- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 1/2/17 at 2:28 pm to crewdepoo
quote:
It's their job to provide clean water and air. That's like saying the gov shouldn't tell us to not put lead in our water. "It's the only water we have, want us to die of thirst?"
YES.
Posted on 1/2/17 at 2:30 pm to crewdepoo
quote:
The EPA said they need to meet the standards or they will not receive money from the government. This is the most fair thing I've ever heard of. LAW AND ORDER
Sounds like extortion.
Posted on 1/2/17 at 3:06 pm to crewdepoo
quote:
The EPA said they need to meet the standards or they will not receive money from the government. This is the most fair thing I've ever heard of.
I don't have anything to contribute. I just want to laugh at this...
Posted on 1/2/17 at 3:10 pm to Zach
Sounds like the EPA wants more pipelines
Posted on 1/2/17 at 4:45 pm to crewdepoo
quote:
crewdepoo
Every time something like you opens its flytrap you poison the air. Libtarded creatures like you and your ilk are notorious for trashing up the areas you protest in. Every single area of protest that's been inhabited by libtards was left with trash all over the place. Then the folks cleaning up those areas had to deal with all of the empty bags, cans, bottles, etc.
Posted on 1/2/17 at 4:50 pm to Jax-Tiger
This is one of those things, like when PETA protests the NFL because the footballs are made out of leather.
There are certain aspects of both PETA and the EPA that the average person could get behind. I'm against pollution and also of cruelty to animals.
But they cannot help themselves. They take everything too far and become a fringe group that most people think are wacky. They lost all credibility and support of most of the nation.
There are certain aspects of both PETA and the EPA that the average person could get behind. I'm against pollution and also of cruelty to animals.
But they cannot help themselves. They take everything too far and become a fringe group that most people think are wacky. They lost all credibility and support of most of the nation.
Posted on 1/2/17 at 4:59 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
Want to destroy the environment? Let the EPA regulate it.
I wonder what brilliant and destructive solution the EPA has for our wood burning crisis in Alaska?
quote:
When the subject is the environment, the public perception is that a resource of such importance can only be adequately safeguarded by the benevolent, all-encompassing hands of the government. Whether that protection comes in the guise of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, the Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, or any of their variations at the federal, state, and local levels, many citizens fear that leaving environmental (that is, property) stewardship in the hands of “big business” or “selfish” individuals would result in wholesale destruction of our land, water, and air.
quote:
Ultimately, it is the state’s violation of property rights that leads to many of the environmental ills laid at the feet of private citizens and businesses. The greatest ecological disasters in the world have occurred in those countries where property rights did not exist. (In the former Soviet Union and East Germany, for example, the devastation reached horrific heights.) Through subsidies, regulations, zoning, and eminent domain, the state encourages behavior that increases pressures on the environment.
quote:
Water usage has proven to be a favorite excuse offered for state intervention. Farmers benefit from subsidies designed to lower their costs for irrigating their crops. As a result, areas of marginal agricultural potential (especially in the west) are brought under production. Fragile lands are exploited that might otherwise lie fallow. Not only does the resultant overproduction of some commodities lower the prices farmers get for them, but the increased acreage put into crops leads to an acceleration of soil erosion. Subsidized crop insurance further exacerbates the situation.
Nonfarm citizens also have their water costs subsidized by people in other parts of the country.
Dam construction and artificial waterways designed to transport that water enable people to populate such arid regions as Arizona and southern California. Not only does that lead to an explosion in population in those and other areas, natural lands are flooded for reservoirs, water tables are lowered to quench the thirst of newcomers, and water shortages occur during times of lowered rainfall.
Rather than letting supply and demand determine the proper usage of water, the government decides how this resource will be distributed. Those dams also provide hydroelectricity below cost, again encouraging settlement of these areas at a higher level than would otherwise occur.
Where there is too much water the government again intervenes. Swamps have been drained (in Florida, for example) to encourage development. Now those same areas suffer a dearth of water, endangering the habitat of alligators and various species of birds.
Even while prohibiting the cutting of trees in some forests, the government subsidizes the construction of access roads into other so-called public lands. This leads to an increase in the harvesting of lumber from areas many environmentalists would like to preserve. Wildlife habitat is also threatened.
In a similar vein, state-owned rangelands are overgrazed by cattlemen enjoying lower-than-market rates to rent the land. In another example of the “tragedy of the commons” (the overuse of a resource because of the denial of individual ownership), overgrazing also strains local water supplies and contributes to environmental degradation.
