Defunding the EPA

[Revoltingest]

I don't necessarily disagree with the premise. I'm saying specifically the federal government of America should cease to exist, not that any government that exists should be limited only by its own judgment.

When I think of the kinds of things which pop into the minds of leaders, I
thank my lucky stars that the Constitution is a very inconvenient roadblock.

 

[dust1n]

When I think of the kinds of things which pop into the minds of leaders, I
thank my lucky stars that the Constitution is a very inconvenient roadblock.

I'm not particularly criticizing the document itself. It certainly has things I like and things I don't agree with. It has many pros and little cons, like most constitutions in the world.

However, I'd prefer if every state ran themselves according to their own constitutions, or however the people see fit.

 

[Nous]

The environment can only be saved by a totalitarian government that brutally enforces environmental measures

There's nothing brutal about outlawing the raising and slaughtering of animals for human consumption, or getting our electricity from the virtually meltdown-proof and proliferation-proof traveling-wave reactor developed by TerraPower. As their primary fuel source, TWRs can use depleted uranium, spent fuel from light-water reactors, and even uranium from river and ocean water, or any combination thereof. These two measures will be eventually necessary in order for humans (and other animals) to continue to live on the planet. There's no reason not to start now.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not particularly criticizing the document itself. It certainly has things I like and things I don't agree with. It has many pros and little cons, like most constitutions in the world.

However, I'd prefer if every state ran themselves according to their own constitutions, or however the people see fit.

I like the Incorporation Doctrine, which guarantees some civil
liberties at the state level, regardless of the state's constitution.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

While trivialities such as wiretap allegations are making front page gossip on news sites, more salient issues are being underreported and overlooked. It's time to dig past some of the nonsense and address a serious issue, and that's the notion of slashing the EPA's budget from $8.1 billion to $5.7 billion for the upcoming fiscal cycle in the United States - the lowest level in... well... ever.

The rationale is that the agency's new administrator wants to return the work of environmental regulation to the state level. This is a terrible idea for several reasons, but perhaps none more relevant than the simple fact that the states do not have the resources to respond quickly to environmental emergencies in many cases. It's also unlikely that they'll be able to afford these resources should this budget cut go through, considering about a third of all state funding for environmental regulations comes from the EPA.

Here's a few different articles you can check out for various takes on this issue:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/...otection-agency-budget-cuts.html?ref=politics
• EPA hit hardest as Trump budget targets regulations
• Trump’s budget envisions a US government that basically does nothing about climate change
• UPDATE: Trump budget would cut EPA funding 31%, eliminate 3,200 jobs

As someone who votes primarily with the environment in mind, things like this are very concerning to me. The environment is not a partisan issue. Nobody wants to have a toxic greenish substance come out of their drinking water and have nobody around to help identify and fix the problem. Nobody wants to see entire towns abandoned because a coal mine got ignited and is smoldering underground (yes, this is a thing - when I learned about it I was horrified). Meanwhile, it is proposed to increase militaristic spending. I don't get it. There are other aspects of the proposed budget that concern me as well, but let's try to keep this thread on the environmental portion of that.

For me this is the #1 issue

We desperately need sustainable green energy involving recycling of valuable resources, preservation of natural areas and protection of wildlife

i.e. energy production that can be sustained when the sun goes down, when the wind drops and when the subsidies dry up.
recycling the very nutrient that makes Earth green: restoring some of the atmospheric CO2 depleted by plants over millions of years
removal of wind turbines that create blight and kill more birds every year than any oil spill ever has
And if we could make the winters a little less cold that would obviously be a great bonus, but not very realistic unfortunately

 

[dust1n]

I like the Incorporation Doctrine, which guarantees some civil
liberties at the state level, regardless of the state's constitution.

Then perhaps MI can include something very similar in their constitution; keeping counties and cities from infringing on the individual rights of people who live in MI.

 

[dust1n]

removal of wind turbines that create blight and kill more birds every year than any oil spill ever has

Ah, if that's the ultimate concern, we should probably criminalize cat ownership.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ah, if that's the ultimate concern, we should probably criminalize cat ownership.

Another good idea!

 

[Revoltingest]

Then perhaps MI can include something very similar in their constitution; keeping counties and cities from infringing on the individual rights of people who live in MI.

One cannot depend entirely upon the state.
But MI also protects us in some areas to a greater extent than the fed.
A constitutional republic is a good thing.

 

[dust1n]

Another good idea!

I mean, think about like this. Wind turbines kill somewhere between 100k-573k birds a year. If this is a solid reason not to build wind turbines anywhere, than absolutely no one should own a cat... 2.4 Billion birds a year die at the hands of cats.

Even taking the highest estimate... 573k... that means for every bird one that dies from a wind turbine, 4,188,481 die because of peoples' cats. Nearly 8 orders of magnitude.

 

[dust1n]

One cannot depend entirely upon the state.

Um... they need to depend on the state plus a much larger state even less representative.

Is there a reason we need a city government, a county government, a state government, and a federal government, cause it seems like the first three could probably handle the latter's responsibilities being split up.

I mean... can we depend entirely upon the Federal State? Or do we need a World Government too to make sure that the individual Federal Governments are protecting the rights of their citizens?

Why the arbitrary stopping point? We need the Federal Government (Despite have 3 versions o more localized ones) but any additional giving up of sovereignty is totally unacceptable?

But MI also protects us in some areas to a greater extent than the fed.
A constitutional republic is a good thing.

Wouldn't necessarily disagree. If MI wants to be a constitutional republic, good on them. If they want to band together with whatever states want to keep some sort of Fed Gov going, good on them (as long as I'm not in it).

