh: [FONT="Times New Roman"]I just don't get it, why do certain people just want to dismantle good regulation and let businesses run wild?

All government regulation, especially EPA regulation, exists primarily to help established business interests at the expense of the consumer. When it happens to "help" the environment, that's nice but never necessary and not usually considered.

[Teller]

Ahh, yes...I'm a conservative, so I must be stupid. Kudos to you though, for getting through your post without a Faux News reference. :cheers:

[DRSmith]

You need a government agency to protect and a government agency to invest in research

You have the NIH but you also have the HHS and the FDA that works to protect people and make sure the manufacturer and people providing care are not doing things harmful or illegal

[Wrong Direction]

You need a government agency to protect and a government agency to invest in research

You have the NIH but you also have the HHS and the FDA that works to protect people and make sure the manufacturer and people providing care are not doing things harmful or illegal

Fair point. Gingrich wouldn't argue. He'd argue that the EPA is a road block on too many things, like nuclear energy for example, and not enough of proponent for positive enviromental innovation.

[DRSmith]

Fair point. Gingrich wouldn't argue. He'd argue that the EPA is a road block on too many things, like nuclear energy for example, and not enough of proponent for positive enviromental innovation.

How does the EPA represent a road block to nuclear?

[Enter Apotheosis]

Ahh, yes...I'm a conservative, so I must be stupid.

I knew you'd figure it out eventually ;)

[Wrong Direction]

How does the EPA represent a road block to nuclear?

Bureaucratic permitting and approval processes.

[DRSmith]

Bureaucratic permitting and approval processes.

Proving that you will not create an Enviromental disaster is a problem?

I know we all miss the days of acid rain, burning rivers cancer clusters and a chance at the North American Cherynoble but avoiding this may be a good thing

Enviromental impact studies are a good thing

[AsburySkinsFan]

If you guys would take the chance to read his book (A contract with the environment) you might realize that he's still a pro environment politician. It seems like you didn't make it to the bottom of the post.
Please if there is a deal to "replace" the EPA, the GOP would make sure that the EPA is dismantled and then they'd never get around to replacing it. One of the Tea Party items is the removal of the EPA, let's not kid ourselves please.

Every time someone advocates something like this, the first thing I think is, "Gee might there be a reason we have an EPA to begin with?"

[Larry]

All government regulation, especially EPA regulation, exists primarily to help established business interests at the expense of the consumer. When it happens to "help" the environment, that's nice but never necessary and not usually considered.

All blanket statements are wrong. Many are utter BS.

[DRSmith]

Please if there is a deal to "replace" the EPA, the GOP would make sure that the EPA is dismantled and then they'd never get around to replacing it. One of the Tea Party items is the removal of the EPA, let's not kid ourselves please.

Every time someone advocates something like this, the first thing I think is, "Gee might there be a reason we have an EPA to begin with?"

I remember one Sunday on the right wing forums people came home from church and started posting how we could not destroy the Earth since God created it, it was almost like there was an organized effort by some preachers to teach the idea we do not need to care for the Earth since in the end we can not do any real damage and therefore all this worrying about the enviroment was nothing more than Earth worship

[Thiebear]

Didn't Gingrinch and Pelosi do commercials together on the environment?
Repubs made fun of him.......

[Larry]

Ahh, yes...I'm a conservative, so I must be stupid. Kudos to you though, for getting through your post without a Faux News reference. :cheers:

Your attempts at faux outrage over being attacked and labeled stupid might work better if

a) You had been labeled as stupid, and

b) Your previous post hadn't been this one.


I don't get it, why can't some people understand the definition of "replace?"

[Teller]

Your attempts at faux outrage over being attacked and labeled stupid might work better if

a) You had been labeled as stupid, and

b) Your previous post hadn't been this one.

He said "dismantle" in the OP. " said that Gingrich said "replace."

If I'm wrong, show me.

[Madison Redskin]

Bureaucratic permitting and approval processes.

Uh, perhaps it's a good thing that the EPA sets up numerous roadblocks to the construction of nuclear power plants.

http://www.chernobylkidslondon.com/sitebuilder/images/300px-Chernobyl_Disaster-378x349.jpg

[Larry]

He said "dismantle" in the OP. " said that Gingrich said "replace."

If I'm wrong, show me.

Silly me. That's what I get for assuming that you weren't responding to anything in particular, when you didn't quote anyone in particular.

My bad.

[Duckus]

Uh, perhaps it's a good thing that the EPA sets up numerous roadblocks to the construction of nuclear power plants.

Exactly what I was thinking. :ols:

Call me a communist, but I love regulations of nuclear power plant construction.

[DRSmith]

Interesting thing I was reading Cap and Trade could lead to more nuclear investment since the start up is 6-10 billion coal is cheaper to keep going

[Teller]

Silly me. That's what I get for assuming that you weren't responding to anything in particular, when you didn't quote anyone in particular.

My bad.

I literally changed one word in his first sentence. I'll paint a picture next time.

[Larry]

Uh, perhaps it's a good thing that the EPA sets up numerous roadblocks to the construction of nuclear power plants.

Depends on whether they're reasonable or excessive.

"All regulation is good" is just as full of BS as "all regulation is bad."

But that's a question of drafting proper legislation. Not a case of "what we need here is to get rid of the entire law enforcement agency and replace it with one that's politically designed to be chummy with the people it's supposed to be regulating."

[AsburySkinsFan]

I remember one Sunday on the right wing forums people came home from church and started posting how we could not destroy the Earth since God created it, it was almost like there was an organized effort by some preachers to teach the idea we do not need to care for the Earth since in the end we can not do any real damage and therefore all this worrying about the enviroment was nothing more than Earth worship
There is a definite line of thought that is expressed by many Right Wing Christians that the Earth cannot be harmed because God wouldn't allow it, and then there is an equally damaging line of thought that says that God is going to destroy the Earth so there is no use trying to protect it since we're not going to be here anyways. Both are absolutely blind.


Uh, perhaps it's a good thing that the EPA sets up numerous roadblocks to the construction of nuclear power plants.

No, no, no, no. Regulation is bad because businesses can't make as much money when they can't dump radio active waste into the water supply.

[Larry]

Nuclear power is capable of providing energy, right now, at current market prices, while producing zero greenhouse gasses.

The other things that can make that claim are . . .

[DRSmith]

There is a definite line of thought that is expressed by many Right Wing Christians that the Earth cannot be harmed because God wouldn't allow it, and then there is an equally damaging line of thought that says that God is going to destroy the Earth so there is no use trying to protect it since we're not going to be here anyways. Both are absolutely blind.




And then there is a scripture about God bringing to ruin those ruining the Earth

We are here to enjoy the Earth not destroy in the name of greed

[Madison Redskin]

Depends on whether they're reasonable or excessive.

"All regulation is good" is just as full of BS as "all regulation is bad."

True. However, I never said that "all regulation is good." I was responding the post which seemed to complain about the EPA's "bureaucratic permitting and approval process." Call me crazy, but I think that a plan to construct a nuclear power plant should encounter a "bureaucratic permitting and approval process" (even if that process might be modified in certain respects).

[Teller]

Nuclear power is capable of providing energy, right now, at current market prices, while producing zero greenhouse gasses.

The other things that can make that claim are . . .

Every rodent on earth, and a running wheel for each?

Damnit. Then PETA would get involved. :(

[Duckus]

Nuclear power is capable of providing energy, right now, at current market prices, while producing zero greenhouse gasses.

The other things that can make that claim are . . .

No on in this thread is against Nuclear power (from what I can tell). Many of us are just saying that we don't mind having a "bureaucratic approval process" in order to build a Nuclear power plant.

[Larry]

But back on topic.

I think we should replace the FDIC and the SEC with a new organization which will be friendlier to the banking and investment industry. One which will be tasked with"stimulating the economy" (meaning, the profits of the baking and investment industry).

[Wrong Direction]

Proving that you will not create an Enviromental disaster is a problem?

I know we all miss the days of acid rain, burning rivers cancer clusters and a chance at the North American Cherynoble but avoiding this may be a good thing

Enviromental impact studies are a good thing

When is the last time a nuclear power plant permit was approved?

