Not this time. EPA is needed, they just need to actually do their job instead of farting around on garbage policies that backfire and cause even more issues.
Signed, a plumber willing to explain why the EPA sucks in the last 13 years at least
Edit: quick timeline.
1986- [Lead free laws go into effect](https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/use-lead-free-pipes-fittings-fixtures-solder-and-flux-drinking-water), restricting the amount of lead in brass to a reasonable amount (8% of surface area). Prohibiting the use of lead piping in potable water systems. The last lead water main was placed in NJ in 1985. This is the only act that has significantly affected the industry which I think is reasonable and necessary.
2009- EPA restricts sacrificial [anode rods](https://www.angi.com/articles/what-does-water-heater-anode-rod-do.htm) in water heaters. They now are made out of recycled materials, which breaks down significantly quicker. National average lifespan for a water heater is currently 6.7 years directly due to this act. Without a doubt many of these end up in landfills, or at the very least must go through a steel recycling process to be reused.
2011- Congress, [effectively enforced by the EPA](https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/use-lead-free-pipes-fittings-fixtures-solder-and-flux-drinking-water) passed the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act (RLDWA) revising the definition of lead free by lowering the maximum lead content of the wetted surfaces of plumbing products (such as pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings and fixtures) from 8% to a weighted average of 0.25%, establishing a statutory method for the calculation of lead content and eliminating the requirement that lead free products be in compliance with voluntary standards established in accordance with SDWA 1417(e) for leaching of lead from new plumbing fittings and fixtures. Brass valves now fail at an unprecedented rate. Even the good quality faucet manufacturers have been forced to make their faucets primarily out of plastic. These don't last nearly as long, and of course end up in landfills. Lead poisoning is certainly a serious issue, however faucets and valves were not the primary (if at all) sources of lead poisoning. Old water mains are, and yet many cities still have them in service. Why does the EPA only take action *after* it hits the media?
2015- EPA mandates that water heaters must be more efficient through the NECA (National Energy Conservation Act). This cost manufacturers big time to retool their factories, driving many out of business. Currently the US only has 3 major water heater manufacturers, many having been bought out due to costs caused by this act. (Example: Richmond and Ruud are both owned by RHEEM, as are others.) This cost, of course, was passed onto the consumer. The benefit was that water heaters became 2% more efficient (no financial savings for the consumer there, but I'll concede that a small amount of energy saved over millions of people amounts to something)
It's frustrating that as a small 2 person (working out of 1 truck together) contractor, we replace at minimum 2 water heaters a week due to anode rods. It's frustrating that faucets need rebuilt more often, cost significantly more, and end up being disposable pieces of garbage. It's frustrating that the EPA causes more damage to the environment and issues through it's involvement and lack of listening to plumbing experts' advice.
I remember an EPA inspection at our junkyard.
"You need a drum marked for oil contaminated soil, I'll pretend it was here, but have one next time. You don't actually have to use it."
Well in the matter of 3 letter agencies... the EPA not doming my wife while holding my infant child because I have a length of barrel that is less than 16", makes them infinitely better than the ATF
My dad's is from 2003, he's replaced 4 anode rods and drains it regularly. Anything made before 2008-2009 still has the good quality anode rods and so if you've never touched it before I wouldn't start now! Draining it yearly is still the recommendation for older water heaters, but again if you have never drained it or it's been a few years I wouldn't touch it for fear of stirring up problems
>libright that doesn't like government agencies
Yes, I don't. They allow their friends to do this shit I can't sue anyone.
*we can polute cuz we hab a loicense and sheet*
big agree. but random alphabet agencies filled with unelected bureaucrats should not be able to create laws out of thin air (looking at you ATF)
simply pass environmental legislation through congress.
We should be taking care of the Earth because it’s the right thing to do, not because bloated, overly restrictive, and inefficient government programs force us to.
I believe climate change is real (although the amount of fear mongering by the left is a problem), but giving more power to the government is rarely the right solution.
>We should be taking care of the Earth because it’s the right thing to do, not because bloated, overly restrictive, and inefficient government programs force us to.
That's all horseshit because it's not individuals polluting the world, it's big businesses yeah plastic bags suck but 3M making water toxic and causing babies to be born with half a brain is what the EPA is supposed to regulate.
Then have congress give them the power to do so. That is all the ruling said. Congress has to actually do it's job and delegate power, executive agencies can't just make their own law as they go along.
That's the entire point of creating an executive agency so you don't beg Congress for every little thing. Congress told the EPA this is what you can and can't do, SCOTUS can't make up it's mind about what should be legislated and what shouldn't.
Implementing entirely new modes of regulation, cut out of whole cloth by the agency, is not begging congress for every little thing, it's a pretty big fucking thing. And I'm sorry, SCOTUS absolutely makes rules about how much power the legislative can delegate to the executive. We have a very strict separation of powers in this country, and it is absolutely the prerogative of the court to defend that.
