More jobs on the way!
Community
"EPA Withdraws Air Pollution Policy Agency reverses decades-old emissions policy that environmentalists and congressional critics called one of its bedrock regulations"
Sorry, I refuse to pay to read a Wall Street Journal article.
I will say, as a native of the Denver area who has seen our infamous "brown cloud" drastically reduced due to pollution regulations, I'm not cheering this roll back.
Matt
Interesting, GG. I have no subscription and was able to see the article. Try this link to the EPA site.
"Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a guidance memorandum withdrawing the “once in always in” policy for the classification of major sources of hazardous air pollutants under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. With the new guidance, sources of hazardous air pollutants previously classified as “major sources” may be reclassified as “area” sources when the facility limits its potential to emit below major source thresholds.
“This guidance is based on a plain language reading of the statute that is in line with EPA’s guidance for other provisions of the Clean Air Act,” said Bill Wehrum, assistant administrator of EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. “It will reduce regulatory burden for industries and the states, while continuing to ensure stringent and effective controls on hazardous air pollutants.”"
JTV, why not move if IN is not to your liking? What you are talking about is state, not federal regulation. I have never had an emissions check on a vehicle.
Making America Great Again one appointee, one law, and one agenda at a time. You gotta love it.
Henry,
Thanks, that link worked without paying WSJ's cover charge.
My opinion stands. As an avid outdoorsman who has seen Denver's air quality drastically improved due to imposed regulations over my lifetime, I don't see this as a step forward. Thru-out history "major sources" of pollution have shown no interest in "voluntarily" reducing the pollution they create. Rolling back this legislation won't suddenly inspire them to do so.
IMO, clean air and water should be a no-brainer for everyone, regardless of which side of the isle you sit on.
Matt
No one is suggesting pollution is the answer. Only that the fear of it can't be the answer.
How are you seriously happy about this? While some regs are bad there are many good ones.
I better keep my truck out of Indiana and Illinois then. There is no way It would pass.
Headers with high flow cats will do that to you. Lol
I'll admit, I haven't researched this beyond Henry's link, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
As I read it, the largest polluters will no longer be held to the highest standards, thereby increasing pollution. I don't see that as a win for anyone.
Matt
Good!. Now they can reopen the lead smelters so we can afford a car battery again!
What's the practical application of this?
The practical application is that if the pollution problem has been alleviated, then the company is no longer subject to greater regulation than any others.
"The practical application is that if the pollution problem has been alleviated, then the company is no longer subject to greater regulation than any others.
In other words, the biggest polluters will be held to a lesser standard than they were before. WOOHOO....MEGA!!
Matt
No, the unconstitutional life sentence has been removed. If they pollute again, they will again have to pay the price. As long as they follow the regulations, they will be left alone by the EPA.
Ummm.... oK, you're correct, Henry. I'm wrong.
Matt
Globally, my view on water and air is that we need to protect them aggressively. So any time I hear something about a roll back in protection for either I get nervous.
So HA/KS, am I reading you correctly, and the excerpt above as well... This is basically the same as it's been, but with a different label - pollute and we punish you. Do it again and we punish you more. That's basically the drill here?
I'll have to read more on this. If it's just changing language but functionally the same, as it sounds, then fine. But if it's really just a way to allow folks to push the limits a bit, or allow a bit more pollution, that's bogus. Ill have to read more to really understand this change I guess.
"Henry. I'm wrong."
Not necessarily. It depends on which version you believe.
However, I believe that the excessive regulatory burden is harder on the economy than high taxes.
Majority of regs just cost us in the long run because there is no real effect on the environment,bso companies pass the cost on to us...remember Obama's regs on power plants..ect? No effect on anything but our pocket book.
"no real effect on the environment".....take another hit. Before the clean water act, rivers used to literally catch on fire from time to time, because there were so many different pollutants in the water; you could dispose of oil in your gutter if you wanted to and unfortunately without regulation, many of our jackass forefathers did. I find it interesting that these days "conservatives", seem to want to conserve nothing and want the gov to get out of everything, but it was under the Nixon administration the both the clean air and water act were passed. I'm a supporter of both clean water and air.
TGbow, I think you're referring to the new Coal Combustion Residual, regulations that are affecting power generation. Negligent costs by power companies are not passed on to consumers. The public service commission dictates if they can pass costs on or not and storing waste improperly is not a cost that can be passed on (unless you have the dumbest, most corrupt commission ever). The coal and energy industries really screwed themselves on that one as they could have pro-actively been good environmental stewards and made improvements that could have been passed onto consumers, but they didn't because there wasn't a regulation, hence no need to.
ben h, I all for common sense environmentalism...like not dumping toxic waste in our water...ect
Problem I have is the government is so involved to the point that all that happens is a bunch of feel good crap that really does nothing.
Seizing people's land because a Snell Darter happens to reside on their land is down right communistic..not to mention it's stupid.
Just like the FDA...what a joke.
You’re making the argument. If the government exists to protect your rights and we have a right to clean air water etc. then the regulations are indeed justified.