[Larry]

When is the last time a nuclear power plant permit was approved?

Just out of curiosity, how many have been applied for in the last 10 years?

Edit: And I honestly don't know. It's just that I don't get the impression that there's this huge, nationwide demand to build nuclear power plants, and the evil government is suppressing it. I know that we aren't building any. But I don't see a whole lot that says we're trying either.

(And in case you can't tell, I think we should be building more. Frankly, a lot more.)

[AsburySkinsFan]

Nuclear power is capable killing thousands of people, and making hundreds of thousands sick with cancer, and is capable of making entire areas of land uninhabitable for thousands of years.

The other things that can make that claim are . . .
just a thought......

[PeterMP]

Bureaucratic permitting and approval processes.
Have you ever heard of the NRC?

[Wrong Direction]

Just out of curiosity, how many have been applied for in the last 10 years?

Here's one list, for 2008-2010.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf

Your point? As you stated, nuclear power creates zero greenhouse gases. Did you know that all of the nuclear waste from the entire country of France is stored under one building?

In fairness on the nuclear point, I'm sure part of the reason more haven't been approved is because the coal industry discourages both parties from REALLY supporting them. However, it goes without saying that the EPA and DOE have both serially prevented new nuclear plants over the last 25 years, and that has contributed to higher greenhouse emissions, higher energy prices and more dependence on the petro industry. It's only after this has finally become clear to Dems that their knee-jerk opposition to nuclear has started to ebb.

[Larry]

Nuclear power is capable killing thousands of people, and making hundreds of thousands sick with cancer, and is capable of making entire areas of land uninhabitable for thousands of years.

The other things that can make that claim are . . .
just a thought......

Oh, I dunno. Frankly, is coal that much cleaner? Really?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Here's one list, for 2008-2010.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf

Your point? As you stated, nuclear power creates zero greenhouse gases. Did you know that all of the nuclear waste from the entire country of France is stored under one building?

In fairness on the nuclear point, I'm sure part of the reason more haven't been approved is because the coal industry discourages both parties from REALLY supporting them. However, it goes without saying that the EPA and DOE have both serially prevented new nuclear plants over the last 25 years, and that has contributed to higher greenhouse emissions, higher energy prices and more dependence on the petro industry. It's only after this has finally become clear to Dems that their knee-jerk opposition to nuclear has started to ebb.

I'm one that tends to think that the reason more haven't been built is because we don't have a good way to dispose of the waste.

---------- Post added January-25th-2011 at 08:59 PM ----------


Oh, I dunno. Frankly, is coal that much cleaner? Really?

Long term, probably not, but when a coal fired plant has an accident you don't have to consult the weather maps to see if you're going to get cancer in the next year.

That said, I'm not a big coal fan either...which makes me lots of friends here in Kentucky.

[PeterMP]

Here's one list, for 2008-2010.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf

Your point? As you stated, nuclear power creates zero greenhouse gases. Did you know that all of the nuclear waste from the entire country of France is stored under one building?

In fairness on the nuclear point, I'm sure part of the reason more haven't been approved is because the coal industry discourages both parties from REALLY supporting them. However, it goes without saying that the EPA and DOE have both serially prevented new nuclear plants over the last 25 years, and that has contributed to higher greenhouse emissions, higher energy prices and more dependence on the petro industry. It's only after this has finally become clear to Dems that their knee-jerk opposition to nuclear has started to ebb.
Interestingly that site isn't an EPA or DOE site.

[Wrong Direction]

I'm one that tends to think that the reason more haven't been built is because we don't have a good way to dispose of the waste.

Nuclear energy is highly recycleable at this point. I love the Thorium reactor piece that came out last year, but aside from that unfulfilled technology, I don't see anything close to nuclear.

I agree that the waste is an issue, but enough to stop all building of nuc plants for 25 years? No, it was dem politics dating back to the anti-nuclear crowd in the 80's, not waste.

[Larry]

I am a big believer that what the Feds ought to be doing, to help the country, is to create a national storage site.

To me, that's something that should be done at the Federal level.

I think that a big part of the problem is that we seem to be operating under the assumption that we have to have a solution, right now, that's guaranteed to last for 100,000 years without maintenance. It's an impossible goal.

IMO, if we've got, say, a storage drum that's good for 20 years, then use it, and we'll replace the drum in 20 years.

(Although I remember reading a proposal supposedly attributed to Jerry Pournelle. He claimed that according to the environmentalists, half of Nevada has been rendered permanently unfit for human use, because we tested nuclear weapons there in the 40's. He proposed taking them at their word. Dig a big hole in the ground. Back up the dump trucks, dump the stuff in the hole, drive off and leave it there. Put a fence around the place, 30 miles away, with a sign on it every 100 yds "If you cross this fence you will die.")

[Wrong Direction]

Interestingly that site isn't an EPA or DOE site.

Yeah, I'll mea culpa that post. After I answered, I realized I jumped the gun on the EPAs role (though they do have a big role in stopping them).

[PeterMP]

Yeah, I'll mea culpa that post. After I answered, I realized I jumped the gun on the EPAs role (though they do have a big role in stopping them).
Please describe what role you think the EPA has with respect to stopping nuclear power plants.

[Larry]

Nuclear energy is highly recycleable at this point. I love the Thorium reactor piece that came out last year, but aside from that unfulfilled technology, I don't see anything close to nuclear.

I agree that the waste is an issue, but enough to stop all building of nuc plants for 25 years? No, it was dem politics dating back to the anti-nuclear crowd in the 80's, not waste.

You're pointing to the act that no permits were issued in the last 10 ears, and grandly announcing that it's "dem politics"?

You are aware of who's been in charge, lately, aren't you?

[AsburySkinsFan]

I am a big believer that what the Feds ought to be doing, to help the country, is to create a national storage site.

I think that a big part of the problem is that we seem to be operating under the assumption that we have to have a solution, right now, that's guaranteed to last for 100,000 years without maintenance. It's an impossible goal.

IMO, if we've got, say, a storage drum that's good for 20 years, then use it, and we'll replace the drum in 20 years.

(Although I remember reading a proposal supposedly attributed to Jerry Pournelle. He claimed that according to the environmentalists, half of Nevada has been rendered permanently unfit for human use, because we tested nuclear weapons there in the 40's. He proposed taking them at their word. Dig a big hole in the ground. Back up the dump trucks, dump the stuff in the hole, drive off and leave it there. Put a fence around the place, 30 miles away, with a sign on it every 100 yds "If you cross this fence you will die.")

Yeah....not this....:ols:

[Wrong Direction]

Please describe what role you think the EPA has with respect to stopping nuclear power plants.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
In 1989 under the Clean Air Act, EPA published standards limiting radionuclide emissions from all federal and industrial facilities. EPA also sets environmental standards for offsite radiation due to the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

---------- Post added January-25th-2011 at 09:14 PM ----------


You're pointing to the act that no permits were issued in the last 10 ears, and grandly announcing that it's "dem politics"?

You are aware of who's been in charge, lately, aren't you?

Do you deny that the Dem apparatus (both governmetn and legal) has been behind the end to building new nuclear power plants in this country?

[PeterMP]

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
In 1989 under the Clean Air Act, EPA published standards limiting radionuclide emissions from all federal and industrial facilities. EPA also sets environmental standards for offsite radiation due to the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
Right. And how do this prevent somebody from building nuclear power plants?

The current nuclear power plants obviously meet the requirements, and this isn't a situation where more stringent restrictions are placed on newer plants than older plants.

The liscensing process is essentially completely the NRC.

[Wrong Direction]

You're pointing to the act that no permits were issued in the last 10 ears, and grandly announcing that it's "dem politics"?

You are aware of who's been in charge, lately, aren't you?

By the way, you're the one who said 10 years, not me. I said 25.

---------- Post added January-25th-2011 at 09:18 PM ----------


Right. And how do this prevent somebody from building nuclear power plants?

The current nuclear power plants obviously meet the requirements, and this isn't a situation where more stringent restrictions are placed on newer plants than older plants.

The liscensing process is essentially completely the NRC.

They regulate the environment around plants (water) and (I believe) disposal of waste.

