Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

A good reminder and example of bi-partisan support.

Thanks Nixon!

But there can be little doubt that even Nixon—a Republican to his very bones—understood the need for stiffer environmental regulations. Almost all Republicans of his generation did. In that 1970 State of the Union speech, Nixon called environmental preservation a “common cause of all the people of this country.” He went on: “It is a cause of particular concern to young Americans, because they more than we will reap the grim consequences of our failure to act on programs which are needed now if we are to prevent disaster later. Clean air, clean water, open spaces—these should once again be the birthright of every American

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/why-we-nee ... ocialmedia

I think this discussion, in today's world, is always misconstrued by both sides in order to make short term political gain. The EPA has been a fabulous and amazingly effective government entity that has a fantastic track record of helping to make the water cleaner, the air cleaner, and the environment in general just many levels better than it was when the EPA was created. Anyone who was alive in the '70's and regularly saw smog and pollution and other negative environmental consequences of unregulated activity has to admit that we've improved by leaps and bounds over where we were.

With that said, admiration for the EPA and their successes cannot blind us to decisions going forward. Just because the EPA, with others, were successful with one policy or one regulation does not automatically confer acceptance of new rules or tightening of existing regulations. Consistent tightening of allowable emissions, for instance, simply to make them tighter, is not automatically a good thing, and in some cases this is where the EPA has stumbled recently. How we choose to combat climate change isn't a decision of an unelected agency, but rather it should be the role of the elected Congress and President to come up with a policy decision that can then be used as the marching orders for the EPA to follow. And deciding to oppose the EPA on a new rule or a tightening of an existing one isn't the same as saying the EPA should be eliminated and isn't the same as saying we don't want clean air or clean water - at some point there is always going to be a decision as to the marginal cost of further regulation and whether it's worth it or not. The default can't always be that new regulations are worth it - there shouldn't be a default one way or the other, but a frank and honest assessment.

It's easy in this political culture to just assign either party to 100% endorsement of whatever the EPA desires, science or analysis be damned, and the other party committed to the rape and destruction of the natural world, again science or analysis be damned, but that's not helpful or constructive. The EPA has done some great things, and we certainly never want to go back to where we were 40 years ago. But we're not talking about full reversal in almost any case. The EPA doesn't need grand sweeping changes to make itself useful and important in today's world, and we don't need to target zero impact to the environment as the end goal either. One day we'll have reasonable people again in Washington and around the country, and reasonable people should be able to work out where the right balance lies.

I doubt you'll get anyone to disagree on this unless you're trolling for a Dakota pipeline argument.

My wife and I Skype when she's in China, and she's shown me out the window where she can't even see the street from her room. The EPA can be a pain in the ass and slow things down, but sometimes the extra time is necessary to keep us from making the mistakes the Chinese are with their environment.

ASUG8 wrote:I doubt you'll get anyone to disagree on this unless you're trolling for a Dakota pipeline argument.

My wife and I Skype when she's in China, and she's shown me out the window where she can't even see the street from her room. The EPA can be a pain in the ass and slow things down, but sometimes the extra time is necessary to keep us from making the mistakes the Chinese are with their environment.

Well, not since Tman took off for the great unregulated market in the sky.

ASUG8 wrote:I doubt you'll get anyone to disagree on this unless you're trolling for a Dakota pipeline argument.

My wife and I Skype when she's in China, and she's shown me out the window where she can't even see the street from her room. The EPA can be a pain in the ass and slow things down, but sometimes the extra time is necessary to keep us from making the mistakes the Chinese are with their environment.

Both of these are excellent posts.

Where's Tman when i need him?

The reason why we need laws. Some people can't be trusted to so the right thing.

kalm wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:I doubt you'll get anyone to disagree on this unless you're trolling for a Dakota pipeline argument.

My wife and I Skype when she's in China, and she's shown me out the window where she can't even see the street from her room. The EPA can be a pain in the ass and slow things down, but sometimes the extra time is necessary to keep us from making the mistakes the Chinese are with their environment.

Both of these are excellent posts.

Where's Tman when i need him?

See my post.

I'm sure Ganny covered this in his post that was tl;dr, but there is a big difference between the EPA of the Nixon era and the EPA of today that has been used as a weapon over the last decade or so.

