Biden Takes Aim at America’s Largest Oil Field, Threatens to Stop Production, Sending Gas Prices Soa

[sneakypete]

I respectfully but strongly disagree with you @sneakypete this country did just fine without all these alphabet agencies and would easily do so now.

Edit to add; The constitution grants power to the federal government to accomplish 17 specific things and those are what it should stick to doing!

@Bigun

That would have been true several decades ago,but the world of today is a different world than the one we were born into. Technology has made HUGE advancements that has improved life for all of us,and even saved the lives of millions,but with advancement in technology comes risks we had never even suspected before.

Like it or not,we NEED the EPA. We just don't need the EPA of today that is dedicated to approving nothing and damning everything.

[sneakypete]

No. What we need is NO EPA.
Perhaps you could tell me wherein lies its constitutional authority and jurisdiction... Don't bother looking. There is none.

@roamer_1

Grow the bleep  up!

Show me where in the Constitution that we have the right to electricity.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

Grow the bleep  up!

Show me where in the Constitution that we have the right to electricity.

We don't. That's why you have to pay for it. You know... Commerce.

[Bigun]

@Bigun

That would have been true several decades ago,but the world of today is a different world than the one we were born into. Technology has made HUGE advancements that has improved life for all of us,and even saved the lives of millions,but with advancement in technology comes risks we had never even suspected before.

Where have I ever said anything against using technology for the betterment of mankind @sneakypete  The problem is that all these alphabet agencies, and the lobby that actually runs them, are preventing that very thing!  (Why are we not using nuclear power where warranted for example.)

Like it or not,we NEED the EPA. We just don't need the EPA of today that is dedicated to approving nothing and damning everything.

No! We do not!

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete
Pete...

 

 
This worked well until about 1990, with the CAA (Clean Air Act) Re-authorization.  At about that time, many radical factions got into the agency, and started the slippery slope of creating a bureacracy and gestapo like enforcement system that was more predicated on technicalities and "got-chas" than thinking through the process of doing things that actually would cost effectively elimated excess emission, reduced waste, and improved water quality effluent.  Many of us saw the EPA more powerful and opressive, than even the IRS.

Yes, and at about that time the concept of equitable environmental improvement return on investment DIED.  I could give you a dozen horror stories around EPA abuse of powers, but don't have the time or the inclination to rehash that shit.  So, actually I support dismantling the EPA......   And at least bring it back to its common sense criteria staffing, and regulatory powers  that I remember early in my career.

@catfish1957

I completely agree. This is why I wrote we need to change the leadership by getting rid of the "Ghia True Believers".

We need actual scientists in leadership positions,not political groupies with an agenda.

There HAS to be a balance between regulations and reality. Anything less will kill any hope of future scientific advances that would cure many/most of the problems without harming the planet. Hell,some of them might even correct some of the damage already done,but NONE of this is going to happen as long as the EPA is OWNED by the rabid left Ghia followers.

BTW,am I the only one that finds it ironic that the left has adopted Ghia as an religion?

[catfish1957]

No. What we need is NO EPA.
Perhaps you could tell me wherein lies its constitutional authority and jurisdiction... Don't bother looking. There is none.

Without ane EPA ever, post WW2, you would be seeing unswimmable, unfishable water locations, Difficulties in finding uncontaminated drinking waters, landfills without liners and controls, skies browned with NOX, SO2, and on many days unbreathable at or near urban and industrial locations.  Is this what you want?

And this is from a guy who was an Enviromnental Manager for Big Bad Oil.

Does the EPA need to be totally stripped and destroyed?  No., unless their power is properly delegated to the states, and minimal controls are maintained.  In fact, I'd reverse all EPA statutes, decisons , and regulations to approximately 1989.

You POV of shucking any envionmental controls in the name of conservatism, is pretty damned short sided in my opionion.

[Bigun]

Without ane EPA ever, post WW2, you would be seeing unswimmable, unfishable water locations, Difficulties in finding uncontaminated drinking waters, landfills without liners and controls, skies browned with NOX, SO2, and on many days unbreathable at or near urban and industrial locations.  Is this what you want?

And this is from a guy who was an Enviromnental Manager for Big Bad Oil.

Does the EPA need to be totally stripped and destroyed?  No., unless their power is properly delegated to the states, and minimal controls are maintained.  In fact, I'd reverse all EPA statutes, decisons , and regulations to approximately 1989.