[PeterMP]

They regulate the environment around plants (water) and (I believe) disposal of waste.
They do. But the restrictions are easy to deal with. No properly operating nuclear energy plant is leaking anything to be concerned of at the levels of the EPA. Even the plants that are over 25 years.

There are standard EPA approved policies with respect to handeling and disposing nuclear waste and companies that do it (and if there weren't every nuclear power plant in the US would be closed down).

EPA restrictions haven't held up the opening of a SINGLE nuclear power plant in this country, and anybody saying otherwise either has no idea what they are talking about or is flat out lying.

[Wrong Direction]

They do. But the restrictions are easy to deal with. No properly operating nuclear energy plant is leaking anything to be concerned of at the levels of the EPA. Even the plants that are over 25 years.

There are standard EPA approved policies with respect to handeling and disposing nuclear waste and companies that do it (and if there weren't every nuclear power plant in the US would be closed down).

EPA restrictions haven't held up the opening of a SINGLE nuclear power plant in this country, and anybody saying otherwise either has no idea what they are talking about or is flat out lying.

I'll relent on this. Those regs clearly add cost, but as I said, I'll mea culpa the first EPA post.

[PeterMP]

I'll relent on this. Those regs clearly add cost, but as I said, I'll mea culpa the first EPA post.
Sure, they do, but you don't think France is regulating the emissions and wastes from their nuclear power plants?

The question is what is different here than places like France, and it isn't EPA regulations.

[twa]

The question is what is different here than places like France, and it isn't EPA regulations.

Decent sauces?

[PeterMP]

Decent sauces?
Different views on what personal independence is and the federal governments ability to do things like safely regulate nuclear power plants.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

(Claims that the government can't do anything right, scare people when it comes to things that ONLY the government can do. One of the biggest issues to building nuclear power plants is the local population. Partly, because people don't trust the federal government to properly regulate them. In France, local communities celebrate the building of nuclear power plants. In the US, it is a fight. And we end up over regulating as a result, but that is really the NRC and so talking about the EPA in this case makes no real sense.)

[Wrong Direction]

Sure, they do, but you don't think France is regulating the emissions and wastes from their nuclear power plants?

The question is what is different here than places like France, and it isn't EPA regulations.

Agreed. We're off topic for the thread of course though.

[twa]

Different views on what personal independence is and the federal governments ability to do things like safely regulate nuclear power plants.

)

Good answer, strangely we have many nuclear powered Navy vessels
Yes local populace does seem a major factor

[AsburySkinsFan]

Good answer, strangely we have many nuclear powered Navy vessels
Yes local populace does seem a major factor
I agree, but then the nuclear reactors on ship and subs are MUCH smaller than those that would be built to power cities, what's more is that if a ship does have a problem it can be taken to sea. Obviously that's not a perfect solution, but it's better than melting down Des Moines.

I just hope that I don't hear the NIMBY argument next.

[DCSaints_fan]

Sure, they do, but you don't think France is regulating the emissions and wastes from their nuclear power plants?

The question is what is different here than places like France, and it isn't EPA regulations.

This article http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html seems to indicate that it was the NRC, not the EPA that made nuclear cost prohibitive in the 70s-80s..

[Wrong Direction]

I agree, but then the nuclear reactors on ship and subs are MUCH smaller than those that would be built to power cities, what's more is that if a ship does have a problem it can be taken to sea. Obviously that's not a perfect solution, but it's better than melting down Des Moines.

I just hope that I don't hear the NIMBY argument next.

Sounds like you agree with Gingrich. :)

[PeterMP]

This article http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html seems to indicate that it was the NRC, not the EPA that made nuclear cost prohibitive in the 70s-80s..
I agree 100%.

[twa]

I agree, but then the nuclear reactors on ship and subs are MUCH smaller than those that would be built to power cities, what's more is that if a ship does have a problem it can be taken to sea. Obviously that's not a perfect solution, but it's better than melting down Des Moines.

I just hope that I don't hear the NIMBY argument next.

Be a neat trick to tow a vessel after a meltdown or that goes critical.

NIMBY certainly has increased costs per the link DC provided....interestingly the same forces are increasing other energy costs as well

[AsburySkinsFan]

Be a neat trick to tow a vessel after a meltdown or that goes critical.
Most ships are not in port, what's more is that even if it were in port you can tow a vessel before it goes critical.


NIMBY certainly has increased costs per the link DC provided....interestingly the same forces are increasing other energy costs as well
NIMBY is only hypocritical when someone uses wants the benefits without the consequence. What's more is that in situations like nuclear power it's not automatically NIMBY when someone opposes a new plant. I can oppose a new plant and live 1,000 miles away from it, that's not NIMBY. (just for clarification)

That said yes there are those who want the cheap power that nuclear can provide but then want to ship the waste into someone else's back yard...that IMO qualifies as NIMBY.

[DieselPwr44]

Honest question and I hope someone can answer it or point me in the right direction.

Isn't the EPA responsible for us not having enough oil refineries to meet demand? I think I heard or read one time that there hasn't been a new refinery built in like 30 years.

Isn't that kind of dumb with the technological advancements that have been made in that time?

True or False??

Please don't go off, not being facetious here....

[AsburySkinsFan]

Isn't the EPA responsible for us not having enough oil refineries to meet demand?
*serious response no snark*

Not sure about this because in the 20 years I've been driving I've never pulled up to a pump that didn't have gas, so it would at least seem like they are keeping up with demand.

But then if the oil companies produced more fuel then that would drop the amount they could charge thus reducing their profits. Toss in OPEC controlling how much they are going to produce in order to maintain a particular price per barrel and I'm thinking that this isn't as simple as just needing more refineries.

[Destino]

Nuclear power is fine. Having the GOP, a party that can't even state their position on environmental issues without saying the word business, redesign a watchdog in order to better serve businesses is not. The fact that there is even a debate on anything in this thread is absurd. Gingrich deserved tomatoes hurled at him for even having the stones to say something to this ridiculous.

Rarely do I see an idea this ridiculous though the source doesn't surprise me.

[twa]

Honest question and I hope someone can answer it or point me in the right direction.

Isn't the EPA responsible for us not having enough oil refineries to meet demand? I think I heard or read one time that there hasn't been a new refinery built in like 30 years.
.

Yes they are a barrier(as are the NIMBY's),we have however met the demand thru expanding existing units capacity

We will see how the new co2 bs impacts it (besides price increases)

[mardi gras skin]

I don't know anything about how the EPA works but I do think our environment would be better protected if the government worked with businesses to generate better environmental solutions rather than just opposing business practices. If that is already the EPA's mandate and they are accomplishing their mandate, I can't see why the EPA should be replaced.

[Prosperity]

If you guys would take the chance to read his book (A contract with the environment) you might realize that he's still a pro environment politician. It seems like you didn't make it to the bottom of the post.

he wants money to go to research instead of enforcement

it's dumb, cause we need both and only the gov't can really do the latter

[Destino]

he wants money to go to research instead of enforcement

it's dumb, cause we need both and only the gov't can really do the latter

It's a hand out to big business. We pay for the research for cleaner tech and once we get it cheap enough for them to use we *ASK* them if they'd please use it. Meanwhile we allow self regulation and refuse to fund or authorize enforcement.

As dark humor it's great. Anyone taking it seriously however shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone else.

[twa]

I could tell you a lot about the way they work and the bureaucratic idiocy involved...but it is better not to draw their fire

[Destino]

I could tell you a lot about the way they work and the bureaucratic idiocy involved...but it is better not to draw their fire

Anything enforcement is better left alone in the way you are talking about. Never poke a bear. Speak "in general". lol

[twa]

In general they are incompetent asses that generate and require a ton of paperwork and wasted time,,,and that's the good side :ols:
I'll shut up now

[Prosperity]

It's a hand out to big business. We pay for the research for cleaner tech and once we get it cheap enough for them to use we *ASK* them if they'd please use it. Meanwhile we allow self regulation and refuse to fund or authorize enforcement.

As dark humor it's great. Anyone taking it seriously however shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone else.

well I guess that depends on the money, the NIH gives it to research projects done by scientists. Who would get these grants he's talking about? Give $4 billion to BP to develop cleaner natural gas?

either way, the environment being such a broad concept (by definition) we can't hope for standard private sectors solutions because the damage is spread over everyone, so anybody that is gaining anything by wasting will profit cause his costs are spread to everyone else. The EPA was pretty useful through the clean air act. Acid Rain has actually been significantly reduced, could that have been done without enforcement?

