EPA Watch

[travelinman67]

Great logic, Cleets. Betcha have a photo of Assad kissing an old lady on the forehead, proving he's a humanitarian...

[Chizzang]

Great logic, Cleets. Betcha have a photo of Assad kissing an old lady on the forehead, proving he's a humanitarian...

I just donated money to the EPA
If you're looking to get your community involved with the EPA
go here:
http://www.epa.gov/greenkit/community5.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ivytalk]

Great logic, Cleets. Betcha have a photo of Assad kissing an old lady on the forehead, proving he's a humanitarian...

I just donated money to the EPA
If you're looking to get your community involved with the EPA
go here:
http://www.epa.gov/greenkit/community5.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let me get this straight, Chizzy. You donated money to the Guvmint out of your own free will? Gedoudahere!

[CID1990]

I think the EPA has done some good work, and I actually do think it has an important role. I can think of about 20 agencies I would cut first.

That said, the EPA lately does seem to be more vulnerable to political environmentalism than in the past.

BTW Cleets are those otters delicious? No better reason to save a species than for its deliciousness

[Chizzang]

I just donated money to the EPA
If you're looking to get your community involved with the EPA
go here:
http://www.epa.gov/greenkit/community5.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let me get this straight, Chizzy. You donated money to the Guvmint out of your own free will? Gedoudahere!

No... I did not donate money to the EPA
But T-man is such an angry EPA hater that I am Trolling him

[Ivytalk]

Let me get this straight, Chizzy. You donated money to the Guvmint out of your own free will? Gedoudahere!

No... I did not donate money to the EPA
But T-man is such an angry EPA hater that I am Trolling him

It's not a bad idea to designate how your tax dollars should be allocated. If there's an agency that seems to work relatively well, a taxpayer should have the option to funnel his money that way.

[kalm]

[D1B]

No... I did not donate money to the EPA
But T-man is such an angry EPA hater that I am Trolling him

It's not a bad idea to designate how your tax dollars should be allocated. If there's an agency that seems to work relatively well, a taxpayer should have the option to funnel his money that way.

Uhhhhhhhh, you can HIVytaint.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Together, DNR staff, landowners, citizens, conservation organizations, government agencies and corporations, have returned bald eagles, trumpeter swans, osprey and whooping cranes to our skies. They are living proof of Wisconsin’s success over the past 40 years in safeguarding and restoring these natural treasures for now and future generations.

To keep these success stories coming, we need more hands on deck. Every dollar you donate to the Endangered Resources Fund is matched dollar for dollar by the state. By joining the community of caretakers, you’ll also have a great time and will help strengthen Wisconsin’s economy, environment and way of life.

Or donate directly by sending a check

Please send a check payable to the "Endangered Resources Fund" to:

Wisconsin DNR
Endangered Resources Fund
PO Box 7921
Madison WI 53707

Donate to the Federal Dept. of the Interior here: http://www.nps.gov/getinvolved/donate.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HIV, blow the dust off your checkbook and make a donation in honor of Division O. Boy, Esquire.

[HI54UNI]

Don't forget those trees can't live without that evil CO2.

[houndawg]

Make a donation to the wolf people in Montana...

[HI54UNI]

I think the EPA has done some good work, and I actually do think it has an important role. I can think of about 20 agencies I would cut first.

That said, the EPA lately does seem to be more vulnerable to political environmentalism than in the past.

BTW Cleets are those otters delicious? No better reason to save a species than for its deliciousness

Agreed. There's no doubt that EPA has done and still does good work. The problem is, like most federal agencies, it has grown beyond anyone's wildest dreams and many of the regulations, while well intentioned, lack any common sense.

Rivers are definitely cleaner but 90% of the river/water pollution in Iowa comes from agriculture. Less than 5% comes from cities. Yet cities in Iowa are being required to spend $1 billion to upgrade wastewater treatment plants while agriculture gets a pass. Imagine how many wetlands, buffer strips, etc. could be created around rivers in Iowa with $1 billion to clean up agricultural runoff instead of improving wastewater plants from 98% removal to 99% removal.

