Of course, but IIRC, they weren't aware of how much water was built up behind it. And of course, the mine itself was underestimating it, so we can't say they are good guys in this, either. They let it get that way.
You think there haven't been costs to them, to their careers, to the agency??
No. Link away if I'm wrong.
Changing the alphabet name will fix it? Why not the changes you recommend but keep the agency separate, without having to redo all the legislation.
Frankly, all I'm seeing there is a well lawyered outlet for funds to environmental extremists and their lawyers. Yes, Virginia, there are some real messes, that DO need to be cleaned up, and the vast majority of those are the legacy of industries which antedated any legislation. Better yet, establish permissable standards (once, thankyouverymuch) and turn the states loose to regulate their own industry as they will. The regulators will be far closer to the communities they regulate. Have Federal oversight (to prevent corruption) if you want to, but not Federal Control.
Yes, and there are thousands of underground coal fires burning right now, nearly all man-caused. They account for about 3% of the CO2 emissions every year.
And the particulates reduced effective insolation, providing a cooling effect.
Ohkay, I see you don't know what I am talking about. Look at the image:
[/quote]
The red beds in the foreground are natural brick, formed when coal beds which were associated with the (now refracted) clay burned. There is a lot of this in western ND and in eastern Montana, which antedates human activity here, in fact antedates the last ice age.
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/ndnotes/ndn13_h.htm
Plus, the US isn't where those emissions are growing...it's places like China and India and elsewhere.
> snip <
That's why I say that regardless of whether climate change is real or not, it doesn't mean we should cripple industry as a result.
Agreed, although I believe a non-agenda driven analysis of the situation finds similar fluctuations in both temperature and atmospheric CO
2 have occurred in the past, beyond the apparent reach or ability of much smaller numbers of humans to exert an influence. Considering those fluctuations occurred without any significant human input, I believe we have grossly underestimated the ability of planetary systems (biological, atmospheric, and geochemical) to adjust for emissions and equilibrate. I also believe the natural component input has been underestimated, but that other factors may well apply. It is my firm belief that while humans can certainly render areas unsuitable for human habitation, that without actually trying to mess with global climate, we won't affect global climate significantly. Natural factors will exert far more control.
We need a more intelligent response, cleaning up dirty sources and looking for other avenues.
I think we need to define acceptable risk in terms of what we produce and the effects it may have, first on us and the other species on which we rely for food or are in the food chain of those organisms. It is an ecological, not environmental approach. Maintain balance in the natural systems by not disrupting them to the point where they break down, as opposed to trying to preserve dynamic systems as a static snapshot of themselves. Where possible, when that balance has broken down, identify the critical element(s) and repair the system. At times, that approach will conflict with human interests, because those are the interests that caused the breakdown of the system in the first place, as an unintended consequence.
For industrial pollution, this would involve removing toxic levels of organic and inorganic compounds and elements from groundwater, for example.
Personally, I believe there is anthropogenic climate change occurring, but not nearly at the rates some have claimed.
On this we differ in order of magnitude, but I agree humans are not having the effects predicted by the models. (Others would go back to the proverbial drawing board, but the dogmatic insistence of the proponents makes me question their veracity and motives.)
I'd say we're in a lot of agreement that there are misplaced priorities.
To put it mildly.
If we get rid of the activist wing of the EPA, and just look at the rest, we see that EPA has gone a long way toward rationality.. such as going to more risk-based approaches, where higher levels of contaminants are allowed to remain, if a risk assessment shows no risk for the future use of the land. For example, contaminated industrial land doesn't need to be cleaned up to pristine unless it's going to be residential.
I'm going to add adjacent watersheds--and define that to mean navigable waters. heavy metal or toxic organic leachates can affect the food chain. Chances are industrial land which was utilized prior to restrictions is adjacent to such waterways. If research should be aimed at something, that is the remediation of soils in as economically friendly a fashion as possible, with the intent to remove toxins and excess metals and place those when feasible back into the supply chain (the market). Something similar has been done at the Anaconda pit, removing copper, et. al. from the groundwater there.
They just put a deed restriction on the property so it never can be used for a daycare or homes without more cleanup.
That may ignore the potential for leachates contaminating groundwater in adjacent areas, although that 'tainted soil' can continue as an industrial site. There may well be a standard to which such soils or sites could be remediated which is sufficient for limited exposure in an industrial environment, which would not be considered 'safe' for habitation or daycare centers. Considering the uptake in childhood would be likely more severe, fetal development would also have to be taken into account. I would like to see an alternative to the 'dig it up and move it elsewhere' approach so commonly used, which just kicks the can onto someone else's road.
These standards could be defined by solid research at the Federal Level, and more likely so if the research ended with suggestions which State regulators could implement, as applicable, or, if the geography or geology of a particular region or area require more intense standards, those could be implemented for that area, rather than imposed as a blanket regulation on areas which will not have the problems those areas have.
An example would be auto emissions standards, which
should be different for Muddy Gap, Wyoming versus Los Angeles, California.
.