"The coal and energy industries...could have pro-actively been good environmental stewards and made improvements that could have been passed onto consumers..."
Not always. It's still up to public regulatory commissions to allow recoup costs from consumers.
Ben h is correct. Without govt regulating them, do you think companies or industries would self regulate? Do you think they’d spend the extra money on care and safety of workers and the environment?
Your answer lies in history. Look at the industrial revolution.
OH God Not another one!!!!
Yes Companies do self regulate. Its called capitalism. If you do not offer a product that a consumer wants ie safe, clean, environmentally friendly and even in some cases politically correct, you are destined to fail.
Hell, there are some folks who cant even get a haircut without someone protesting, boycotting our trouncing your brand on social media.
Contrary to what is taught in Briarcliff Manor, I live this BS daily.
"Without govt regulating them, do you think companies or industries would self regulate? Do you think they’d spend the extra money on care and safety of workers and the environment? Your answer lies in history. Look at the industrial revolution."
Yes, companies do self-regulate. I know mine does. Maintaining no incidents around HSE (health, safety, and the environment) is our number one priority in anything we do. We hold ourselves to internal standards that go far beyond what the regulators require and we definitely spend more than we "have to" related to HSE. We aren't living in the era of the industrial revolution anymore.
That said, my company has the resources to do this. Many other companies in our industry, particularly the smaller ones, don't hold themselves to similar standards because they can't afford to.
HDE, you're right, that's why I said could have been passed on to consumers. Ultimately it's still up to the commission. TVA could have gone to the commission years before their coal ash ponds failed and made them aware of the potential problem and requested money to remedy it. If they were denied the money, and didn't fix it, when the failure did happen, they would alleviate themselves of most of the liability because they could have said "we told you we needed to fix these", and there would be a good chance the cleanup costs would go to the rate payers. So far TVA has spent about $1.5 billion cleaning up the mess they created by not storing the coal ash in a responsible manner and was the catalyst for the industry to change.
Did the oil companies self regulate when they polluted the Gulf of Mexico or did the govt have to sue them in order to clean up? Did the fertilizer industry self regulate or did they have to get investigated and then fined for polluting our water ways. Sorry but you’re wrong. Capitalism dictates that a company take in the most profits. It actually promotes damage to our environment because capitalism is about taking the cheap way out to maximize profits. Exxon would’ve LOVED not spending billions to clean the gulf. But thanks to govt regulation, they had no choice.
No, the oil companies weren't entirely self regulated prior to Macondo. They were regulated by what was the MMS at the time (now BOEM and BSEE). Many areas of operations fall outside of the regulators purview, but in case you missed it, there is a HUUUUUGE incentive to get things right. BP (not Exxon) spent nearly $70 billion on the spill -- in clean-up costs, fines, settlements -- and no the government didn't sue them in order for them to clean up. Look at how much their stock price dropped in market cap? I promise you, BP would give anything right now to spend a little more on making sure that well went in the ground safely to avoid the $70 billion dollars they've spent because it didn't. Explain to me how this incident was better for shareholders? Any other facts you want to get wrong about the Macondo incident or do you just want to stop there?
Capitalism doesn't mean maximizing profits at the loss of_______, not at all. It means you, the business owner, get the profits and not the gov't. Hence, the exact opposite of socialism.
Bigeasy, the incentives are there to get things right because of regulations, not despite them. People and corporations have proven this enough times that it required regulation to reign in on rampant abuses. The BP Deep Water Horizon you mention is a prime example of this, BP cut many corners to save money (and probably did the same on hundreds of rigs, that didn't explode) and that wasn't a "freak accident", They were fined $20.8 billion, for GROSS negligence, which doesn't happen on "accident". Not sure what you mean by "didn't sue". The spill happened in 2010 and they didn't reach an agreement on the $21B fine till 2015; I'd be surprised if they don't have on-going litigation. The best lawyers in the world told them to settle instead of go to trial and that took 5 years and they felt $21B was a better outcome than court.
There were a host of problems that all happened simultaneously that led to the explosion that killed, 11 people, injured dozens of other workers and caused the worst oil spill in US history. Several people were charged with manslaughter for the negligence although all were acquitted. They took a calculated risk and lost. Tony Hayward the CEO at the time who worked in that position for 3.5 years, still got his $18M severance package, and went to work at another position at BP; I think he cared for shareholders in the short term and wasn't thinking long term.
I think many of these govt agencies like the EPA, OSHA, FHWA, etc. were born out of necessity, not invented to stifle business. Horizon is a prime example of this, as was the Tennessee Valley Authority I mentioned earlier in this thread. Both were game changers in terms of regulation, and their respective industries had to exceptionally fail in order for those regulation changes to be forced upon them.
I'm all for clean air, clean water, and a safe work environment. I do think that the EPA and OSHA do get a little carried away sometimes, but government regulation is needed. Big companies do "self regulate", but it's usually just to prevent the government from stepping in and regulating them even more. Where I do see an issue, that is hurting US jobs, is when industries in the US are regulated, but still have to compete with similar products manufactured overseas, who are not regulated to the extent that US business is. So free trade with Chinese companies, who pollute the air and water, really is at the expense of American jobs.