Cities have to test drinking water every year. But EPA's one size fits all requires that cities across America test for chemicals related to oil drilling, pineapple herbicide, and steel production among others.

[houndawg]

I think the EPA has done some good work, and I actually do think it has an important role. I can think of about 20 agencies I would cut first.

That said, the EPA lately does seem to be more vulnerable to political environmentalism than in the past.

BTW Cleets are those otters delicious? No better reason to save a species than for its deliciousness

Agreed. There's no doubt that EPA has done and still does good work. The problem is, like most federal agencies, it has grown beyond anyone's wildest dreams and many of the regulations, while well intentioned, lack any common sense.

Rivers are definitely cleaner but 90% of the river/water pollution in Iowa comes from agriculture. Less than 5% comes from cities. Yet cities in Iowa are being required to spend $1 billion to upgrade wastewater treatment plants while agriculture gets a pass. Imagine how many wetlands, buffer strips, etc. could be created around rivers in Iowa with $1 billion to clean up agricultural runoff instead of improving wastewater plants from 98% removal to 99% removal.

Cities have to test drinking water every year. But EPA's one size fits all requires that cities across America test for chemicals related to oil drilling, pineapple herbicide, and steel production among others.

This.

Speaking of agriculture, its long past time for farmers to get off of welfare and stand on their own two feet.

[D1B]

Agreed. There's no doubt that EPA has done and still does good work. The problem is, like most federal agencies, it has grown beyond anyone's wildest dreams and many of the regulations, while well intentioned, lack any common sense.

Rivers are definitely cleaner but 90% of the river/water pollution in Iowa comes from agriculture. Less than 5% comes from cities. Yet cities in Iowa are being required to spend $1 billion to upgrade wastewater treatment plants while agriculture gets a pass. Imagine how many wetlands, buffer strips, etc. could be created around rivers in Iowa with $1 billion to clean up agricultural runoff instead of improving wastewater plants from 98% removal to 99% removal.

Cities have to test drinking water every year. But EPA's one size fits all requires that cities across America test for chemicals related to oil drilling, pineapple herbicide, and steel production among others.

This.

Speaking of agriculture, its long past time for farmers to get off of welfare and stand on their own two feet.

The economy would collapse in the short term, but this does need to happen eventually. Many of our nation's and humanity's greatest ills are rooted in food production - immigration, overpopulation, obesity/healthcare costs, environmental devastation, pathological consumerism...

[UNI88]

This.

Speaking of agriculture, its long past time for farmers to get off of welfare and stand on their own two feet.

The economy would collapse in the short term, but this does need to happen eventually. Many of our nation's and humanity's greatest ills are rooted in food production - immigration, overpopulation, obesity/healthcare costs, environmental devastation, pathological consumerism...

I'm not sure if it would. From the Chicago Tribune ...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... 2623.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Farm income has soared from $75.6 billion in 2009 to $99.4 billion in 2010, $134.7 billion in 2011 and $135.6 billion in 2012.

A typical Illinois grain farmer with 1,200 acres under cultivation — an average-sized farm by today's standards — earned nearly $300,000 after expenses last year, according to a University of Illinois study. Income for that typical farmer exceeded $200,000 in every year but one between 2007 and 2011.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011 ... -and-wheat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even so, said Post, "If the price of corn went up 50 percent, the net effect would increase the cost of a box of cornflakes by 1.6 cents or a 2-liter bottle of soda by 1.9 cents. That is not likely to impact consumer behavior."

Another report shows that a 30 percent increase in the price of feed grain would raise the price of meat and poultry by 4 to 5 percent.

[CAA Flagship]

Many of our nation's and humanity's greatest ills are rooted in food production - immigration, overpopulation, obesity/healthcare costs, environmental devastation, pathological consumerism...

'Merica

[HI54UNI]

Agreed. There's no doubt that EPA has done and still does good work. The problem is, like most federal agencies, it has grown beyond anyone's wildest dreams and many of the regulations, while well intentioned, lack any common sense.