I don't know, but I doubt it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

In general they are incompetent asses that generate and require a ton of paperwork and wasted time,,,and that's the good side :ols:
I'll shut up now

Yeah, see this is the kinda crap that I don't care about. Sorry, but your ranting about a bureaucracy isn't convincing, there are incompetents in every line of work, and if statistics hold then 1/2 of those employed today are below average workers. Folks on the Right like to kick and scream about the big gov't EPA sticking it's nose into everyone's business and mucking things up. But, you know what? The rest of us look and see that if the only thing that stands between us and companies that dump chemicals into our water supply is a bureaucracy that at the very least slows down the rate at which companies poison the people who live around them...then so be it.

Again, there is a reason that the EPA exists and it's because the people need protection from those who would poison the world to make a quick buck. My jerk of an ex-step father was one of these, he drove truck in the 80's and it was found out that he was illegally dumping 53 foot trailers full of scrap and every other kind of waste you could imagine down some of the country back roads near where we lived in Maine...my mother (they were divorced at this point) called the police and the EPA came in...seized his 80,000 dollar rig and put him on probation for two years. I say right on!

BTW, in case you don't know...hell hath no fury.

[twa]

Your example is perfect,they do not prevent the excesses...your mother did

[Hubbs]

Nuclear power is capable killing thousands of people, and making hundreds of thousands sick with cancer, and is capable of making entire areas of land uninhabitable for thousands of years.

The other things that can make that claim are . . .
just a thought......

Well, I think the pessimistic predictions of man-made global warming actually make significantly worse claims, so within that context, a large-scale shift towards nuclear power would actually be safer....

[Destino]

TWA has a point on paperwork. The government is too obsessed with paperwork and they are dreadfully inefficient because of their ridiculous need to track EVERYTHING.

[NoCalMike]

Suggesting the reforming of the EPA to make it work more efficiently is one thing, and actually something that could be looked into. However if anyone believes Newt's intentions are anything besides another backdoor deal with big business, has got to be kidding themselves. It is just another attempt to de-regulate big business further. Environment be damned, because there is profit to be made.

[mardi gras skin]

However if anyone believes Newt's intentions are anything besides another backdoor deal with big business, has got to be kidding themselves.

Is this just another layer of the "Newt the Boogie Man" cardboard cutout or do you have some reason to believe Gingrich doesn't care about the environment?

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/11/10/gingrich

Do you think that we should preserve the environment primarily for economic reasons or moral ones?

First of all, I don't think that you preserve the environment. The environment is constantly changing, constantly evolving. But I think that you want to nurture the environment and protect the environment from undue damage largely for moral reasons. It's part of our quality of life, and part of our relationship to a larger world. We ourselves are diminished when the environment is diminished.

Why do you think that we haven't seen more leadership from the United States on global warming?

We have been caught in a trap where environmental solutions are defined on the left as higher taxes, bigger government, more regulation and more litigation, and so conservatives just shrug their shoulders; since they oppose all four of those solutions, they refuse to get engaged in environmental issues.

One of the major reasons that Terry Maple and I wrote "A Contract With the Earth" was to reopen the debate, and to say that there are solutions which involve incentives, science and technology and markets. Entrepreneurs are potentially much more powerful and successful than regulatory and litigation solutions. We ought to be having a dialogue about which solution works better rather than being engaged in a purely partisan debate to see who can yell "anti-environmentalist" more.

What do you think that the U.S. should do about global warming right now?

I think we should have a billion-dollar tax-free prize for a hydrogen engine that can be produced at a commercially available price. I think that we should have a substantial prize for developing the first engine that can be mass produced that gets 100 miles or more to the gallon of fuel. I think that we should have a substantial research program under way for dramatically better ethanol products than corn or cane sugar.

We should have a 100 percent tax write-off for investment in the technology needed to make composite-material cars using the material comparable to that which works in the 787 Dreamliner that Boeing is building. Because composite material is stronger than steel and much, much lighter than steel, and you could produce a safer car at lighter weight, which would get dramatically more mileage.

Unless you can create economically desirable, environmentally positive technologies, you are never going to get China and India to adopt. If you truly want to affect global warming, you have to have a strategy that works in the U.S. and Europe, but it also has to work in China and India, or you're just, frankly, going to fail.

Do you think that we should adopt a cap and trade system for carbon emissions?

I think that we'd get results dramatically faster if we adopted large tax credits for non-carbon systems, including nuclear power. If we produced the same level of our electricity from nuclear as the French do, we would take 2,200,000 tons a year of carbon out of the atmosphere. That would be 15 percent better than the Kyoto treaty goal, and it would be almost a third of all the carbon produced by the U.S. annually.

I don't see where anyone, on the right or left, should have a problem with his vision for a cleaner earth. The right is not in favor of the past methods but the left isn't tied to those methods are they? They care about a better environment and if Gingrich has bought into solutions that conservatives can embrace, the stalemate can be unlocked and we can make progress.

Everyone's happy.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Your example is perfect,they do not prevent the excesses...your mother did

With that logic twa we should eliminate the police force too, because they don't prevent crime either. :doh:
Sorry man but that was totally weak.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Well, I think the pessimistic predictions of man-made global warming actually make significantly worse claims, so within that context, a large-scale shift towards nuclear power would actually be safer....

So stop global warming by creating an endless supply of radio active waste.........

---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 07:34 AM ----------



Since when did calls for replacing the EPA means eliminating sound environmental policies? Yeah the left would be upset if the Cap and Tax mandates the EPA are pushing, without going thru Congress, end up defeated I guess.
After watching the environmental policies of the last administration it's no wonder people don't trust the GOP with the environment.

[twa]

With that logic twa we should eliminate the police force too, because they don't prevent crime either. :doh:
Sorry man but that was totally weak.

Well since ya mention it, they are getting to be more catalogers of crime than preventers...there is certainly room for reform or replacement there as well.

[DRSmith]

But back on topic.

I think we should replace the FDIC and the SEC with a new organization which will be friendlier to the banking and investment industry. One which will be tasked with"stimulating the economy" (meaning, the profits of the baking and investment industry).

You had feriendly banking and investment laws and it killed the economy

You have to have balance one that protects the economy from the bad choices of the few and acts in the best interests of the coutry as a whole

[AsburySkinsFan]

Well since ya mention it, they are getting to be more catalogers of crime than preventers...there is certainly room for reform or replacement there as well.

Yeah, I think we need a Pre-Crime division with the Pre-Cogs.
In a free society law enforcement happens after a crime is committed...not before.

[twa]

Yeah, I think we need a Pre-Crime division with the Pre-Cogs.
In a free society law enforcement happens after a crime is committed...not before.

You are the one that brought up prevention,and police presence can do so if done correctly.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You are the one that brought up prevention,and police presence can do so if done correctly.

You're right, and the EPA can enforce environmental policy through inspections, fines and regulation which is what they were created to do and I support that task 100%, even if that means extra paperwork for someone. Local law enforcement agencies are not equipped nor funded to accomplish this task.

[Larry]

Is this just another layer of the "Newt the Boogie Man" cardboard cutout or do you have some reason to believe Gingrich doesn't care about the environment?


We have been caught in a trap where environmental solutions are defined on the left as higher taxes, bigger government, more regulation and more litigation,

Yeah, it's terrible trying to discuss issues with people whose position is to create boogymen.

----------


Ahh, the ole we are against clean air and for dirty water accusation, from the bash capitalism playbook 30th anniversary edition.

No comment necessary.

----------


Since when did calls for replacing the EPA means eliminating sound environmental policies?

Since it's the Party that has opposed every single piece of environmental legislation for the last 50 years, proposing it?

[mardi gras skin]

Yeah, it's terrible trying to discuss issues with people whose position is to create boogymen.

Ok, I agree with his characterization but even if he is wrong, so what? If he's on board with some way to actually improve the environment, isn't that a win for those who want to see progress? Instead of one party or the other promoting environmental improvement, we have the potential of two parties promoting environmental improvement. If Gingrich is wrong, if the left isn't tied to a certain set of solutions that the right opposes, all the better.

