Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Anyone here glad this got repealed?

View Poll Results: Glad clean water reg was repealed?
Poll Options:
Yes 0 votes (0%)
No 3 votes (100.00%)
Voters: 3. You may not vote on this poll
Anyone here glad this got repealed?
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2017, 11:05 PM
 
I'm referring to this specific regulation protecting water, not the entire package deal: GOP Vote to End Key Environmental Regulations | Time.com
House Republicans approved a measure Wednesday that scuttles a regulation aimed at preventing coal mining debris from being dumped into nearby streams.
The Interior Department said in announcing the rule in December that it would protect 6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 acres of forests, preventing coal mining debris from being dumped into nearby waters. The rule maintains a long-established 100-foot buffer zone that blocks coal mining near streams, but imposes stricter guidelines for exceptions to the 100-foot rule.
Interior officials said the rule would cause only modest job losses in coal country and could even create jobs as companies hire construction crews to haul and store debris.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2017, 10:10 AM
 
New day bump
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2017, 07:15 PM
 
Was this question too difficult?
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2017, 07:27 PM
 
Could be if you're a Trump supporter and you live in Flint, Michigan.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2017, 07:45 PM
 
I guess it depends on how effective the rule was on protecting streams. If it was effective then Id say no. But there's no surprise here, people already knew most republicans they elected hate the environment & will deatroy it any chance they get in the name of big business. It's about compromise.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2017, 08:25 PM
 
One should generally expect the GOP to cater to the interests of big business. Mandating that they can't dump waste in public waterways will impact their profit margins. And quarterly earnings reports outweigh any other considerations that don't involve an immediate and undeniable negative health impact.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2017, 11:20 PM
 
I commented about this in the wrong thread I guess.

If the regs will have negligible impact on the industry as the EPA claims, then they can't have been doing anything that bad.

If the regs will have significant impact on the industry, then there's an an argument over what's the best compromise.

I'm not saying the regs are wrong, I'm saying there's a legit argument.

This is opposed to the lack of argument implied by "there go Trump and his cigar chomping cronies butt blasting Mother Nature".
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 06:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If the regs will have negligible impact on the industry as the EPA claims, then they can't have been doing anything that bad.
I don't but this argument because if the impact was negligible, no one would care enough to repeal it.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
If the regs will have significant impact on the industry, then there's an an argument over what's the best compromise.
You mean whats the appropriate amount of people's water to potentially poison?

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm not saying the regs are wrong, I'm saying there's a legit argument.
I imagine if there were a legit argument, someone would have made it by now.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is opposed to the lack of argument implied by "there go Trump and his cigar chomping cronies butt blasting Mother Nature".
Is the long history of business polluting because its a great cost saving measure not a good argument?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2017, 12:53 PM
 
Sorry, I missed this...

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You mean whats the appropriate amount of people's water to potentially poison?
Unfortunately, yes. Somewhat along the lines of how safety recalls work.

Poisoned water has a negative impact on the community. Shuttered industry has a negative impact on the community. There's a balance here. "No water shall be poisoned" is just as intractable as "carte blanche to rape the environment".

(Shuttered industry is an extreme example for illustrative purposes)
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2017, 11:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Sorry, I missed this...



Unfortunately, yes. Somewhat along the lines of how safety recalls work.

Poisoned water has a negative impact on the community. Shuttered industry has a negative impact on the community. There's a balance here. "No water shall be poisoned" is just as intractable as "carte blanche to rape the environment".

(Shuttered industry is an extreme example for illustrative purposes)
I'd love to see a poll on which one people would rather be. Poisoned or unemployed.
     
Brien
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2017, 02:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
One should generally expect the GOP to cater to the interests of big business. Mandating that they can't dump waste in public waterways will impact their profit margins. And quarterly earnings reports outweigh any other considerations that don't involve an immediate and undeniable negative health impact.

OAW
Plenty of businesses would seek profit even if it did involve immediate and undeniable negative health impacts.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2017, 07:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Brien View Post
Plenty of businesses would seek profit even if it did involve immediate and undeniable negative health impacts.
Would? Have. We live in a world with Big Tobacco.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:57 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,