 

[Quetzal]

When I think of the kinds of things which pop into the minds of leaders, I
thank my lucky stars that the Constitution is a very inconvenient roadblock.

I can't argue with you there. But maintaining our natural resources is a priority of mine. I am hoping that the dismantling/defunding of the EPA will not jeopardize that. I am a bit more pessimistic in that regard.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I mean, think about like this. Wind turbines kill somewhere between 100k-573k birds a year. If this is a solid reason not to build wind turbines anywhere, than absolutely no one should own a cat... 2.4 Billion birds a year die at the hands of cats.

Even taking the highest estimate... 573k... that means for every bird one that dies from a wind turbine, 4,188,481 die because of peoples' cats. Nearly 8 orders of magnitude.

It is a real problem I agree, cats have a significant impact on smaller/song bird populations. On the other hand, they don't cost the taxpayer billions of dollars or trash entire landscapes.. and they do serve some useful purpose for some people.

both of course kill vastly more birds every year than all the oil spills in the history of the industry combined

 

[Quetzal]

On the other hand, they don't cost the taxpayer billions of dollars or trash entire landscapes.. and they do serve some useful purpose for some people.

A new pet peeve of mine is when people say "It costs taxpayers billions" as an argument against something. You know what else costs taxpayers "billions"? subsidies to oil refining companies, military technology we never use or fails, etc. You can't scare me with the whole taxpayer argument until you take care of the biggest drain of all: wasted military spending. In regards to turbines and wildlife, a pathetic argument coming from the same wing of people who want to frack and drill. Can't take it seriously.

 

[dust1n]

It is a real problem I agree, cats have a significant impact on smaller/song bird populations. On the other hand, they don't cost the taxpayer billions of dollars or trash entire landscapes.. and they do serve some useful purpose for some people.

both of course kill vastly more birds every year than all the oil spills in the history of the industry combined

Windfarms neither costs billions in tax-dollars... Austin gets energy from a privately-owned windfarm... If you are suggesting they got some sort of tax deduction because they were building a windfarm, then I'd ask you to apply your dislike for tax deductions to everyone you like along with the things you don't like. I can name several favorable tax treatments oil companies are able to take advantage of... But I'm betting you don't count that as "costing the taxpayer billions of dollars."

Also... "trash entire landscapes" is an entirely aesthetic preference. It doesn't actually trash the landscape, you just don't like how it looks, which is too bad for you I guess, since people with private property are allowed to trash the landscape in all kinds of manner without your consent.

Thirdly, you are suggesting if 300k birds die, this is bad, but if literally a million times more birds than that die, that's totally acceptable as long as people get the "useful purpose" of having a cat... the useful purpose here being complete unbeknownst to me. What is the useful purpose of having a cat? One old lady is slightly less lonely? What is the useful purpose of having a wind-farm? It generates electricity for way cheaper than the alternatives, far less pollution is caused by it than the alternatives, and also, it only kills 1 cat for every 4+ million that die so that grandma can be less lonely.

 

[dust1n]

Speaking of unuseful objects that cost the taxpayers money... I don't see anyone complaining about the Wall.. 75% of the border is private property. That means some thousands of thousands of TX residents will have to fight imminent domain for their property, to build a wall at the expense of the tax payers (to the tune of TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars). It would certainly "destroy the landscape" for thousands of miles and cause migration problems for basically every animal that lives around the area outside birds, and they literally wouldn't help immigration because most illegal immigrants overstay their visa... not physically crossing the border by foot.

But it's those darn landscape-destorying, taxpayer money wasting windfarms that are they problem.

 

[Quetzal]

Speaking of unuseful objects that cost the taxpayers money... I don't see anyone complaining about the Wall..

There are plenty of people taking up arms with it. But that isn't the OP... this time!

 

[dust1n]

There are plenty of people taking up arms with it. But that isn't the OP... this time!

Well to clarify, certianly plenty of people are upset about it. Some aren't that's fine.

But if your sole argument for why there shouldn't be windfarms is because it destroys the landscape and cost taxpayers money, then it should apply equally to all things that destroy the landscape and cost taxpayers money... And I only bring up the example of the Wall, because I know Guy is probably cheering for the Wall despite the fact it destroys the landscape and cost taxpayers money.

 

[Quetzal]

Well to clarify, certianly plenty of people are upset about it. Some aren't that's fine.

But if your sole argument for why there shouldn't be windfarms is because it destroys the landscape and cost taxpayers money, then it should apply equally to all things that destroy the landscape and cost taxpayers money... And I only bring up the example of the Wall, because I know Guy is probably cheering for the Wall despite the fact it destroys the landscape and cost taxpayers money.

Gotcha, I agree.

 

[Revoltingest]

Um... they need to depend on the state plus a much larger state even less representative.

Is there a reason we need a city government, a county government, a state government, and a federal government, cause it seems like the first three could probably handle the latter's responsibilities being split up.

I mean... can we depend entirely upon the Federal State? Or do we need a World Government too to make sure that the individual Federal Governments are protecting the rights of their citizens?

Why the arbitrary stopping point? We need the Federal Government (Despite have 3 versions o more localized ones) but any additional giving up of sovereignty is totally unacceptable?




Wouldn't necessarily disagree. If MI wants to be a constitutional republic, good on them. If they want to band together with whatever states want to keep some sort of Fed Gov going, good on them (as long as I'm not in it).

I like decentralization.
But some level of centralization is useful....even the UN.
There is no perfect balance, just shifting power as we all adapt.

When I was a kid, forced prayer in public schools was the norm.
The fed ended that by constitutional means.
Good.