Super Polluters
Posted by rbroberg 8 years, 1 month ago to Government
Perhaps these corporations could replace their old technologies with clean coal if their tax rates were reduced or if there was any semblance of competition in the utility market. Nope, more regulations at the federal level should work. It is obvious that state governments are corrupt, but the federal EPA -- which collects funding through fining -- is the paramount of integrity [warning: sarcasm used liberally ;)].
SOURCE URL: http://superpolluters.com/
Sometimes words are inadequate. :)
Regards,
O.A.
And, oh by the way, I just got fined by the EPA for having a 4 L bottle of expired HPLC grade ... water.
They are revenuers. OSHA is the same... Mindless bureaucrats with incentive to fine and be oppressive without regard for common sense, tolerance or reason.
They are Vogons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogon
LOL! Yes. Ice pick in the eardrums bad!
Good to hear from you.
Hope all is well,
O.A.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pChZ...
I hope all is well with you, too, O.A.
1. The Governor didn't make the spill.
2. Duke power didn't purposely spill the ash..it was an accident
3. The dump was built and regulated by Duke many years ago when the Democrats were running the state.
4. There is no actual proof that the spill will have actual long term problems
5. How do you separate the wet coal dust from the mud in the bottom of the river...it may not even be possible.
6......and most important od all, as a regulated state monopoly...DUKE POWER IS US HERE IN NC. If they have to pay for a massive, unnecessary cleanup and a monster fine, they [Duke Power] will just pass it on to us the rate payers.
Yes, yes, I know windmills and solar panels aren't doing the trick but let's have clean air by not burning anything.
Clean air. Yum! Breathe it in. Savor its purity.
Clean air may freeze some of us to death during winter. It is true.
Clean air may gag some of us to death during the summer. That is also true.
But at least we will still have clean air with the added bonus of less people breathing out CO2.
Nuclear? Did I hear someone say nuclear? Arrest that terrorist! He must be a climate change denier!
Thank you.
I'm from the EPA and I am here to help you.
The problem is that so-called clean technologies can't make enough power to supply the needs of homes, businesses, etc. It never will. It is a progressive pipe dream. Fossil fuels still remain the best source of energy in the world and they aren't going away any time soon. I'm all for cleaner technologies which make economic sense. But I will point out that the current administration has made it their goal to shut down coal-fired plants: Obama even boasted to that effect on multiple occasions. This article is just more propaganda, because all it talks about is why we need to shut these plants down - it completely ignores the problem of what is going to replace it.
This article is propaganda for sure! Notice it is direct from the weather channel. Note also that the weather channel has a vested interest in claiming weather events are dependent on carbon dioxide levels. Meteorologists are the best recruits and get book deals and speaking fees out of the arrangement.
I hope the sarcasm in the original comment comes through...
Common sense ain't so common, as Will Rogers often said. I have tried to explain how the real world works to many clean energy fanatics, to no avail. When I point out that fossil fuels provide over 70% of the world's power, and that wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal sources provide less than 3% as a means of telling them why cutting use of the fuels necessary to build, ship, and install the clean energy facilities is counterproductive, I'm accused of being a shill for an oil company.
1. Centralization: The wording of the article is clearly in favor of federal power.
2. Greed: Greed drives these companies, not market value or pride in production.
3. Regulation: Rules are required at all stages of economic development. Businessmen are crooks and the government is there as a moral force to direct them.
If any of these themes does not make you sick, your stomach is much stronger than mine.
Centralization is necessary in certain things. What I think is a valid objection is in where the centralization lies. I think there are few cases where centralization of control should rest with the Federal government and energy policy is not one of them. I hold that the Founding Fathers carefully considered which things should be Federalized and made that list very short for a very good reason.
Greed is good according to Rand. Where self-interest turns into exploitation is where there is government-sponsored monopoly - such as commonly exists in energy production/distribution. I fully support businesses operating to make a profit. What I don't support is them making a profit as a result of government policy.
Regulation can be looked at either as coordination of efforts or simply the punishing of one in favor of another. I'm totally against the second, but the first can have merit where used judiciously. The problem is that current government mentality is anything but lassez-faire: they think that the only policy to have is a "hands-on" approach. The default should be to do nothing and allow the market to regulate itself - only stepping in when there is no other choice. Current politicians default mode is to regulate every new thing as soon as it comes out. It's a power trip.
What about fire codes? On one side you might have someone who argues the ultra-libertarian approach that I should be able to build a house out of kerosene-soaked plywood if I'm really that stupid. Then you have the ultra-progressive who mandates the house plan you can use! I'm in the middle. If your property burns to the ground, yes, that's on you. But if as a result of not following fire code you also burn down your neighbor's property through sheer negligence - even ignorance? The problem is in assuming that a civil suit is going to be able to recover anything in damages! (Another is that the actual builder is really tough to go after in these cases.) Better to prevent common issues during the building phase. Same thing goes with plumbing and electrical inspection. The utilities companies have a very vested interest in making sure that a home is built to code so that they can provide adequate services and have a continuously paying customer. But since they are the ones providing the service you are requesting, you have to pay the initial inspection and hookup fees.
Now, is there a list of things that government shouldn't regulate? Absolutely. Even more accurate is to say that there are many aspects of life which are currently regulated that would do much better if they weren't. I'm not advocating for regulation as the default approach to things. Only that both extremes are exactly that: extremes.
But to go back to the definition of public vs private, as soon as you engage the citizens of a city to join together to do anything, it is by definition public. The notion of "private" zoning is by definition invalid. And I would point out the corruption in both the International Olympic Committee and FIFA (both private bodies) in overseeing those particular events as evidence of what I see inevitably happening with a private "zoning" board.
I am not an anarchist. I believe that there are many legitimate functions that government should carry out. The unfortunate part is that because government is all about power, those who gravitate to public service tend to be those seeking for power and an expansion of it. The Founding Fathers tried to put in some measures to slow the growth of government, but it was clear that Benjamin Franklin was skeptical that such could last too long because of his observations of human nature. Ultimately, the best control of government starts with self control and there are few in the populace - let alone Washington, D.C. - who exercise it.
I did include regulations in my rant.
Everyone wants to help the middle class. I don't think most politicians even know who the hell the so-called "Middle Class" is.