User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » The attack on our Public Lands Page 1 [2], Prev  
moron
All American
30079 Posts
user info
edit post

https://twitter.com/jpmajor/status/827175236609007617

Quote :
"A Republican lawmaker is rescinding his bill to sell off millions of acres of federally owned land.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) announced late Wednesday night on Instagram that he would pull the legislation after backlash from conservation and sportsmen’s groups.

“I’m a proud gun owner, hunter and love our public lands,” Chaffetz wrote alongside a photograph of him in hunting camouflage, holding a dog. "

2/2/2017 11:02:36 AM

dtownral
All American
19761 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"he has no problem leaving HR622 though:
Quote :
"To terminate the law enforcement functions of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management and to provide block grants to States for the enforcement of Federal law on Federal land under the jurisdiction of these agencies, and for other purposes.
[...]"

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/622/text?r=80

got to help out all the patriotic bundy types
"

2/2/2017 11:08:58 AM

rjrumfel
All American
19362 Posts
user info
edit post

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/stream-protection-rule/index.html

What in the world is so terrible about keeping mining companies from releasing slag into the local watersheds? If slag isn't the appropriate term, someone please correct it.

2/2/2017 11:29:52 AM

dtownral
All American
19761 Posts
user info
edit post

i really enjoy watching your eyes get opened daily

2/2/2017 11:34:37 AM

rjrumfel
All American
19362 Posts
user info
edit post

My eyes are opened. It isn't like I'm surprised, just ashamed of my party.

2/2/2017 1:49:40 PM

thegoodlife3
All American
32520 Posts
user info
edit post

this has been your party. nothing that they're doing is new. they're just emboldened to push these things through now.

2/2/2017 2:46:02 PM

LoneSnark
All American
11948 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"What in the world is so terrible about keeping mining companies from releasing slag into the local watersheds? If slag isn't the appropriate term, someone please correct it."

Because it is ridiculous and unfair. We already have rules on the books requiring mines to test and treat anything dangerous before they can dump, which is the only rule that actually makes sense. It is unfair, because other corporations and governments which contribute just as much to water pollution are unaffected by the ban.

2/6/2017 11:24:40 AM

dtownral
All American
19761 Posts
user info
edit post

ah yes, the good 'ole "if this regulation doesn't single-handidly solve every single issue, its not worth having" argument

2/6/2017 11:47:21 AM

LoneSnark
All American
11948 Posts
user info
edit post

But it doesn't even solve this issue. It will be prohibitively costly for one industry without significantly affecting water pollution...So, unless your only issue is that mining is an industry that exists, then this regulation doesn't solve anything.

While some mines somewhere are dumping water pollution up to the legal limit for their respective state, some mines are lucky and their runoff is inherently harmless. A regulation which bans runoff from low emission mines is ridiculous...almost as if the purpose of the regulation was to eliminate this cost advantage by forcing all mines, regardless of their actual emissions, to use the expensive alternatives. My first instinct here is to look for the bootlegger behind the baptists. Perhaps a friend of the Obama administration owns a bunch of dirty mines that need protection from their cleaner competitors?

I'm reminded of the regulation requiring all coal fired power plants to install sulfur scrubbers, even though some coal mines produced low-sulfur coal. The net effect was to significantly reduce the price premium of low-sulfur coal, forcing some such mines to close and increasing sulfur emissions, because a plant with scrubbers burning high-sulfur coal emitted more sulfur than a plant without scrubbers burning low-sulfur coal.

But, someone made a lot of money by forcing all power plants to install scrubbers at the time. So, the rule is simple: any regulation that dictates how things will be done is dumb and most likely a money give-away to some special interest. If you want to reduce emissions, be it sulfur or water pollution, you should regulate the emission directly, either via a tax or a cap.

[Edited on February 6, 2017 at 12:13 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/6/2017 12:05:24 PM

dtownral
All American
19761 Posts
user info
edit post

nah, you wrong

2/6/2017 12:14:45 PM

JCE2011
All American
5275 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"My eyes are opened. It isn't like I'm surprised, just ashamed of my party."


LOL. Like I said, TWW is a liberal echo-chamber if this guy is claiming to be conservative.

In case you want to take a break from reading #FakeNews CNN and getting hysterical over nonsense... here is the other side of the argument per the coal miners (Hint: Its a little more complex than "The GOP hates Earth):

Quote :
"It (the steam protection rule) costs jobs (a third at least), it’s redundant (duplicates what states and other federal agencies are already doing), unnecessary (state reports show companies achieve reclamation with little off-site impact), unlawful (contradicts clear congressional intent in existing law) and self-serving (OSM expands its authority at the expense of states and other federal agencies)."


So, like all liberal vs. conservative issues, there is a State vs Federal regulation argument (which an actual conservative would default to). rjrumfel is a leftist.



[Edited on February 6, 2017 at 12:28 PM. Reason : .]

2/6/2017 12:26:53 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
4977 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"We already have rules on the books requiring mines to test and treat anything dangerous before they can dump, which is the only rule that actually makes sense. It is unfair, because other corporations and governments which contribute just as much to water pollution are unaffected by the ban."


Quote :
"While some mines somewhere are dumping water pollution up to the legal limit for their respective state, some mines are lucky and their runoff is inherently harmless. A regulation which bans runoff from low emission mines is ridiculous...almost as if the purpose of the regulation was to eliminate this cost advantage by forcing all mines, regardless of their actual emissions, to use the expensive alternatives."


You've completely mischaracterized the type of pollution this rule attempts to limit and how the mining industry is regulated.

This isn't pollution where you have an allowable emission and are measuring it in concentrations or loads, we are talking about thousands of cubic yards of mostly inert material being piled into a valley, on top of a stream. Literally pushing the entire top of a mountain off into a valley, wiping the stream in that valley off the face of the earth. So all your discussion about emissions and runoff and are completely not relevant.

And mining is ALREADY exempt from Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which any other industry (except Ag I think) would have to get a permit for to put fill anywhere near a body of water (and there is no way USACE is going to let you fill in a stream without significant mitigation). This rule just catches mining up to rules we already have in place for everything else, so they have to play by the same rules.

Quote :
"I'm reminded of the regulation requiring all coal fired power plants to install sulfur scrubbers, even though some coal mines produced low-sulfur coal. The net effect was to significantly reduce the price premium of low-sulfur coal, forcing some such mines to close and increasing sulfur emissions, because a plant with scrubbers burning high-sulfur coal emitted more sulfur than a plant without scrubbers burning low-sulfur coal.

But, someone made a lot of money by forcing all power plants to install scrubbers at the time. So, the rule is simple: any regulation that dictates how things will be done is dumb and most likely a money give-away to some special interest. If you want to reduce emissions, be it sulfur or water pollution, you should regulate the emission directly, either via a tax or a cap. "


The Acid Rain program (part of 1990 Clean Air Act) IS a market-based cap and trade system and was the original catalyst for the use of low-sulphur coal or scrubbers. It was the Mercury Air Toxics Rule, which came much more recently, that required scrubbers on most powerplants. The MATs rule was also designed to be pretty flexible, but as it turns out scrubbers are the only effective way to meet the mercury limits. The scrubbers are also effective at reducing SO2, so the powerplants just used the scrubbers they would have already needed for Mercury, but SO2 isn't required to be reduced by scrubbers.

2/6/2017 1:27:47 PM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » The attack on our Public Lands Page 1 [2], Prev  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2017 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.37 - our disclaimer.