Replies

The title of this post should surprise no one who still has a neuron or two still firing in their brain. The EPA has done more damage to the US economy than it has helped. The people of CA (and elsewhere) have consistently fought new power plant construction, but get PO'ed when they have to contend with rolling brownouts during hot weather. It takes millions just to get the EPA permits to start constructing a power plant and even then, there's no guarantee it will be finished. The Marble Hill project in Indiana took eight years to get the permits, only to have the environmentalists still shut the project down. The power company eventually said screw it and "ate the cost". Well, not really, since regulated utilities are allowed to earn a "fair rate of return" on investment. This means that the utility customers ultimately paid for the debacle.

Similarly, what benefits the US more: Tariffs on imported steel that protect inefficient steel industry's workers, or lower steel prices on products bought by millions of US consumers? The steel workers union complained years ago that Japan was "dumping" steel in US markets below cost. Really? If that's the case, we should have bought all we could and lowered US production costs and prices to consumers. Eventually, Japan would either had to have raised its price or gone out of business. In the end, which benefits the US more: tariffs to protect an inefficient industry to a select few, or lower product prices for millions of consumers. And don't forget: its the gov't who gets the tariff income. What did they do to "earn" this income? Nothing but buy a few votes from the steel industry. Stupid...

When I worked at GD we had a completely clean facility. We were a small quantity generator. Still, we had inspections by EPA’s from the city, county, state and federal government. The company was in a panic for each of these, not because we were in violation, but because some of the inspectors had an anti-(fill-in-blank; military, commercial, industrial, whatever) bias. They could be arbitrary and capricious and we’d experienced that.

The company was redoing the production floor and had moved several 55 gallon drums into a shed which had stood on the property through numerous storms. It wasn’t hurricane season and the barrels would be moved long before then. One inspector wanted a new, hurricane proof roof on the building. (We’re 25 miles from the coast and the highest sustained winds were well below the current rating.) So, on goes a new roof; onto a building scheduled to be removed. Then the local EPA comes by and insists on a lined ditch around the building, but the parking lot had to be torn up and re-graded. The entire production floor rework was to cost $500k. We added over $200k of unplanned rework because of various, capricious EPA requirements. After all this was done, we tore down the building.

Also, a larger parking lot had been planned and permitted when the company built the building. To save money the company only built the lot it needed at the time. Then, when the expected growth kicked in, GD wanted to build the rest of the parking lot. The EPA required a second $50,000 environmental impact study; for a lot that had been approved already.

Why would you put up with this rule by bureaucrat when you could simply relocate out of the country?

The American economy has some basic and obvious problems. We need more well-paid jobs, increased revenue, and our trade balance is out of whack. Each of these issues could be addressed, but environmentalists are doing everything they can to kill potential solutions. Three such examples are coal mining and exporting; natural gas extraction and conversion to liquefied natural gas (LNG) that can then be exported; and the Keystone pipeline—all of which face extreme opposition from environmentalists.

True... we can't build a factory because of the 'flea-brained red human' (H. MarxistDemocraticus), more commonly called LIBERAL ENVIRONMENTIST!!

While, coal use in the US has decreased, its low cost and abundance make it the preferred fuel for power generation in countries like China and India. Even Europe is increasing its use of coal for electricity generation.

Currently, US coal is easily shipped to Europe from ports on the east coast, but, due to opposition from environmental groups, the US is missing out on the important Asian market—now being met by more expensive Australian competitors. In the Los Angeles Times, climate activist Bill McKibben wrote: “Those exports can’t really take off, however, unless West Coast ports dramatically expand their deepwater loading capacity. … Environmentalists are trying desperately to block the port expansion.” PRB coal is being shipped to China and India through Vancouver, Canada

Why is the coal going to Canada?? Does Canada get the credit for the export?

We need to tell these Anti-American LIBERAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS to leave the USA, if the hate it and go to HELL!!