You POV of shucking any envionmental controls in the name of conservatism, is pretty damned short sided in my opionion.

You are assuming things not in evidence @catfish1957 What makes you think that the states cannot control what happens within their borders?  I think they can and would likely do a FAR better job of it than the one size fits all fedgov EVER has!

[catfish1957]

You are assuming things not in evidence @catfish1957 What makes you think that the states cannot control what happens within their borders?  I think they can and would likely do a FAR better job of it than te one size fits all fedgov EVER has!

Same comment back to you....  What makes you think the States would?

And btw, I do support a much less stripped down and powerful EPA.

[Bigun]

Same comment back to you....  What makes you think the States would?

And btw, I do support a much less stripped down and powerful EPA.

I am a constitutionalist and believe in federalism as the founders understood that word!

States can and do react to the demands of their voters FAR more efficiently than the fedgov ever has!

[IsailedawayfromFR]

(See my post above)...   It was a good thing, we took a breath, and at least put in good cost effective controls.  Environmental Quality Standards were dropping post World War 2, pretty rapidly.

But again, no one could anticipate and guess how this ended up being abused for the left wing benefits.

@catfish1957

Noteworthy comment from someone who has been there and done that.

The only item I would bring up with you is why is the federal government the entity that controls environmental issues?  Would the state not be better? 

As far as I see in this Democratic Republic, there is little doubt in my mind that the architects of any environmental controls should be state authorities.  Individual states have their own problems, and can address them. 

One of the biggest problems we have as a country is the blanket approach by the federal government on ALL issues.

As a country we have come to tragically accept that all solutions must be federal in nature, which is not what the Constitution envisioned. 

And that takes me back to decisions seen in Dobbs....

[Smokin Joe]

@Bigun

That would have been true several decades ago,but the world of today is a different world than the one we were born into. Technology has made HUGE advancements that has improved life for all of us,and even saved the lives of millions,but with advancement in technology comes risks we had never even suspected before.

Like it or not,we NEED the EPA. We just don't need the EPA of today that is dedicated to approving nothing and damning everything.

There is nothing the EPA does that State agencies could not do, and well within the constraints on Federal Power in the Constitution. If states have differences, well the SCOTUS is the court of primary jurisdiction.

[Smokin Joe]

@catfish1957

Noteworthy comment from someone who has been there and done that.

The only item I would bring up with you is why is the federal government the entity that controls environmental issues?  Would the state not be better? 

As far as I see in this Democratic Republic, there is little doubt in my mind that the architects of any environmental controls should be state authorities.  Individual states have their own problems, and can address them. 

One of the biggest problems we have as a country is the blanket approach by the federal government on ALL issues.

As a country we have come to tragically accept that all solutions must be federal in nature, which is not what the Constitution envisioned. 

And that takes me back to decisions seen in Dobbs....

Exactly.
A fart in an elevator in New York City has a different effect than a fart out on the North Dakota prairie.
Let each place write its air quality rules, and enough of this dirt-worshipping nonsense about global warming.

[catfish1957]

@catfish1957

@IsailedawayfromFR -

Comments in blue

Noteworthy comment from someone who has been there and done that.

The only item I would bring up with you is why is the federal government the entity that controls environmental issues?  Would the state not be better? 

That process is pretty much codified in a manner, where state agencies petition EPA for authorized authority for their form of regulations, and enforcement of said regs.  The kicker is that, the state reg has to be at least as stringient as the EPA version.  Many states will often just take the EPA verbiage and administer accordingly.  This makes a great bit of sense, except the EPA  reserves the right (or redundancy) to inspect, enforce, and fine as they seem fit.  Some of these redundancies gets downright crazy.  In fact, there was one point in my career where my  plant was subject to enforcement by EPA, TNRCC/TDWC (Texas), Harris County Pollution Control, AND The City of Houston.....  All with their forms of meddling and enforcement.  Needless to say this is a terrible waste of taxpayer funds.

As far as I see in this Democratic Republic, there is little doubt in my mind that the architects of any environmental controls should be state authorities.  Individual states have their own problems, and can address them. 

Agree 100%.  Roll back EPA rules to 1989, and let the states  promulagate rules how and where they want to focus on.

One of the biggest problems we have as a country is the blanket approach by the federal government on ALL issues.