[DRSmith]

So was Nixon a man of the left?

Why is such issues such as health care, the enviroment used to be good Republican ideas?

[Larry]

So was Nixon a man of the left?

Actually, I've seen a lot of support for the argument that if Nixon were in politics, today (and if his policies hadn't taken a major shift to the right), then he'd be kicked out of the Republican Party. (Which also supports the contention that the reason Newt hasn't been kicked out, is because he's taken a major shift to the right. Which makes this thread kind of ironic, with the folks trying to claim that what Newt says, today, isn't really Newt, because look what he said 10 years ago. Y'all aren't highlighting how the evil liberals are falsely painting Newt. You're highlighting how far Newt has been forced to change, if he wants to get today's Republican vote.)

[DRSmith]

Actually, I've seen a lot of support for the argument that if Nixon were in politics, today (and if his policies hadn't taken a major shift to the right), then he'd be kicked out of the Republican Party. (Which also supports the contention that the reason Newt hasn't been kicked out, is because he's taken a major shift to the right. Which makes this thread kind of ironic, with the folks trying to claim that what Newt says, today, isn't really Newt, because look what he said 10 years ago. Y'all aren't highlighting how the evil liberals are falsely painting Newt. You're highlighting how far Newt has been forced to change, if he wants to get today's Republican vote.)

Like I said in the primary thread I feel sorry for people in the Pub party now, because they seem to have to choose between sounding sane and rationale and getting moderates and independents and getting the extremists in the base mad at them or doing the reverse and scaring the moderates and independents

[mardi gras skin]

Actually, I've seen a lot of support for the argument that if Nixon were in politics, today (and if his policies hadn't taken a major shift to the right), then he'd be kicked out of the Republican Party. (Which also supports the contention that the reason Newt hasn't been kicked out, is because he's taken a major shift to the right. Which makes this thread kind of ironic, with the folks trying to claim that what Newt says, today, isn't really Newt, because look what he said 10 years ago. Y'all aren't highlighting how the evil liberals are falsely painting Newt. You're highlighting how far Newt has been forced to change, if he wants to get today's Republican vote.)

Ah, this is just like saying Obama can't be pro-business because he's a democrat. It doesn't help at all.

[PeterMP]

Is this just another layer of the "Newt the Boogie Man" cardboard cutout or do you have some reason to believe Gingrich doesn't care about the environment?

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/11/10/gingrich


I don't see where anyone, on the right or left, should have a problem with his vision for a cleaner earth. The right is not in favor of the past methods but the left isn't tied to those methods are they? They care about a better environment and if Gingrich has bought into solutions that conservatives can embrace, the stalemate can be unlocked and we can make progress.

Everyone's happy.

People are tied to the previous methods because they worked.

"I think we should have a billion-dollar tax-free prize for a hydrogen engine that can be produced at a commercially available price. I think that we should have a substantial prize for developing the first engine that can be mass produced that gets 100 miles or more to the gallon of fuel. I think that we should have a substantial research program under way for dramatically better ethanol products than corn or cane sugar.

We should have a 100 percent tax write-off for investment in the technology needed to make composite-material cars using the material comparable to that which works in the 787 Dreamliner that Boeing is building. Because composite material is stronger than steel and much, much lighter than steel, and you could produce a safer car at lighter weight, which would get dramatically more mileage."

How is this not a tax increase?

Where is the billion dollars going to come from? the money to off set the tax cuts?

(What is he going to do if the Chinese government wins the prize?)

This is either a tax increase or deficiet increasing.

The other issue is the government is making industry favoring decisions. Why ethanol, hydrogen, and materials? What about solar, wind, batteries, CO2 capturing (MIT is passing emissions through a solution containing algea, which than absorb the emissions, including CO2, and use them to grow. Over time the algae can be collected and used as biomass for energy.), geothermal, what about the guy working on technology in his garage that Gingrich has never heard of?

Cap and trade is actually innovation friendly and not targetted. It doesn't matter where the technology is comes from. All that matters is that matters is CO2 reductions.

In addition, the cap and trade law that was rejected was predicted to be deficet reducing according to the CBO.

Gingrich is favoring approaches that are tax increases (or deficent increasing) that will most likely favor big businesses (as they will direct where and how the government directs its resources in terms of things like tax cuts and it isn't like the guy sitting in the garage working on the technology we never heard of is going to get tax cuts for him written into the law) and isn't guaranteed to work (I guess you don't pay out the prize if nobody wins, but you still have "costs" associated with the R&D tax credits even if the R&D never pays out).

Cap and trade on the other hand was deficiet reducing, is a true free market approach, and is likely to have some benefit no matter what (realistically if there is ABSOLUTELY NO innovation the cap levels will have to increased dramatically or phased in over much longer periods of times, but you'd still get some gain from increases in conservation and effeciency that can be achieved with the current technology), and has worked in the past for other issues.

I'm really not surprised that nobody takes Gingrich seriously on the issue.

He's right about China though, but there is no reason to believe that the innovations used by companies here to deal with cap and trade won't be applicable in China or that cap and trade is less likely to produce new technologies than other methods.

[Larry]

Ah, this is just like saying Obama can't be pro-business because he's a democrat. It doesn't help at all.

No, it's like saying Newt wants to eliminate environmental enforcement and replace it with industry consultants, because Newt says he wants to eliminate environmental enforcement and replace it with industry consultants.

And all of the "but that's not what he said, 10 years ago" doesn't change the fact that that is what he's saying, today.

[mardi gras skin]

I'm really not surprised that nobody takes Gingrich seriously on the issue.

If people are interested in seeing the Republican party make strides towards an environmental agenda, they better take Gingrich seriously. You know as well as I do that groups of people get so hung up on language that they are unable to see solutions. Gingrich is giving a huge chunk of Americans the language they need to see past old dividing lines. The particulars of his plan are secondary. The gift here is a philosophical perspective that respects the environment while promoting economic growth and a vocabulary that sidesteps old dividing lines.

Gingrich isn't appealing to the scientific community. He's appealing to my parents. They'll go with him on this even if it really is just new language for the same old "tax increase or deficit increase" solutions. He's using pro-business language that they can support.

If the left really cares about the environment, they'll see this as a major opportunity and work with republicans like Gingrich in refining the particular initiatives put in place and give on whatever language he couches it in so that the right can get behind it.

edit: replacing EPA or not replacing the EPA is secondary. Fundamentally, Gingrich is thinking the government needs to move more toward the carrot than the stick. That's how he sees the government providing the greatest environmental impact regarding business practices.

[Jeeb]

No, it's like saying Newt wants to eliminate environmental enforcement and replace it with industry consultants, because Newt says he wants to eliminate environmental enforcement and replace it with industry consultants.

And all of the "but that's not what he said, 10 years ago" doesn't change the fact that that is what he's saying, today.

It's also like Newt Gingrich, the man with a PHD in history calling Obama, "The most radical president in history."

[Destino]

Ahh, the ole we are against clean air and for dirty water accusation, from the bash capitalism playbook 30th anniversary edition.If the shoe fits!

Now I'm happy to come off this position if you'll just do me the favor of stating the GOP's position on the environment. What I always get is "now we value the environment but" and then we get the standard government hurts business lecture. They never actually quantify their position on the environment.



Now tell me how worried you are about Caribou and polar Bears if we are eventually drilling in Anwar to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?Are you arguing for the nationalization of Alaskan oil reserves? As far as I'm concerned the problem with oil isn't where it's from but how much it costs and who controls those prices. American oil companies sell American's oil for the same prices as the Saudi's do. The entire "reduce our dependence" argument is bogus.

If we want to impact the energy markets we have to focus on next generation solutions not the same tired short term band aids that make no difference.


Since when did calls for replacing the EPA means eliminating sound environmental policies? Yeah the left would be upset if the Cap and Tax mandates the EPA are pushing, without going thru Congress, end up defeated I guess.Since when? Since it was a republican that proposed it. Republicans are bankrupt on the environment and can't even state a position consistently. Your post is a perfect example of this. "Cap and trade" is a GOP environmental idea. Bush's team came up with it and called it a free market solution to the pollution problem. Now the GOP has run from that idea as well.