So let me get this straight. Some of you guys claim to be bow hunters and you like that the EPA is rolling back air pollution standards? No concern about the air quality? Interesting. At least some of you are old enough to remember the great lakes fish die offs & constant smog alerts in bigger cities. The clean air and clean water act work. Period. To Irishman's point, there is a cost to that in jobs. Companies will always avoid costs if possible by polluting in public air and water and having all tax payers pay for it. It just makes good business sense. That is why we need regulation to force them to internalize all costs of their product. As someone who considers themselves Conservative I like to think we balance jobs with clean air and clean water. Those things are a big part of quality of life standard. And for many years the US economy has been vibrant and we have enjoyed clean air and water due to the Clean Water and Clean Air act. Why would we chase what China is doing? As a bowhunter and fisherman I support clean air and clean water. I'm not sure why this administration would want to follow China, and I don't agree with it. The US should always lead.
Kelly
"With the new guidance, sources of hazardous air pollutants previously classified as “major sources” may be reclassified as “area” sources when the facility limits its potential to emit below major source thresholds."
I wonder if some of you even bothered to read any of the linked article? I mean, I know the answer, but maybe one would surprise me.
First off, the amount of red tape for some actions that have little to sometimes NO impact on the environment is asinine. Next, this is a good thing, as it purely allows companies that were once heavy polluters to have some of the extremely burdensome regulation lifted. However, this is ONLY happening if said companies have demonstrated that they are no longer a source of major pollution, but are now considered only an area polluter. Again, a good thing. If, for some reason any of these entities goes back to being a major source of pollution, there would be no reason to keep from re-classifying them back to the major level. I would say this is rather unlikely.
I, as a person who believes in attempting to conserve our natural world for future generations (nothing to do with being a bowhunter btw), think that some environmental regulation is okay. Without it, I think a lot of industry would revert back to less environmentally friendly practice. However, in 2018, terms like "job security" and "self importance" are all too relevant to the EPA in my opinion.
For some of you high horse fellas, I sure hope you don't buy ANYTHING made in China. You might just be a hypocrite.
Ben H,
What I said was they weren’t forced to clean up through a lawsuit. BP spent billions cleaning up before the first lawsuit was announced and well ahead of any justice department settlement.
I don’t disagree with you that regulations force some of those incentives to get things right, but there are loads of incentives that are not driven by or attached to specific regulatory requirements.
I’m not saying they don’t exist, but this picture of the greedy corporation that cuts every corner, dumps on the environment, and exposes their people to unnecessary risk all in the name of profit doesn’t jive one bit with the companies I’ve worked for and worked with.
Franzen: I do buy things made in China, although I try to avoid them because I believe their quality is suspect (but improving). I do not believe it is hypocritical to demand clean air and water in the US (which in my experience comes through regulation) while buying Chinese products. As I pointed out, it's about balance, and in the US we have enjoyed a very strong economy for 30 years while improving and then maintaining pretty darn clean water and air. At some point this becomes a macro-economic discussion about whether we want more manufacturing vs services, technology, etc driving our economy. I prefer China does the manufacturing and we do the technology, services and engineering (again, with some manufacturing for balance). Technology, Engineering and Services= higher wages and cleanliness. I'm getting a bit off topic here, and so back to my point which is: Why would we loosen EPA protections to match the Chinese? I don't want to follow the Chinese I want to lead them.
Good news, the current EPA needs to be reigned in, let them inspect lemonade stands at state fairs nothing else.
Bownarrow, I'm not sure anyone was advocating to match the Chinese. Maybe someone was? Point is, you are making this action out to be something that it is not. We are all hypocrites to some degree, but I find your stance to have a heavy dose. What is the point of holding ourselves to such high standards if China ends up polluting the entire Earth? "Reasonable" standards are good, but if we can't get other parts of the world to go along, there will be a point when it won't matter.
"No response from GG. Maybe emission regulations are important for others but not for him. There's a phrase for that - HYPOCRITE.
Sorry, Piggy, I missed your question.
In fact, my old CJ would easily meet federal emissions standards. I built the engine with exactly that in mind. I also installed a on-board wideband air/fuel meter so that I could monitor the air/fuel mixture of the exhaust. It's probably the best tuning tool you can have for a carberated engine.
Any other questions?
Matt
GG,
With the age of your Jeep, would it have been exempted from current emission standards? I know here in PA vehicles older than 25 years old are exempt from emissions testing.
Bowbender,
My county doesn't currently require emissions testing, but I suspect it will soon, hence the reason I built my engine with emissions in mind.
In Colorado vehicles from 1975 and older can qualify for collectors plates and be exempt from testing. My CJ is a 1981, so it doesn't qualify. There is also a 4500 mile per year limit put on collectors vehicles, so I'd probably never register it as a collector, anyway.
Matt