You are again 100% right.  That is why I am so hopeful that the recent SCOTUS decisons around EPA's breadth and width of Scope can be pared down to where it benefits not only the enviornment by is cost effective in every respect.

As a country we have come to tragically accept that all solutions must be federal in nature, which is not what the Constitution envisioned.

You are on a roll. That is why I made an 1861 comment earlier.  Without the aweful issue of slavery, which was an abomination, the CSA pretty much had it right. 

And that takes me back to decisions seen in Dobbs....

[roamer_1]

Without ane EPA ever, post WW2, you would be seeing unswimmable, unfishable water locations, Difficulties in finding uncontaminated drinking waters, landfills without liners and controls, skies browned with NOX, SO2, and on many days unbreathable at or near urban and industrial locations.  Is this what you want?

When the river catches fire, local people have a tendency to make it better on their own. So I would not be so sure that federal mandates are all that effective.

Does the EPA need to be totally stripped and destroyed?  No., unless their power is properly delegated to the states, and minimal controls are maintained.  In fact, I'd reverse all EPA statutes, decisons , and regulations to approximately 1989.

You POV of shucking any envionmental controls in the name of conservatism, is pretty damned short sided in my opionion.

Should it be deconstructed at the federal level? HELL YES. We don't have the money. Period.
If you want to talk about reasonable interstate jurisdiction being under a federal aegis, well that's fine because the constitution grants the federal government that jurisdiction. But that's a helluva lot different thing than what we have now, with federal jurisdiction everywhere. And I would bet states can resolve the lion's share of their internal responsibility just fine...

And that is federalist and conservative. You can't have it both ways.

[catfish1957]

When the river catches fire, local people have a tendency to make it better on their own. So I would not be so sure that federal mandates are all that effective.

You'd think so, but to do so, it takes some form (like it or not) governmental mandate for remediation.  In fact give me one example 1946-1970, where WQS (Water Quality STDS) improved in a stream segment near or at an industrial activity.  I'll give you a hand....   It didn't.

Should it be deconstructed at the federal level? HELL YES. We don't have the money. Period.
If you want to talk about reasonable interstate jurisdiction being under a federal aegis, well that's fine because the constitution grants the federal government that jurisdiction. But that's a helluva lot different thing than what we have now, with federal jurisdiction everywhere. And I would bet states can resolve the lion's share of their internal responsibility just fine...

Whoa there Cowboy....  Apparently you missed my comments about decommisioning EPA back to circa 1989 baseline standards.  And as far as delegating those authorites to states.....   I am and have ALWAYS been for that.

And that is federalist and conservative. You can't have it both ways.

[roamer_1]

Same comment back to you....  What makes you think the States would?

And btw, I do support a much less stripped down and powerful EPA.

You're kidding, right? Do you have ANY idea what we have to go through up in here over federal regulations?
Do you have ANY idea how much sh*t the Spotted Owl cost in the PacNW?
You can't piss on the ground up here without some pencil-necked fed coming along declaring it a navigable waterway or an eagle flyway or a waterfowl preserve.

Enough already! Don't even get me started on forest management - all decreed from on high from 3000 miles away!

*SPIT*

[catfish1957]

You're kidding, right? Do you have ANY idea what we have to go through up in here over federal regulations?
Do you have ANY idea how much sh*t the Spotted Owl cost in the PacNW?
You can't piss on the ground up here without some pencil-necked fed coming along declaring it a navigable waterway or an eagle flyway or a waterfowl preserve.

Enough already! Don't even get me started on forest management - all decreed from on high from 3000 miles away!

*SPIT*

Apparently you didn't read my earlier op-ed about how the EPA has post 1990 be a case study of abuse.  I've lived and worked in it "real time" bubba.  You have no idea.

[roamer_1]

Apparently you didn't read my earlier op-ed about how the EPA has post 1990 be a case study of abuse.  I've lived and worked in it "real time" bubba.  You have no idea.

Worse than that. They do real and lasting DAMAGE.
The kokanee salmon runs up in here are nearly gone... Because fed game management introduced the micinea shrimp which eat the same thing as the young salmon.

The introduced McKenzie River Gray wolves are decimating elk herds and destroying the viability of the Rocky Mountain Timber Wolf (a particular love of mine)

250,000 acres up in smoke every year and a lively logging industry utterly destroyed.