Rivers are definitely cleaner but 90% of the river/water pollution in Iowa comes from agriculture. Less than 5% comes from cities. Yet cities in Iowa are being required to spend $1 billion to upgrade wastewater treatment plants while agriculture gets a pass. Imagine how many wetlands, buffer strips, etc. could be created around rivers in Iowa with $1 billion to clean up agricultural runoff instead of improving wastewater plants from 98% removal to 99% removal.

Cities have to test drinking water every year. But EPA's one size fits all requires that cities across America test for chemicals related to oil drilling, pineapple herbicide, and steel production among others.

This.

Speaking of agriculture, its long past time for farmers to get off of welfare and stand on their own two feet.

It's funny watching the legal moves the farmers around here are making to hide the amount of their subsidies. A couple of weeks ago the largest farmer in our county, and largest subsidy recipient, had a whole bunch of legal transactions in the courthouse news. Transferring land to 5 or 6 different LLCs. That way he can spread out the subsidies over the LLCs and if you search the farm subsidy database he won't come up as the largest recipient any longer because it will be spread over a half dozen or more shell companies. You will have to dig to know that the ABC 123 Farm LLC and 123ABC LLC farms are owned by him.

[travelinman67]

No... I did not donate money to the EPA
But T-man is such an angry EPA hater that I am Trolling him

Death to F150's...

[D1B]

The economy would collapse in the short term, but this does need to happen eventually. Many of our nation's and humanity's greatest ills are rooted in food production - immigration, overpopulation, obesity/healthcare costs, environmental devastation, pathological consumerism...

I'm not sure if it would. From the Chicago Tribune ...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... 2623.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Farm income has soared from $75.6 billion in 2009 to $99.4 billion in 2010, $134.7 billion in 2011 and $135.6 billion in 2012.

A typical Illinois grain farmer with 1,200 acres under cultivation — an average-sized farm by today's standards — earned nearly $300,000 after expenses last year, according to a University of Illinois study. Income for that typical farmer exceeded $200,000 in every year but one between 2007 and 2011.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011 ... -and-wheat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even so, said Post, "If the price of corn went up 50 percent, the net effect would increase the cost of a box of cornflakes by 1.6 cents or a 2-liter bottle of soda by 1.9 cents. That is not likely to impact consumer behavior."

Another report shows that a 30 percent increase in the price of feed grain would raise the price of meat and poultry by 4 to 5 percent.

Fair enough. Then we shoud tax em, like we do cigarette and alcohol producers. Big food is just as bad. People should be paying the societal costs of red meat and refines starches.

[blueballs]

I read this thread for the first time and am somewhat perplexed that the EPA has a problem with milk seeping into a river. Do they not want the fish to have strong bones and teeth?

[BDKJMU]

I think the EPA has done some good work, and I actually do think it has an important role. I can think of about 20 agencies I would cut first.

That said, the EPA lately does seem to be more vulnerable to political environmentalism than in the past.

BTW Cleets are those otters delicious? No better reason to save a species than for its deliciousness

Agreed. There's no doubt that EPA has done and still does good work. The problem is, like most federal agencies, it has grown beyond anyone's wildest dreams and many of the regulations, while well intentioned, lack any common sense.

Rivers are definitely cleaner but 90% of the river/water pollution in Iowa comes from agriculture. Less than 5% comes from cities. Yet cities in Iowa are being required to spend $1 billion to upgrade wastewater treatment plants while agriculture gets a pass. Imagine how many wetlands, buffer strips, etc. could be created around rivers in Iowa with $1 billion to clean up agricultural runoff instead of improving wastewater plants from 98% removal to 99% removal.

Cities have to test drinking water every year. But EPA's one size fits all requires that cities across America test for chemicals related to oil drilling, pineapple herbicide, and steel production among others.

In addition there is tremendous pressure to grow massive amounts of corn with bout 40% of the nations corn crop going to ethanol, driving up all food costs.