While the government is lauded by some and condemned by others for reintroducing wolves into the west, few mention that it was government bounties on these predators (as well as others) that contributed to their decline in the first place.
Though it prohibits development of some “sensitive” rivers, seashores, and islands, the government encourages building in other such places. On flood plains and along coastlines, homeowners proliferate despite the dangers of recurrent flooding or storm damage. Why? Either they purchase below-market flood insurance or have their property losses covered by a “compassionate” government’s disaster relief that diminishes the cost of choosing to settle in such risky environments. Many of these homeowners rebuild repeatedly, all at the expense of their fellow citizens.
Zoning and land-use regulations designed to preserve wetlands and other wildlife habitat diminish the incentive of landowners to convert portions of their property to such uses. Rather than lose control of their property to stifling edicts, many citizens will choose instead to “sterilize” their land and not convert it to recreational or conservational use.
Highway construction paid for by the government places roads through woodlands and other habitat regardless of the wishes of the property owners (who are confronted by the use of eminent domain) and regardless of whether it makes economic sense. By also paying for infrastructure costs, the state encourages development in places where it might not otherwise occur. In Brazil, tax incentives and state-subsidized road construction have contributed to the very rain forest destruction so many environmentalists decry–even as they call for more governmental controls.
Subsidized freeways contribute to overuse that leads to massive traffic jams and more car exhaust in the atmosphere as autos creep along toward their destinations.
Through excessive regulation and the prohibition of such technology as breeder reactors, the government has effectively killed new nuclear-power plant construction in this country, although nuclear power is safer and pollutes less than many traditional power sources, including coal and natural gas.
I wonder what brilliant and destructive solution the EPA has for our wood burning crisis in Alaska?
This post was edited on 1/2/17 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 1/2/17 at 5:00 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
As opposed to freezing to death... frick you idiot libs
Posted on 1/2/17 at 5:15 pm to Zach
The high on Friday will be -17 in Fairbanks. Anyone that lives there deserves a fricking medal.
The scientists that say that burning wood when it's -30 are the same people that say it's good for the environment to let wildfires burn.
When will the EPA start fining Smokey the Bear?
The scientists that say that burning wood when it's -30 are the same people that say it's good for the environment to let wildfires burn.
When will the EPA start fining Smokey the Bear?
This post was edited on 1/2/17 at 5:16 pm
Posted on 1/2/17 at 7:37 pm to crewdepoo
quote:
What assholes. Trying to warn us that we're poisoning the air
I hope you don't own a vehicle or have electricity in your house.
Posted on 1/2/17 at 7:42 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
People are breathing in smoke and other particles which has been shown to be bad to your health.
You know what else is bad for your health? fricking freezing to death.
Posted on 1/2/17 at 9:43 pm to roguetiger15
quote:
Carbon dioxide is poison, should we just stop breathing ?
It's really the only option at this point. Liberals, you go first and show us how it's done.
Posted on 1/2/17 at 9:51 pm to biggsc
quote:
EPA can leave Alaska alone
Alaska hates the EPA
Militarized EPA terrorizes gold miners
quote:
I just don't understand why things have to be so confrontational, and I think the EPA's explanation of why its officers were armed seems wholly concocted to me," the senator said.
The Alaska State Troopers claim they gave no such advice to the EPA and had no evidence of drug or human trafficking problems in the Chicken area -- located off the Taylor Highway between Tok and the border with Canada, about 140 miles southeast of Fairbanks.
The EPA sends armed federal officers with body armor and air support on family gold claims harassing law abiding citizens. The EPA claimed the State Troopers told them there were some shady things going on, and the State Troopers said the EPA was full of shite.
The Obama administration has been playing political favors and "bullying" those States that are Republican.
Posted on 1/2/17 at 9:52 pm to PsychTiger
So, reduce particulate induced asthma by 2 or so cases a year or freeze to death...hmmmm
I give you THE EPA
I give you THE EPA
Posted on 1/2/17 at 10:06 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
There have been stories on this in the New York Times. Wood puts particles in the air and the nature of winter with temperature inversions means that the smoke and particles don't just harmlessly dissipate in the larger atmosphere. People are breathing in smoke and other particles which has been shown to be bad to your health.
Sure if the atmosphere at winter was such that the air could just blow away there would be no problem. It's like forms a smog in the winter that gets trapped in valleys.
This is why we are about to gut the EPA. Can't happen soon enough.
Posted on 1/2/17 at 10:09 pm to crewdepoo
quote:
What assholes. Trying to warn us that we're poisoning the air
Yeah. frick them. They should just go freeze to death.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News