Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
The EPA and some good news for US.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Margonme" data-source="post: 1394597" data-attributes="member: 25776"><p>CF stated:</p><p></p><p><strong>Are you suggesting that there is less potential for corrupt politicians at the federal level?</strong></p><p></p><p>Yes and that applies to regulators also. There is more corruption at lower levels of government and regulators at lower levels of government tend to be less well trained and diligent.</p><p></p><p>I appreciate your effort. Nevertheless, you have not changed the fact that states have a very poor track record of implementing and enforcing environmental law. It is the sole reason President Nixon created the EPA by executive order in 1970. States were at each other's throats because of the inequity in the protection of shared resources. One of the examples was rivers that are bordered by two states. State A was complaining that State B was not protecting the waters of a boundary river. State A pointed to the fact that their efforts to protect a river was in vain because State B allowed industry to use the river as a sewer. Same issues were occurring with regard to air pollution. Pollutants from State B were being emitted into the air from plants in State B and affecting residents in State A. Since State A had no jurisdiction, there was no remedy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Margonme, post: 1394597, member: 25776"] CF stated: [b]Are you suggesting that there is less potential for corrupt politicians at the federal level?[/b] Yes and that applies to regulators also. There is more corruption at lower levels of government and regulators at lower levels of government tend to be less well trained and diligent. I appreciate your effort. Nevertheless, you have not changed the fact that states have a very poor track record of implementing and enforcing environmental law. It is the sole reason President Nixon created the EPA by executive order in 1970. States were at each other's throats because of the inequity in the protection of shared resources. One of the examples was rivers that are bordered by two states. State A was complaining that State B was not protecting the waters of a boundary river. State A pointed to the fact that their efforts to protect a river was in vain because State B allowed industry to use the river as a sewer. Same issues were occurring with regard to air pollution. Pollutants from State B were being emitted into the air from plants in State B and affecting residents in State A. Since State A had no jurisdiction, there was no remedy. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
The EPA and some good news for US.
Top