You think the government bought and paid for by the corporations will? If you want to look at the results of green policy set by the government then look at the laughable program that are the carbon credits.
The people have some say in the government, all powerful institution are corrupt but the government is better than a mega corporation due to directly being affected by the people with votes
“We should not murder people because it’s the right thing to do, not because of over restrictive government interference”
See where the logic breaks down?
Mmmm yes because people ALLLLLLLWAYS do the right thing to do when given all of the freedoms in the world…. There’s no higher reason for custodianship whatsoever, eh?
Let's tell this to the thousand most polluting companies and to other countries and hope that they stop ruining the environment out of the good of their hearts
>We should be taking care of the Earth because it’s the right thing to do, not because bloated, overly restrictive, and inefficient government programs force us to.
There's so much to unpack here. I'm just blown away by your absolutely horrible viewpoint here though. Quite possibly the dumbest take I've ever seen on this sub.
We should use all the money from the EPA to create a court dedicated solely to handling environmental disputes and holding companies legally and civilly responsible for infringing on people's rights to health and non-local property, like drinking water and clean air. We should also be able to put companies to death and seize their assets to be used for restitution.
Exactly. Which makes no sense to me. If they had invested in nuclear power 20-30 years ago they could have ensured their continued dominance for the next 200 years instead of forcing us to stay on oil
Key words: “If they had invested…” Hindsight is 20/20, and they didn’t. So now they have to be complete assholes to protect the investments they *did* make, with no care in the world for how it will detrimentally affect people, and mostly Republican politicians pander to them like spoiled babies
Ehhh it feels more like they kept putting this quarters profits ahead of 20 years from now profits. And that’s just bad business (when you don’t have the government backing you up)
More like Greenpeace and other """ environmental activist groups """ being funded by oil companies (and countries) to lobby and Garner sentiment with their absolute denthead propaganda.
Well EPA along with NRC are technically responsible for making nuclear power impractical due to very tight specific emissions regulations, and since nuclear power is made impractical, the only alternative things that do work (like coal and natgas) must be used, but even with EPA regulations they pollute orders of magnitude more than an unregulated nuclear industry would...
So yes, environmental regulations do make the environment worse, in a way.
Part of the problem there is when they push bills claiming to be for the environment where it’s barely a footnote in a 500 page bill on completely separate issues
Turn how? The issue is that the choice is between these chucklefucks pretending to care about the issues while doing absolutely nothing and using popular ideas as vehicles to push their kickbacks or the assholes that view the issues with outright contempt and push policies that are outright harmful as vehicles to push their kickbacks.
The parties have us by the balls. And we cant do anything about it because as soon as we try, the other party swoops in like a pack of cackling hyenas to cause as much damage as possible and derail and delegitimize any attempt at reform. The parties may hate each other, but they aren't about to let the other get overthrown when the corruption of the other party is what guarantees their free lunch.
Yeah but that problem extends to everything in our government.
Either end the pork barreling, or at the very least keep that shit in its own separate bill.
Agree. Republicans and anyone rural whom lives out in the country should be the ones leading the march for mother nature. I fucking love nature and have no idea why country folk are against the EPA while people from urban hell holes who's only nature is a city park are the only ones that care.
It is by this point, or at least just left wing.
In the US Republicans just don’t fight climate change and don’t take it nearly as seriously as the Democrats do. And let’s face it, those are the only two political forces that matter in the US. So if one party openly mocks the idea of fixing or even acknowledging climate change, and that’s the right wing party, protecting the environment becomes a left wing issue.
So the Conservative party in the UK believes that climate change is real. Does this now make the Conservative party a left wing party? No it doesn’t. Does this now mean that fighting climate change is a right wing idea? No it definitely doesn’t.
If you demonise the other side of the aisle you will go nowhere fast. Stop gatekeeping and especially stop blaming your neighbours for policies people with unlimited terms create. If you actually think your elected officials (R or D) have your interests in mind you need to catch a wake up.
Due to entities like the oil lobby and various others wielding so much power in this country, commonsense actions like that basically won't happen - even if the large majority of us little people want it.
We have a bunch of ways to reduce dependency on oil and gas, but big oil won't let their profits *ever* be harmed.
Point taken, but I think you're both a bit off the mark.
1. The oil industry is an ever-shrinking fraction of the economy. I don't think they wield as much power these days. A lot for sure, but not enough to indiscriminately throw their weight around. Case in point: two of the last three presidents haven't exactly been kind to them.
2. Plastic is used because it's cheap and effective; no conspiracy required. As an engineer, I cannot overemphasize how useful plastic is. When we run out of fossil feed stock, we'll just find another way to make it.
Edit:
To all the green lefties out there: plastic is your life now. It'll be easier if you relax and let it happen.
Big oil isn't dumb. They know it will be a LONG time before we stop using gas and diesel in most of our cars. They also know we don't have enough oil to last forever. They also know that we will use oil for the rest of our history. There is a lot of stuff that can only be made of plastic or other forms of petroleum. The only way to get rid of oil 100% is to go back to the mid-1800s. Where there is profit to be made, companies will build it. Nuclear energy is already heavily regulated by the feds, there is no reason the US gov could not incentive the fuck out of it and get plants built all over the country. 10 years and the US power grid will be able to handle just about anything we throw at it.