Most roads gated off - I can only get to 25% of the woods I used to roam freely. Try getting firewood the way it is set up now... And all those dry snags NOT getting cut are going to burn.

All federal dictate. All DIRE damage done by papered geeks that wouldn't know which end of a chainsaw to use.

*SPIT sommore*

Screw the feds. Revenuers are all the same.

[Hoodat]

You're kidding, right? Do you have ANY idea what we have to go through up in here over federal regulations?
Do you have ANY idea how much sh*t the Spotted Owl cost in the PacNW?
You can't piss on the ground up here without some pencil-necked fed coming along declaring it a navigable waterway or an eagle flyway or a waterfowl preserve.

Enough already! Don't even get me started on forest management - all decreed from on high from 3000 miles away!

Growing up in the Blue Ridge, we constantly got pegged by the EPA for air quality which was basically nothing more than a shakedown of DuPont and Thiokol.  We never understood how smog could continue unabated in Los Angeles while we were penalized for the haze that existed on Blue Ridge for the last 400 years.

And to this day, the EPA refused to clean up Cold Creek, Mo. because in their opinion it would cost too much, even though that is exactly what the Superfund law is for.

[catfish1957]

Growing up in the Blue Ridge, we constantly got pegged by the EPA for air quality which was basically nothing more than a shakedown of DuPont and Thiokol.  We never understood how smog could continue unabated in Los Angeles while we were penalized for the haze that existed on Blue Ridge for the last 400 years.

And to this day, the EPA refused to clean up Cold Creek, Mo. because in their opinion it would cost too much, even though that is exactly what the Superfund law is for.

You wanna know what used to make the EPA heads explode?

Very careful studies were made of the LA Basin, and it was found that due to topography, wind vectors, and location that LA has not been in compliance with EPA air quality standards (NAAQS) EVER!!!!!!   

Like you said, I better there are locations in the Appalachia that are in the same boat.

[catfish1957]

Worse than that. They do real and lasting DAMAGE.
The kokanee salmon runs up in here are nearly gone... Because fed game management introduced the micinea shrimp which eat the same thing as the young salmon.

The introduced McKenzie River Gray wolves are decimating elk herds and destroying the viability of the Rocky Mountain Timber Wolf (a particular love of mine)

250,000 acres up in smoke every year and a lively logging industry utterly destroyed.

Most roads gated off - I can only get to 25% of the woods I used to roam freely. Try getting firewood the way it is set up now... And all those dry snags NOT getting cut are going to burn.

All federal dictate. All DIRE damage done by papered geeks that wouldn't know which end of a chainsaw to use.

*SPIT sommore*

Screw the feds. Revenuers are all the same.

Good thing you didn't have my job.  Your head probably would have exploded.

[Hoodat]

The EPA only goes after companies and corporations.  If it is because of the actions of millions of motorists, they let it slide.  And if it is because of actions of the US Government, they fight tooth and nail to protect the polluters.

[roamer_1]

Growing up in the Blue Ridge, we constantly got pegged by the EPA for air quality which was basically nothing more than a shakedown of DuPont and Thiokol.  We never understood how smog could continue unabated in Los Angeles while we were penalized for the haze that existed on Blue Ridge for the last 400 years.

And to this day, the EPA refused to clean up Cold Creek, Mo. because in their opinion it would cost too much, even though that is exactly what the Superfund law is for.

It's a racket. And all about control. Why do they shut us out of our own woods? So that we cannot live by subsistence. And every year the noose is tightened. Soon enough hunting and trapping will be gone and fishing with it. And no more icky wood stoves either.

Be good little citizens and stay in town and eat the crap we give you.

 

[roamer_1]

Good thing you didn't have my job.  Your head probably would have exploded.

my head exploded anyhow. Do you know how much I had to step and fetch for them a******* as a painter?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The EPA only goes after companies and corporations.  If it is because of the actions of millions of motorists, they let it slide.  And if it is because of actions of the US Government, they fight tooth and nail to protect the polluters.

I used to deal with a university professor who was hired by the feds to evaluate superfund sites.

He told me the absolutely worst polluter by far is the federal government, particularly the military.

He looked at one federal site in eastern Washington state that was so bad with thousands of barrels of unknown liquids stored leaking contents that the decision was made that nothing could be done and to just let it be.