The GOP shouldn't even speak on the subject and expect to be taken seriously.

[PeterMP]

If people are interested in seeing the Republican party make strides towards an environmental agenda, they better take Gingrich seriously. You know as well as I do that groups of people get so hung up on language that they are unable to see solutions. Gingrich is giving a huge chunk of Americans the language they need to see past old dividing lines. The particulars of his plan are secondary. The gift here is a philosophical perspective that respects the environment while promoting economic growth and a vocabulary that sidesteps old dividing lines.

Gingrich isn't appealing to the scientific community. He's appealing to my parents. They'll go with him on this even if it really is just new language for the same old "tax increase or deficit increase" solutions. He's using pro-business language that they can support.

If the left really cares about the environment, they'll see this as a major opportunity and work with republicans like Gingrich in refining the particular initiatives put in place and give on whatever language he couches it in so that the right can get behind it.
The other possibility is that people could explain to your parents why Gingrich is spewing garbage that at BEST MIGHT help the problem, but will certainly benefit big businesses and potentially even foreign companies at the expense of the ordinary American tax payer and future generations.

[mardi gras skin]

The other possibility is that people could explain to your parents why Gingrich is spewing garbage that at BEST MIGHT help the problem, but will certainly benefit big businesses and potentially even foreign companies at the expense of the ordinary American tax payer and future generations.

Good luck :)

[twa]

What if by using a different model you have achieved good results?...aren't results the thing that matters

If flexible permitting achieves good results is that not a good thing?
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/08/10/10greenwire-by-messing-with-texas-air-pollution-permits-ep-43859.html?pagewanted=all

[PeterMP]

You are the one that brought up prevention,and police presence can do so if done correctly.
As somebody that deals with the EPA and sees some of their oddities (If a poor a can of soda down my lab drain, we likely will get in trouble. If I pour a beer down my lab drain, we absolutely will get in trouble. I have to keep paper documents in my lab for things that are on-line for free. I can't create an electronic database that includes multiple things actually related to the chemical in my lab (the actual name on the bottle (different chemicals can be named differently) and the catalog number) with a link a site with the MSDS sheet. I have to have a physical copy of the MSDS sheet in may lab.), you are absolutely dillusional if you don't think EPA regulations help prevent pollution.

[PeterMP]

What if by using a different model you have achieved good results?...aren't results the thing that matters

If flexible permitting achieves good results is that not a good thing?
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/08/10/10greenwire-by-messing-with-texas-air-pollution-permits-ep-43859.html?pagewanted=all
I didn't even read the whole thing honestly, but where in there did anybody claim the worked?

I read thing like this:
"But upon closer inspection, EPA has told TCEQ, the Texas program has not achieved the same emissions reductions the federal program would. During a meeting last year, federal officials presented TCEQ with data (pdf) showing that under its flexible permit, the Shell Deer Park refinery in Houston was being allowed to release more than twice as much sulfur dioxide (SO2) as it would be under the PALs permit."

"Public health groups and environmentalists argue that EPA rules, not state programs, are the reason. Texas still ranks last nationwide in many air quality categories, they say, and in some industrialized parts of the state, TCEQ air programs have not achieved compliance even with outdated federal air quality standards.

Just yesterday, EPA proposed to determine that the Dallas-Fort Worth region has missed its deadline to comply with 1997 eight-hour ozone standards. The area's nonattainment status under the decade-old rules would be upgraded from "moderate" to "serious," and still tougher standards are expected to be finalized by the end of the month.

During an interview last week in his Dallas office, on a day when the TCEQ had issued an air quality warning for the area, Armendariz said he is optimistic that the agencies will reach an agreement and allow Texas to continue running its own permitting programs."

As near as I can tell, Texas has been allowed to essentially circumvent the law for 15 years or so as nobody bothered to actually apply it to TX, and now that the Obama administration is actually going to try, they are throwing a fit.

But no claims at all that their approach actually worked better or even as good as the law that should have been being applied worked.

[Destino]

If people are interested in seeing the Republican party make strides towards an environmental agenda, they better take Gingrich seriously. You know as well as I do that groups of people get so hung up on language that they are unable to see solutions. Gingrich is giving a huge chunk of Americans the language they need to see past old dividing lines. The particulars of his plan are secondary. The gift here is a philosophical perspective that respects the environment while promoting economic growth and a vocabulary that sidesteps old dividing lines.This is a nice way of saying he's suckering idiots.


Gingrich isn't appealing to the scientific community. He's appealing to my parents. They'll go with him on this even if it really is just new language for the same old "tax increase or deficit increase" solutions. He's using pro-business language that they can support.I don't know what your parents do but this statement says he's playing off ignorance.


If the left really cares about the environment, they'll see this as a major opportunity and work with republicans like Gingrich in refining the particular initiatives put in place and give on whatever language he couches it in so that the right can get behind it.This is absurd. Anyone that actually cares about the environment would oppose this to the bitter end. This is like demanding doctors work with witch doctors if they really care about patients. You even said it yourself with "isn't appealing to the scientific community" and we both know why.


edit: replacing EPA or not replacing the EPA is secondary. Fundamentally, Gingrich is thinking the government needs to move more toward the carrot than the stick. That's how he sees the government providing the greatest environmental impact regarding business practices.This goes beyond sugar coating and into just plain nonsense. What he wants to do is remove the enforcement arm from the EPA and have them turn into a suggestion organization with no power.

I can't stop dbags like Gingrich that have already been thrown out of Washinton from selling bad idea to people too ignorant or stupid on the subject to know better. I can oppose them though.

[mardi gras skin]

As somebody that deals with the EPA and sees some of their oddities (If a poor a can of soda down my lab drain, we likely will get in trouble. If I pour a beer down my lab drain, we absolutely will get in trouble. I have to keep paper documents in my lab for things that are on-line for free. I can't create an electronic database that includes multiple things actually related to the chemical in my lab (the actual name on the bottle (different chemicals can be named differently) and the catalog number) with a link a site with the MSDS sheet. I have to have a physical copy of the MSDS sheet in may lab.), your are absolutely dillusional if you don't think EPA regulations help prevent pollution.

How much money does the EPA spend making sure you don't pour beer down your lab drain (or some similar "stick" initiative) ? Could that same money be applied to a prize for a hydrogen engine that can be produced at a commercially available price (or some similar "carrot" initiative)?

That's the choice Gingrich is talking about. Taking the money being spent right now on environmental concerns and moving it away from odd regulations and toward environmentally friendly innovations. What's so ridiculous about that?

[PeterMP]

Good luck :)
You don't talk to your parents?

[PeterMP]

How much money does the EPA spend making sure you don't pour beer down your lab drain (or some similar "stick" initiative) ? Could that same money be applied to a prize for a hydrogen engine that can be produced at a commercially available price (or some similar "carrot" initiative)?

That's the choice Gingrich is talking about. Taking the money being spent right now on environmental concerns and moving it away from odd regulations and toward environmentally friendly innovations. What's so ridiculous about that?
All of the waste from the labs goes into a holding tank. The university self-tests the tank and self-reports any issues. The EPA does periodic surprise inspections.

They aren't testing if we are pouring a beer down the drain. They are testing if we are putting all sorts of things down the drain. A beer has enough alcohol in it that we'd get in trouble (realistically it would depend on the time frame. There are certainly things living in are holding tank some of which would likely degrade the alcohol in the beer.)

If the didn't run the tests, then we could pour ANYTHING down the drain, including large amounts of organic solvents or solutions containing heavy metals, which would be VERY BAD.

**EDIT**
That's NOT what the specific piece you actually posted on climate change was talking about anyway.

[twa]

How much money does the EPA spend making sure you don't pour beer down your lab drain (or some similar "stick" initiative) ? Could that same money be applied to a prize for a hydrogen engine that can be produced at a commercially available price (or some similar "carrot" initiative)?

That's the choice Gingrich is talking about. Taking the money being spent right now on environmental concerns and moving it away from odd regulations and toward environmentally friendly innovations. What's so ridiculous about that?

