Jogeephus":uct0e42r said:
TexasBred":uct0e42r said:
Joe homeowners don't have to have it down here but many businesses have to have a Stormwater Permit for runnoff "rainwater"......as if you can control it......really all they want is the $500 check that accompanies the renewal each succeeding year. Nobody gets turned down. :lol: :lol:
Don't you think the environment would be better protected if you paid more? I actually feel offended that you guys care so little about the environment. You should maybe write your representative and demand that you pay more. You might be surprised at how quickly you could make a difference.
ClinchValley":uct0e42r said:
IMO,the earth's climate does an ebb and flow thing. Like a pulse rate. Ice cores show this.
Lot of truth in this. We were shown a graph showing atmospheric CO2 from one year to the next and the increase from one year to the other was actually pretty disturbing. However, it was then pointed out that the measurements were taken on the same days but in different hemispheres. Common sense would tell you that In December you'd expect CO2 to be higher in the northern hemisphere because its winter and the plants aren't growing (an example of an ebb you mention) but on the same date in the Southern hemisphere are respiring rapidly and CO2 levels will be lower. This is but one example of how you can massage data to make whatever point you are trying to make. Granted, no one seeking research money would ever massage numbers to insure they got their research funded because people are honest. Especially when it comes to things like money.
I am not reading any posts on this thread that are stating that Acts, Laws, and Regulations to implement and enforce environmental actions do not have a cost associated with them. In fact, the costs are acknowledged to the extent that the cost of environmental initiatives require an economic impact analysis. Even the cost of individual actions or events must be analyzed. For example, the treatment facility associated with the Berkeley Pit Cleanup at Butte, Montana required a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and Cost Analysis (CA) before the Record of Decision (ROD) selecting the clean-up action was signed by the Administrator of the US EPA.
None of the posts suggest there is not a cost associated with environmental regulation, oversight, and clean-up. It can, in fact, be enormous. Ask British Petroleum. When I left Montana in 2005 to relocate to Denver, BP was on the hook for over a billion dollars in clean up in the Clark Fork River Basin. I was at a meeting on the Record of Decision with Vice-President Sandy Stash of BP. She stated that if they had seen CERCLA coming before they bought the Anaconda Mining and Minerals holdings, they would have never stepped foot in the State of Montana. She stated to me that CERCLA was like a fish, "You catch it, you clean it."
The question is whether the costs are justified. That is where the debate is. We live in a Democracy, if more than half the people think a new law/act is needed, they get it. For example, when the US Surface Mining Act was passed by congress in 1977, there was an enormous environmental movement to regulate the surface effects of coal mining. Proponents of the law in Eastern Kentucky were well organized. The outcry from states like Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, etc. was heard all the way to Washington, DC.
I read your words. Your message is clear. "The trouble ain't worth it." I think where we are apart is on the OBJECTIVE. You believe that money is the primary objective. While I realize money is a factor, IMO, money is NOT the primary objective. IMO, there are a large number of people who truly want a CLEAN environment to live in. In the end, it does not matter. Until everyone is of one mind (don't hold your breath), there will be environmental regulations and companies and individuals will deal with that fact of life.