The stupid fuc*ks at the EPA mandated 16.6 billion gallons of ethanol this yr. the refiners are already hitting a blend wall, where they are struggling to blend that much without going over 10% ethanol, esp since over the last few yrs our fuel consumption has actually gone down. Next yr the EPA mandate goes to to over 18 billion gallons. The refineries won't be able to blend that much without going to E15. Yet the majority of cars on the road aren't rated to take E15, and for many of them, it will void their warranty. So the oil companies will have to pay penalties for every gallon if ethanol they don't use,which will be added to the cost of gas we all pay for.

Stupid EPA f*ucks.

[kalm]

Agreed. There's no doubt that EPA has done and still does good work. The problem is, like most federal agencies, it has grown beyond anyone's wildest dreams and many of the regulations, while well intentioned, lack any common sense.

Rivers are definitely cleaner but 90% of the river/water pollution in Iowa comes from agriculture. Less than 5% comes from cities. Yet cities in Iowa are being required to spend $1 billion to upgrade wastewater treatment plants while agriculture gets a pass. Imagine how many wetlands, buffer strips, etc. could be created around rivers in Iowa with $1 billion to clean up agricultural runoff instead of improving wastewater plants from 98% removal to 99% removal.

Cities have to test drinking water every year. But EPA's one size fits all requires that cities across America test for chemicals related to oil drilling, pineapple herbicide, and steel production among others.

In addition there is tremendous pressure to grow massive amounts of corn with bout 40% of the nations corn crop going to ethanol, driving up all food costs.

The stupid fuc*ks at the EPA mandated 16.6 billion gallons of ethanol this yr. the refiners are already hitting a blend wall, where they are struggling to blend that much without going over 10% ethanol, esp since over the last few yrs our fuel consumption has actually gone down. Next yr the EPA mandate goes to to over 18 billion gallons. The refineries won't be able to blend that much without going to E15. Yet the majority of cars on the road aren't rated to take E15, and for many of them, it will void their warranty. So the oil companies will have to pay penalties for every gallon if ethanol they don't use,which will be added to the cost of gas we all pay for.

Stupid EPA f*ucks.

Are you smart enough to understand why they're doing this?

[houndawg]

In addition there is tremendous pressure to grow massive amounts of corn with bout 40% of the nations corn crop going to ethanol, driving up all food costs.

The stupid fuc*ks at the EPA mandated 16.6 billion gallons of ethanol this yr. the refiners are already hitting a blend wall, where they are struggling to blend that much without going over 10% ethanol, esp since over the last few yrs our fuel consumption has actually gone down. Next yr the EPA mandate goes to to over 18 billion gallons. The refineries won't be able to blend that much without going to E15. Yet the majority of cars on the road aren't rated to take E15, and for many of them, it will void their warranty. So the oil companies will have to pay penalties for every gallon if ethanol they don't use,which will be added to the cost of gas we all pay for.

Stupid EPA f*ucks.

Are you smart enough to understand why they're doing this?

BDMBFCK couldn't pour piss out of a boot if instructions were printed on the heel.

[BDKJMU]

In addition there is tremendous pressure to grow massive amounts of corn with bout 40% of the nations corn crop going to ethanol, driving up all food costs.

The stupid fuc*ks at the EPA mandated 16.6 billion gallons of ethanol this yr. the refiners are already hitting a blend wall, where they are struggling to blend that much without going over 10% ethanol, esp since over the last few yrs our fuel consumption has actually gone down. Next yr the EPA mandate goes to to over 18 billion gallons. The refineries won't be able to blend that much without going to E15. Yet the majority of cars on the road aren't rated to take E15, and for many of them, it will void their warranty. So the oil companies will have to pay penalties for every gallon if ethanol they don't use,which will be added to the cost of gas we all pay for.

Stupid EPA f*ucks.

Are you smart enough to understand why they're doing this?

A sop to the farm lobby and a misplaced notion that using massive amounts of corn based ethanol is good for the environment.

[BDKJMU]

Are you smart enough to understand why they're doing this?

BDMBFCK couldn't pour piss out of a boot if instructions were printed on the heel.

Hey dumba*s, your village just called. They're missing an idiot.

[travelinman67]

EPA Pebble mine regulator under congressional investigation lawyers up, then vanishes.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06 ... uests-for/



Another EPA domestic terrorist coward flees justice.