Indeed

oh and Peter....don't let the letter of the law crush the spirit or results.
http://www.cleanairsys.com/airzone-blog/2009/01/flexible-air-permits-enable-increased.html

EPA is finalizing changes and clarifications to air quality permitting rules to encourage greater use of flexible air permits. EPA’s assessment of flexible air permits demonstrated that they can enable significant environmental and economic benefits, while reducing administrative workload for permitting authorities and facilities.


http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/07/26/26greenwire-texas-appeals-epa-veto-of-flexible-air-polluti-44641.html
In a statement today, Abbott said the program allowed large facilities to achieve reductions in the most cost-effective way. The state has reduced ozone by 22 percent and levels of nitrogen oxides by 46 percent since 2000, outpacing national figures.

"The net effect is greater regulatory efficiency, well-controlled facilities, and significant reductions in air emissions," the petition says. "In short, Texas' FPP improves air quality while helping regulators and regulated entities operate more efficiently."

[mardi gras skin]

This is a nice way of saying he's suckering idiots.

No, its not. Its just a peculiar aspect of human interaction that we are more open to ideas when we resonate with the language used to express those ideas. None of us are immune. You do the same thing whether you know it or not.

Gingrich is using language that will have the greatest impact on the people who are least receptive to the language commonly used in environmental conversations. It is very smart of Gingrich to recognize this and re-work the word game in a way that includes people like my parents who are not receptive to the conversation the way it is usually expressed.

[GibbsFactor]

TWA has a point on paperwork. The government is too obsessed with paperwork and they are dreadfully inefficient because of their ridiculous need to track EVERYTHING.

It's called bureaucracy. No pride of ownership and no competing brand. That's why the government is inefficient and always will be.

[PeterMP]

Indeed

oh and Peter....don't let the letter of the law crush the spirit or results.
http://www.cleanairsys.com/airzone-blog/2009/01/flexible-air-permits-enable-increased.html

EPA is finalizing changes and clarifications to air quality permitting rules to encourage greater use of flexible air permits. EPA’s assessment of flexible air permits demonstrated that they can enable significant environmental and economic benefits, while reducing administrative workload for permitting authorities and facilities.


http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/07/26/26greenwire-texas-appeals-epa-veto-of-flexible-air-polluti-44641.html
In a statement today, Abbott said the program allowed large facilities to achieve reductions in the most cost-effective way. The state has reduced ozone by 22 percent and levels of nitrogen oxides by 46 percent since 2000, outpacing national figures.

"The net effect is greater regulatory efficiency, well-controlled facilities, and significant reductions in air emissions," the petition says. "In short, Texas' FPP improves air quality while helping regulators and regulated entities operate more efficiently."
From your NYT link, the EPA never had anything against flex programs. The problem is that the TX flex program wasn't obtaining the desired (those that are mandated by law) results. The fact that back in 2009 the EPA was reviewing and clariffying the rules related to such things should be an indication that the EPA is actually doing their jobs on this front.

And what the EPA is saying is that they care less about regulated entities operational efficiencies (i.e. costs to the industries being regulated), and more about actual emissions (the companies should be less effecient (i.e. spend more money on emissions) based on the law. They also don't care (much) about percentage improvement since 2000. The fact that you lagged behind other states doesn't get you much benefit. Total emissions are too high.

Industry in TX is saying that the EPA is going to cause us to spend too much on controlling our emissions and not surprisingly the government of TX is agreeing with them.

That doesn't mean that the EPA is wrong. It means that the industries in TX don't want to have to meet federal regulations (which are the results of federal laws that have been passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court) and the state of TX is running interference for them.

[mardi gras skin]

That's NOT what the specific piece you actually posted on climate change was talking about anyway.

Sure it was:


There was a period where we had a regulation that managed creosote in telephone poles with an estimated cost of $7 trillion per life saved. Now that verges on utter irrationality and again made perfect sense to the regulators.

There was a lot of encouraging news in the polling data. It indicated that you could have a centrist, positive, solution-oriented and incentive-led approach to the environment that would be popular. It would meet the left's concern for the environment while meeting the right's concern for smaller government and lower taxes.

And from the article if not from Gingrich's mouth:

Gingrich and Maple contend that those on the right -- or the "mainstream" as they dub it -- must offer their own strategy for repairing the planet, which goes beyond what those tree-hugging greens have proposed. The strategy the authors outline, in short: forget the stick, embrace the carrot.

Gingrich sees waste in the EPA and he sees that carrot-type initiatives will gain the support of enough of the public that progress can be made. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear before.

ps. I'm sure Gingrich isn't particularly concerned with the beer you're pouring down your drain but you understand the point. :)

[PeterMP]

Sure it was:

And from the article if not from Gingrich's mouth:

Gingrich sees waste in the EPA and he sees that carrot-type initiatives will gain the support of enough of the public that progress can be made. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear before.

ps. I'm sure Gingrich isn't particularly concerned with the beer you're pouring down your drain but you understand the point. :)
Those aren't from your post about Gingrich and climate change.

[PeterMP]

No, its not. Its just a peculiar aspect of human interaction that we are more open to ideas when we resonate with the language used to express those ideas. None of us are immune. You do the same thing whether you know it or not.

Gingrich is using language that will have the greatest impact on the people who are least receptive to the language commonly used in environmental conversations. It is very smart of Gingrich to recognize this and re-work the word game in a way that includes people like my parents who are not receptive to the conversation the way it is usually expressed.
No, he's not. He's pushing something that will benefit large companies at the expense of ordinary Americans that MIGHT work, but there is not guarantee will work.

And you're claiming your parents will support him because they are to ignorant to understand the issue, and you appearantly don't care about your parent's ignorance, even when it will likely negatively affect future Americans to talk to them about the issue.

[twa]

From your NYT link, the EPA never had anything against flex programs.

Yes they did, as you well know with them it is the compliance with the letter,not the actual reduction or efficiency that matters.(I too have a file full of MSDS sheets gathering dust)....ever wonder how many trees died for that idiocy?:silly:

The fact they are just recently accepting flexible permitting works only illustrates that.
.

[December90]

ask yourself why it is that the U.S. is no longer in the manufacturing business. do you think that perhaps manufacturers might seek places to do business where roadblocks like the EPA don't get in the way.

If you think that having no manufacturing is a good thing because it is bad for the environment, then your EPA is just what you needed.

There is a need for common sense regulations but the EPA regulates well beyond what is common sense.

[mardi gras skin]

Those aren't from your post about Gingrich and climate change.

post #85. That's the only article I've posted and those quotes are from that article.

[PeterMP]

Yes they did, as you well know with them it is the compliance with the letter,not the actual reduction or efficiency that matters.(I too have a file full of MSDS sheets gathering dust)....ever wonder how many trees died for that idiocy?:silly:

The fact they are just recently accepting flexible permitting works only illustrates that.
.
What is your defintion of "recent"?

From your own link:

"EPA is finalizing changes and clarifications to air quality permitting rules to encourage greater use of flexible air permits. EPA’s assessment of flexible air permits demonstrated that they can enable significant environmental and economic benefits, while reducing administrative workload for permitting authorities and facilities."

Now, your link is dated 2009. It sounds like to me pre-2009, there were already flexibile permits and enough so that the EPA did a study that determined they worked well and even more of them should be encouraged.

(Oh and post-2009 the state of TX is still in trouble because their emissions are too high.)

(And as many trees as were regrown.)

[Destino]

ask yourself why it is that the U.S. is no longer in the manufacturing business. do you think that perhaps manufacturers might seek places to do business where roadblocks like the EPA don't get in the way.
OK.

Destino why is the US no longer in the manufacturing business?
A: Because foreign workers will work for far less and US tax law actually helps companies outsource jobs to other countries.


If you think that having no manufacturing is a good thing because it is bad for the environment, then your EPA is just what you needed.

There is a need for common sense regulations but the EPA regulates well beyond what is common sense.There is also a need for enforcement of laws on the books, otherwise why have them at all?

[PeterMP]

post #85. That's the only article I've posted and those quotes are from that article.
Well, applying to those quotes to CO2 isn't really the issue as I already pointed out in my response to that post.

Carrots costs money, tend to benefit big businesses, and aren't guaranteed to work.

