Supreme Court clashes over climate change

MrBishop said:
So...if the EPA'd known and stopped the mining company BEFORE the damage was done...?
Click to expand...


You can take that idea back far enough that we'd never have come down from the trees. After all, I'm sure noone did an environmental study on what effect those great piles of rock in Egypt would cause. Or how about sacking Troy? I doubt Achillies got the EPA's advice.

I'm pretty sure the EPA would have blocked putting all that litter on the moon. What about the effect the Great Wall of China one the migratory habits of the stubby little ponies they had? Or Hadrian' wall's effect on the long haired haggis?
 
highwayman said:
You made this statement, back it up...

But then there is nothing to it to back up so you will continue to dance around...
Click to expand...

Hey you first

The EPA is a federal government agency that is under the juristiction of the federal government, NOT the court system

when the left cannot get anything the way they want it there is court case...

I was simply offering a more realistic alternative to Gonz statements that Bush was concerned about "encroachment on states rights" as we know Bush has historically never been concerned about encroaching on rights.
 
highwayman said:
Yup, and only named the big ones, wonder who the "other" states are...
Click to expand...

well, it's NOT Epping Forest local village council ... Old mrs Withywindle will have no truck with impolite "letting off" of gases and other such behaviour!

really!
 
Professur said:
Or Hadrian' wall's effect on the long haired haggis?
Click to expand...

hey, be fair - the £6.27 million DEFRA commision report hasn't yet reached a conclusion on this ...


let's not pre-judge the Royal commission Prof!

They have the very lastest Goodie technology you know ...
 
Professur said:
You can take that idea back far enough that we'd never have come down from the trees. After all, I'm sure noone did an environmental study on what effect those great piles of rock in Egypt would cause. Or how about sacking Troy? I doubt Achillies got the EPA's advice.

I'm pretty sure the EPA would have blocked putting all that litter on the moon. What about the effect the Great Wall of China one the migratory habits of the stubby little ponies they had? Or Hadrian' wall's effect on the long haired haggis?
Click to expand...

No, you see (or not)...there are ways of harvesting renewable (fish, trees, animals and crops) and non-renewable (oil,coal,metals), that have less of an impact on the environment. We need to ensure that the renewable ones are taken in such a way so that they don't go extinct but continue to be harvested (limiting catches, planting of new growth forests or selective cutting of trees, proper feeding, and the proper use of non-toxic pesticides and/or useful insects). We also need to make sure that the companies that mine can and do follow up after mining instead of just declaring bankruptcy.

In many cases, the companies won't do it themselves even though they're shooting themselves in the foot, so it falls to two ways of doing it. Either individuals refuse to deal with or pressure companies to follow better standards (Like what happened with Home Depot) or Enviro groups do so (like the EPA, the FSC, FSM).

If it gets rleft up to companies, they'll play to their bottom line.
 
MrBishop said:
No, you see (or not)...there are ways of harvesting renewable (fish, trees, animals and crops) and non-renewable (oil,coal,metals), that have less of an impact on the environment. We need to ensure that the renewable ones are taken in such a way so that they don't go extinct but continue to be harvested (limiting catches, planting of new growth forests or selective cutting of trees, proper feeding, and the proper use of non-toxic pesticides and/or useful insects). We also need to make sure that the companies that mine can and do follow up after mining instead of just declaring bankruptcy.

In many cases, the companies won't do it themselves even though they're shooting themselves in the foot, so it falls to two ways of doing it. Either individuals refuse to deal with or pressure companies to follow better standards (Like what happened with Home Depot) or Enviro groups do so (like the EPA, the FSC, FSM).

If it gets rleft up to companies, they'll play to their bottom line.
Click to expand...

Bish, if you had a clue, this would be an entertaining discussion.

So, who decides who gets away with what? Environuts? Hang on, wait a sec, I'll just go get a few and ask their opinion. Here they are. Ask them yourself. Yup, I really want to live in a world where these freaks have power.
 
talking of links ... - just what exactly is the cafe press, Bish???

you selling t-shirts??

:confused:
 
i mean, btw, in the sense of sweeping generalisation.

you wanna flame / bait / fight or fuck with ... fine!

but if you want an equal debating playing field - why assume you know others mind and offend when it may or may not be applicable?

that's what i am curious about.
 
Gonz said:
It is not a Constitutionally mandated branch & has been given authority where none exists.
Click to expand...

Ummm...how to explain this to the masses...


The EPA regulates only interstate transport and international shipping. Intrastate is regulated by each state. In other words...Your state can mandate emission controls and/or inspections as it sees fit. The EPA has no jurisdiction other than basic controls that cover all states equally. Kinda like California emissions being lower than national...
 
Spike:
Look at you up there on that pedestal so totally wrong.
Click to expand...

you charmer you ...

'ere Spike mate - cut the personal shit an get on with the debate if you wanna ...but why throw shit just to muddy your own windscreen???

best, BB

...ere' and Gato ..you should know better an' all!

either debate properly, or go for each other properly ... but fuck all this nancy shite pussy-footing around

-preferably the former
...er.... the latter is old before they even started doing it properly .... otherwise i'd agree it'd be the more entertaining option! :grinyes:

hah!

if ye gonna take each other on idealogically .. then do so - but use intelligence and argument - don't insult our time and minds with drivel ... unless it's funny, relevant, or highly irrelevant ... or obscurely interesting of course ;) ...
 
Gato_Solo said:
Gee...a post that has no meaning.
Click to expand...

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

It means that you are talking down to the rest of the board members with your "masses" comment and at the same time wrong that the EPA regulates only interstate transport and international shipping.
 
MrBishop said:
The idea of protecting the environment doesn't go back that far...it can't be a constitutionally mandated branch. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Sure it can. The Constitution has ways to add or chage the rules. I'd prefer using them than creating new branches.

spike said:
Uhhh.... that would be the EPA. I suppose you really want to live in a world where the oil companies and polluting corporations have the power though.

Gross.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you've been misinformed. Handing police powers over to a non-regulated, non-elected agency full of beauracrats is not on the allowed list. They are potentially interfering with interstate commerce.
 
Professur said:
Bish, if you had a clue, this would be an entertaining discussion.

So, who decides who gets away with what? Environuts? Hang on, wait a sec, I'll just go get a few and ask their opinion. Here they are. Ask them yourself. Yup, I really want to live in a world where these freaks have power.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Oddly enough...scientists make judgments about what makes for a stable and sustainable 'catch'. Go ahead...find another off the charts whacko group to 'prove your point'. :rolleyes:

Here's one now!
1
2

3
4
5
 
Gonz said:
Perhaps you've been misinformed. Handing police powers over to a non-regulated, non-elected agency full of beauracrats is not on the allowed list. They are potentially interfering with interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

If they interfere with commerce protecting the environment kudos to them. :clap:

You want to get rid of the CIA and FCC too?
 
CIA-no. FCC-yes.

CIA Director was an Executive Branch position (now it's part of Homeland Insecurity/DoJ)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top