The Latest G.O.P. Temper Tantrum

FriendlyFire

Codex WMDicanious
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Messages
21,761
Location
Sydney
The Latest G.O.P. Temper Tantrum

Moments before a scheduled vote on Thursday on the nomination of Gina McCarthy to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee announced a boycott. One result was to delay her confirmation, which still seems virtually certain in the long run since Democrats control the committee as well as the full Senate. The other result was to make the Republicans look not only vindictive but supremely childish.

Their stated reason for the boycott was that Ms. McCarthy, who had already been bombarded in earlier hearings with 1,079 questions, spoken and written, had not sufficiently answered what Senator David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican and ringleader of the group, called 5 important “transparency requests.” What was really transparent was the Republicans’ true motive. They detest E.P.A. and the regulatory authority it possesses (authority granted to it, by the way, by Congress) to clean up the air and water and, in general, take steps to safeguard public health. The transparency issue was merely cover for deep-seated ideological objections to the agency’s basic mission.

A case in point was the request that the agency undertake “whole economy” cost-benefits analysis of its rules and regulations. Ms. McCarthy had earlier replied that the agency already conducts detailed, peer-reviewed analyses of those rules. So what more do Mr. Vitter and his colleagues expect? They want the agency to superimpose on its own reviews an industry-friendly cost-benefit model that — in addition to adding new layers of bureaucratic red tape — could also lead to weaker regulation. Their other requests would impose similarly time-consuming and non-essential burdens.

Few people saw this boycott coming, In fact, the questioning of Ms. McCarthy when she recently appeared before the committee was gentle, even pro-forma. What happened? One line of reasoning is that a couple of true Tea Partiers — Marco Rubio and Rand Paul — have lately been raising loud objections to Ms. McCarthy’s aggressive (and thoroughly proper) use of Clean Air Act to impose tough new regulations on mercury and other emissions from power plants — and that Republicans on the committee have felt obliged to knuckle under.

In any case, the Senate Republicans are now beginning to act and sound just like the House Republicans who have spent the last two years trying to undermine the E.P.A. at every turn. What’s truly dumb about this charade is that Ms. McCarthy is not an ideologue. She is tough, she believes deeply in the country’s basic environmental statutes. But she is also known as a good listener and negotiator, has served with distinction in key environmental posts in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and, more to the point, has broad backing among mainstream Republicans — the sort of Republicans who no longer exist in the House and, it appears, are headed swiftly for extinction in the Senate.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/the-latest-g-o-p-temper-tantrum/?hp

Do Republicans really want this stuff because they re-elected Senator Vitter. And The Republican agenda at blocking even things like mercury pollution regulations while gutting the EPA seems rather insane.

I guess conservative Republicans will continue to vote Republican. Just how far to the right are we going to actually swing ?
It wasnt long ago that President Bush guttered FEMA and appointed a former horse Judge at its head.
 
"Mercury pollution" is just a leftard boogeyman. Real patriotic Americans know them as Freedom Fumes.
 
Freedom Explosions and Freedom Oil leaks which nature will clean up.
 
This should inevitably lead to Freedom Mutations to protect us from our own chemicals in another 100,000 years or so. It is just the Republican way of supporting evolution.
 
There is actually a Quicksilver County Park in California where much of it is now fenced in, including the picnic table areas where people used to eat their lunches surrounded by ground contaminated with mercury.

I can't find any photos of the picnic tables, but here's a piece of the old mine equipment that is now suitably protected so kids no longer get mercury poisoning climbing all over it.

 
I recently broke open an old mercury thermometer and played with the mercury using my bare hands, just like everybody else 15+ years older than me. That said, I have no objections to tougher regulations on power plant mercury, largely because I can't play with it and therefore its fun factor is precisely 0, while its danger is nonzero.
 
I would never oppose the EPA unless they did something insane like declare CO2 a pollutant which can be regulated through the Clear Air Act.
 
I would never oppose the EPA unless they did something insane like declare CO2 a pollutant which can be regulated through the Clear Air Act.

I hope your right about global warming because If scientist are right the effects are going to be pretty disastrous.
 
Tough new regulations on mercury. Obviously the old ones have been killing us for years!


From 1 year ago:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304746604577382492416602720.html

Al "Crucify Them" Armendariz resigned from the Environmental Protection Agency this week, for the mistake of telling it like it is. All he leaves behind is an entire administration of Al Armendarizes.

EPA chief Lisa Jackson was quick to assure the public that her regional administrator—who was caught on video describing his desire to "crucify" oil and gas companies—was not "representative of the agency." Mr. Armendariz's views, she said, "don't reflect any policy that we have, and they don't reflect our actions over the past two years." At least she didn't say it under oath.

The Armendariz story matters precisely because he is the model Obama regulator. Hamstrung by both public opinion and Congress, President Obama has turned to these types to enact his broader agenda.


Theoretically, what action by the EPA would be considered too far when regulating coal emssions?