Grizalltheway wrote:
Well, not since Tman took off for the great unregulated market in the sky.

Not to argue with the departed, but he would be wrong.

I think there's a point of balance between Federal and State power on environmental regulation, and pushing it too far one way or the other will have repercussions. Giving it to the states has been done before and it didn't work out so you need an agency to coordinate states' efforts. If you give a state a choice between economic development and clean air, they'll choose the former nearly every time (especially if the prevailing winds blow their effluent into an adjacent state).

Baldy wrote:I'm sure Ganny covered this in his post that was tl;dr, but there is a big difference between the EPA of the Nixon era and the EPA of today that has been used as a weapon over the last decade or so.

Yeah, I admit, my post was crappy. Almost thought about deleting the whole thing and starting over. Kinda rambled, my apologies.

GannonFan wrote:

Baldy wrote:I'm sure Ganny covered this in his post that was tl;dr, but there is a big difference between the EPA of the Nixon era and the EPA of today that has been used as a weapon over the last decade or so.

Yeah, I admit, my post was crappy. Almost thought about deleting the whole thing and starting over. Kinda rambled, my apologies.

Do you find yourself with an unhealthy obsession with Trump while writing long rambling posts? If so, you should probably seek immediate medical attention for treatment of JSOism. Otherwise it's all good.

I'm still trying to figure out why the world hasn't ended yet

HI54UNI wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Yeah, I admit, my post was crappy. Almost thought about deleting the whole thing and starting over. Kinda rambled, my apologies.

Do you find yourself with an unhealthy obsession with Trump while writing long rambling posts? If so, you should probably seek immediate medical attention for treatment of JSOism. Otherwise it's all good.

Nah, I think Trump's a buffoon, but I think those on the left like JSO who have gone so far overboard in their denunciations of Trump as the "end of the Republic" and such are probably even more unhinged than Trump is. Besides, I like to think I'm pithy most of the time, rambling is not the norm.

1970's era is a whole lot different than 2017.

andy7171 wrote:1970's era is a whole lot different than 2017.

Go back and read Baldy's post. Then punch yourself in the nuts for me.

We have an EPA more concerned about CO2 than about lead in drinking water. It has lost its way.

Its cute how people pat themselves on the back when a couple billion people are shitting all over everything and 100 million people are trying to clean it up.

But hey we can stop global warming! (We cant and couldnt even if it was happening)

Excellent! We all agree the EPA has done some good but has also over-reached at times.

Next question: where does environmental quality appear on the nation's balance sheet?

GannonFan wrote:but I think those on the left like JSO

It's absolutely amazing that after all the years you've seen me post you think I'm "on the left."

JohnStOnge wrote:

GannonFan wrote:but I think those on the left like JSO

It's absolutely amazing that after all the years you've seen me post you think I'm "on the left."

Why? Your unabashed support of Hillary Klitton proves that you support big guvmint solutions. You checked your conservative street cred at the door years ago.

ASUG8 wrote:I doubt you'll get anyone to disagree on this unless you're trolling for a Dakota pipeline argument.

My wife and I Skype when she's in China, and she's shown me out the window where she can't even see the street from her room. The EPA can be a pain in the ass and slow things down, but sometimes the extra time is necessary to keep us from making the mistakes the Chinese are with their environment.

It isn't just their environment they are fvcking up-

You are breathing a good portion of the soot they put into the air (to make our unstable plastic chairs and rubber dogsh1t)

https://weather.com/science/environment ... ch-america

Ivytalk wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
It's absolutely amazing that after all the years you've seen me post you think I'm "on the left."

Why? Your unabashed support of Hillary Klitton proves that you support big guvmint solutions. You checked your conservative street cred at the door years ago.

Yep, hes extreme left of center.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Its cute how people pat themselves on the back when a couple billion people are shitting all over everything and 100 million people are trying to clean it up.

But hey we can stop global warming! (We cant and couldnt even if it was happening)

This halfwit.

It isn't the change, it's the rate of change. Good fvcking grief.

So and so, we cannot stop either one anymore than we can stop a hurricane or tornado.

Only somebody that would buy into this notion could be duped by politicians trying to make a buck......look on the bright side, at least you spelled halfwit correctly. Gotta love auto correct