[Destino]

No, its not. Its just a peculiar aspect of human interaction that we are more open to ideas when we resonate with the language used to express those ideas. None of us are immune. You do the same thing whether you know it or not. Yes it is because he's proposing the dismantling of the enforcement arm of the agency while pretending he's looking for solutions. He's suckering idiots that can't see through the BS to what he's really proposing.


Gingrich is using language that will have the greatest impact on the people who are least receptive to the language commonly used in environmental conversations. It is very smart of Gingrich to recognize this and re-work the word game in a way that includes people like my parents who are not receptive to the conversation the way it is usually expressed.It's a sales job and he's selling snake oil to people that don't know any better.

[Madison Redskin]

ask yourself why it is that the U.S. is no longer in the manufacturing business. do you think that perhaps manufacturers might seek places to do business where roadblocks like the EPA don't get in the way.

If you think that having no manufacturing is a good thing because it is bad for the environment, then your EPA is just what you needed.

There is a need for common sense regulations but the EPA regulates well beyond what is common sense.

Many manufacturing jobs have left the country because businesses decided it's preferable to pay a 15 year old Chinese kid $1 per day than pay a 35 year old American $20 per hour plus benefits. Do regulations cost businesses money? Sure, a lot of money. However, that's not always a bad thing.

http://gulfnews.com/polopoly_fs/the-jilin-environmental-protection-agency-and-water-bureau-personnel-1.661507!image/91395568.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_475/91395568.jpg

As for your contention that the EPA enforces regulations that do not make sense, can you point to any regulations in particular?

[mardi gras skin]

And you're claiming your parents will support him because they are to ignorant to understand the issue, and you appearantly don't care about your parent's ignorance, even when it will likely negatively affect future Americans to talk to them about the issue.

Peter, you'll notice that I haven't attempted to re-articulate your position to put your position in a negative light. I'd appreciate the same consideration.

I'm claiming that my parents (representative of a large group of active voters that I can't talk to) are starting from a bias...a basic mistrust of the environmental position. That mistrust isn't totally irrational given their experience and the history of the language being used to express those ideas. I see in Gingrich's arguments (the article I linked in post #85) language that I know will bypass their biases.

---------- Post added January-26th-2011 at 11:39 AM ----------


Carrots costs money, tend to benefit big businesses, and aren't guaranteed to work.

Fine. You prefer the stick to the carrot. No problem. But Gingrich is engaging environmental issues in ways that include people your preferred methods will exclude.

I don't know that the carrots won't work and I would really like to try.

[PeterMP]

I'm claiming that my parents (representative of a large group of active voters that I can't talk to) are starting from a bias...a basic mistrust of the environmental position. That mistrust isn't totally irrational given their experience and the history of the language being used to express those ideas.
What history/experience?

(Oh and every process starts with one step and one person.)

Why do you prefer a method that is going to have real costs, will likely benefit big businesses at the expense of ordinary Americans, and isn't guaranteed to work over a method that can be used to reduce the defeciet, will be more fair in terms of not directed at specific industries based on their ability to lobby congress, and will almost certainly achieve some results?

You're saying I support X, but haven't given any credibile reasons for supporting X other than you want to and people that are ignorant on the issue will go along with it.

To me those aren't credibile reasons, and I don't think we should shape important national policy based on people's ignorance.

**EDIT**
It is also important to point out that we have been trying the carrot. There are various tax credits and the like for all sorts of things related to alternative energy, and the fact of the matter is that they haven't worked. Bush had a "voluntary" CO2 reduction program. Despite those things, the years before the recession our CO2 output was increasing at a faster than linear rate.

What Gingrich is saying, is that we want to try OTHER carrots that we have no evidence will work any better than the old carrots.

[mardi gras skin]

What history/experience?

My parents are 60 and 62 years old. The environmental movement they were introduced to was embraced and promoted by people they considered to be anarchists. The kid in the 70's who spit on my dad in his military uniform...those guys were anti-business, anti-government, anti-vietnam...pro-environment. My parents don't think in these terms but I think those experiences scared them. They aren't unable to have a rational conversation but they hold deep resentments. I'm always forced to take the liberal position in the conversation and its tough because I'm not liberal. :) Every time there's a change in the environmental message (coming ice age, global warming, climate change) they scoff. They aren't rude or vocal about it outside of their home but when we talk it comes out. A change in message from the right is understandable, but a change on the left is proof that they never knew what they were talking about.

Its not very different from many in the African American community who automatically distrust republicans. They have good reason.


(Oh and every process starts with one step and one person.)

Sure. But they are my parents and I get their history. I'm not going to convert them (they didn't convert my grandfather from his Roosevelt loyalty) but they do listen. I listen to them, too.


Why do you prefer a method that is going to have real costs, will likely benefit big businesses at the expense of ordinary Americans, and isn't guaranteed to work over a method that can be used to reduce the defeciet, will be more fair in terms of not directed at specific industries based on their ability to lobby congress, and will almost certainly achieve some results?

All things being equal, I would prefer businesses to become more profitable in the process of making the environment cleaner. I don't believe that ordinary Americans are generally hurt as businesses thrive.

If we can find a billion dollars worth of EPA regulations that don't have a significant benefit to our environment and invest that money into incentives for innovation that generates new business growth AND benefits the environment, I'm all for it. And of course, investments are risks. Money spent on incentives, research and development, prizes, etc. is potentially wasted. I get that its a risk compared to money spent enforcing current regulations. But I'm a fan of investment, risks and all.

[Buford]

Reminds me of an article on Newt from last summer where his ex-wife said a few interesting things.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/newt-gingrichs-ex-wife-go_n_676834.html


There's somebody else, isn't there?"

She kind of guessed it, of course. Women usually do. But did she know the woman was in her apartment, eating off her plates, sleeping in her bed?
Story continues below
Advertisement

She called a minister they both trusted. He came over to the house the next day and worked with them the whole weekend, but Gingrich just kept saying she was a Jaguar and all he wanted was a Chevrolet. "'I can't handle a Jaguar right now.' He said that many times. 'All I want is a Chevrolet.'"

He asked her to just tolerate the affair, an offer she refused.

He'd just returned from Erie, Pennsylvania, where he'd given a speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values.

The next night, they sat talking out on their back patio in Georgia. She said, "How do you give that speech and do what you're doing?"

"It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."

that's all you need to know about the guy.

[PeterMP]

All things being equal, I would prefer businesses to become more profitable in the process of making the environment cleaner. I don't believe that ordinary Americans are generally hurt as businesses thrive.

If we can find a billion dollars worth of EPA regulations that don't have a significant benefit to our environment and invest that money into incentives for innovation that generates new business growth AND benefits the environment, I'm all for it. And of course, investments are risks. Money spent on incentives, research and development, prizes, etc. is potentially wasted. I get that its a risk compared to money spent enforcing current regulations. But I'm a fan of investment, risks and all.
1. Cap and trade doesn't make businesses less profitable. Tax credits don't make businesses more profitable.

2. Nobody is claiming we can find a billion dollars in EPA regulations to throw away without affecting the environment.

There can be a good case that many EPA regulations, including the ones that TX is complaining about SAVE money and that the EPA OVERESTIMATES initial costs:

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-07-clean-air-act-cheaper-more-effective-than-industry-predicts/

[DieselPwr44]

Reminds me of an article on Newt from last summer where his ex-wife said a few interesting things.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/newt-gingrichs-ex-wife-go_n_676834.html



that's all you need to know about the guy.

It doesn't matter.

At least that's what I was told when Clinton was getting "room service" in the Oval Office.........

[Madison Redskin]

At least that's what I was told when Clinton was getting "room service" in the Oval Office.........

It doesn't matter to me. However, it should matter to the "moral majority."

[Larry]

It doesn't matter to me. However, it should matter to the "moral majority."

But it doesn't. They only care about it when Democrats do it. (Or gays.)

It's kind of like deficits.

[Jeeb]

It doesn't matter.

At least that's what I was told when Clinton was getting "room service" in the Oval Office.........

Clinton was not launching investigations against Gingrich for said affairs or trying to impeach Gingrich. False equivalence is false, but don't let logic get in the way of defending "your team"