What action would they take that would make you go, "hey the Republicans might have a point, we need to reign the EPA in"?
 
I hope your right about global warming because If scientist are right the effects are going to be pretty disastrous.

Meh, Britain wasn't an island 7000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland

I'm certain some island or city will be submerged somewhere eventually, CO2 will be banned, and we can get on with covering the world in windmills and solar panels.


We don't have a perfect real world simulator or a 2nd earth to test things out, just extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence.
 
We don't have a perfect real world simulator or a 2nd earth to test things out, just extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence.

Great!. That's the best kind of evidence for extraordinary claims.
 
Theoretically, what action by the EPA would be considered too far when regulating coal emssions?

What action would they take that would make you go, "hey the Republicans might have a point, we need to reign the EPA in"?
I guess if they started summarily executing coal mine and power plant owners. That'd be going too far.
 
Meh, Britain wasn't an island 7000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland

I'm certain some island or city will be submerged somewhere eventually, CO2 will be banned, and we can get on with covering the world in windmills and solar panels.

We don't have a perfect real world simulator or a 2nd earth to test things out, just extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence.

The humans on Easter island cut down every single tree, sure the vast majority of the population starved, massive suffering and death. but the now greatly reduced population managed to survive ultimately. It would it have been smarter not to cut down every tree in the first place, but thats humanity for you.

Hopefully the scientist are wrong or maybe somewhat wrong as climate science is one of those newer sciences.
 
The humans on Easter island cut down every single tree, sure the vast majority of the population starved, massive suffering and death. but the now greatly reduced population managed to survive ultimately. It would it have been smarter not to cut down every tree in the first place, but thats humanity for you.

Hopefully the scientist are wrong or maybe a somewhat wrong as climate science is one of those newer sciences.

I've looked at the science in one of those Chamber threads and it seems to be correct.

Here's a story about a world that succeeded in reducing CO2 emissions almost completely.
This resulted in the next ice age promptly starting (which will naturally happen again sooner or later) since human greenhouse gases were no longer holding it back. :lol:

http://www.baenebooks.com/chapters/067172052X/067172052X.htm
 
Vitter is just fulfilling the desires and wishes of his constituents. He may be wrong, but he's really just doing his job. Given Louisiana's economy, you can't really be an environmentalist politician.
 
Exhibit #591867182 against the out-of-control EPA:
http://lfb.org/today/how-government-wrecked-the-gas-can/


“Hmmm, I just hate how slow these gas cans are these days,” he grumbled. “There’s no vent on them.”

That sound of frustration in this guy’s voice was strangely familiar, the grumble that comes when something that used to work but doesn’t work anymore, for some odd reason we can’t identify.

I’m pretty alert to such problems these days. Soap doesn’t work. Toilets don’t flush. Clothes washers don’t clean. Light bulbs don’t illuminate. Refrigerators break too soon. Paint discolors. Lawnmowers have to be hacked. It’s all caused by idiotic government regulations that are wrecking our lives one consumer product at a time, all in ways we hardly notice.

It’s like the barbarian invasions that wrecked Rome, taking away the gains we’ve made in bettering our lives. It’s the bureaucrats’ way of reminding market producers and consumers who is in charge.

Surely, the gas can is protected. It’s just a can, for goodness sake. Yet he was right. This one doesn’t have a vent. Who would make a can without a vent unless it was done under duress? After all, everyone knows to vent anything that pours. Otherwise, it doesn’t pour right and is likely to spill.

It took one quick search. The whole trend began in (wait for it) California. Regulations began in 2000, with the idea of preventing spillage. The notion spread and was picked up by the EPA, which is always looking for new and innovative ways to spread as much human misery as possible.

An ominous regulatory announcement from the EPA came in 2007: “Starting with containers manufactured in 2009… it is expected that the new cans will be built with a simple and inexpensive permeation barrier and new spouts that close automatically.”

The government never said “no vents.” It abolished them de facto with new standards that every state had to adopt by 2009. So for the last three years, you have not been able to buy gas cans that work properly. They are not permitted to have a separate vent. The top has to close automatically. There are other silly things now, too, but the biggest problem is that they do not do well what cans are supposed to do.
 
Vitter is just fulfilling the desires and wishes of his constituents. He may be wrong, but he's really just doing his job. Given Louisiana's economy, you can't really be an environmentalist politician.

Given Louisiana's shoreline and recent events, I don't understand how you can't.
 
I recently broke open an old mercury thermometer and played with the mercury using my bare hands, just like everybody else 15+ years older than me. That said, I have no objections to tougher regulations on power plant mercury, largely because I can't play with it and therefore its fun factor is precisely 0, while its danger is nonzero.
I certainly hope for your sake that you didn't breath any of its fumes, have any minor cuts on your hands, and thoroughly washed them afterwards.

Three elementary students hospitalized after playing with mercury

Mercury poisoning
 
Top Bottom