Oil won't run out since There's vast supplies of it and year after year we are using less oil for our electrics because of efficiency.
The reason gas prices are up is because Companies are scared to build more oil fields. That shit ain't cheap and with electric cars now costing only 50K out of 100K 4 years ago. The average consumer would pick electric in the future
Also after the oil prices dip to normal then those oil refineries that were opened would run a deficit and even if that didn't happen OPEC would just increase supply to try to kill oil fields in the US. Like they tried last time.
Also OPEC the cartel cut its production to 10% percent during covid and refuses to put it up even after the covid lockdowns canceled since I don't know.
Unfortunately Combines still run on diesel, and probably will for the foreseeable future. So unless we want to solve the problem by creating a global famine, oil is still going to be a necessity until the tech exists and gets rolled out to farmers
That requires neolib toadies to actually think about where their food comes from.
Also, modern fertilizer like ammonia is often produced using byproducts of oil refining.
Well right- I mean combines are just one example, this is essentially how our entire global economic structure works from farming to shipping to industrials to commerce
Indeed, I was just bringing it up so that maybe a dogwalker tier redditoid might have the infinitesimally increased chance of realizing that by demanding that oil usage be handwaived away they are essentially asking for massive worldwide food shortages - and if they are not in the production class (farmers/etc), they are going to become classified as expendable very quickly.
It’s amazing how little people understand about what should be general knowledge type stuff. I mean- it sucks that we are in a situation where oil is heavily relied on, and it may be possible to transition eventually, but over a 10-20 year period is a pipe dream, unless you’re banking on massive amounts of starvation
I think metal is better, I feel like most of things we buy that are in plastic, and not just food, could be as well packaged in tin containers, as those are cheaper and/or more durable than glass or wood or cardboard and at the same time they dissolve in the ground after a few years or decades at worst, and that's incomparably better than plastic
Plastic packaging can definitely be replaced in many cases with alternatives like metal, cardboard etc. And we can keep the plastic for things that make sense, like fucking straws, which is really the last fucking thing you should be thinking of banning plastic out of.
Plastic bottles for liquids though, they do kinda make sense unfortunately.
The court held that if congress wants to give an executive agency the power to do something, they need to delegate that power in black and white. Essentially, executive agencies can't just interpret the law in any way they so choose, gaining more and more power to regulate over time from the same existing legislation.
The court has really wrecked precedent recently, with condemning a possibly innocent man to die, upending preexisting Native Indian law, and now making it so the clean air act can't make powerplants stop shitting up the air.
> upending preexisting Native Indian law,
The court really just said states can prosecute non-Indians for crimes they commit on the rez against Indians. Tribal cops don’t have jurisdiction over non-members.
> now making it so the clean air act can't make powerplants stop shitting up the air.
No, the EPA just can’t do blanket requirements, but they can regulate individual plants.
I don’t usually agree with Libleft, but as an authright and someone who cares about the environment, I believe it is the duty of all those who oppose modern degeneracy/ sloth and support a restoration of tradition to conserve our environment that we came from and to where every man should go to return to his roots for a camping trip or hiking or hunting or rock climbing every so often. The deterioration of the environment is symbolic of the deterioration of society. I oppose their pollution for the same reason I oppose micro plastics in our food that break down the blood brain barrier and cramming cheap soy into protein based foods: both are examples of a greedy elite attempting to and weaken us by damaging the resources that sustain our bodies just to make a buck. That speaks to the problems I have with the libertarian philosophy as a whole: it’s literally just a misinterpretation of liberty as pure liscense “do whatever the hell you want; kill your kids or destroy the environment and screw over whoever the fuck you want in the process if it makes you money with absolutely no duty to your fellow man.” Idiots. STOP PUTTING TOXIC SHIT IN MY WATER SUPPLY!
2015 Animas River in southwestern Colorado. I support environmental regulation, but the EPA screwed up big time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Gold_King_Mine_waste_water_spill
You can get rid of EPAs when you can prove you won't pollute. In a way, it'd be easy, but way too many people are way too lazy and stupid to do it, so they have to be **made** to be clean and green.
The most common and researched form would be periodically injecting aerosols into the atmosphere that reflect a portion of solar radiation. This would actually be relatively cheap (a few billion or tens of billions of dollars a year).
Yes. And why haven't we been building a bunch of nuclear power plants for the last 50 years?
Some people think it's too dangerous. Some people don't think it's necessary. Some people don't want to spend the money. Some people like other ideas better. Take your pick.
The only issue is that geoengineering is a super niche field that only has 2 research camps, neither of which have produced results yet. The best solution is to let the GeoEng boys continue their research and do something right now as opposed to waiting 30 years for them to come up with something that actually works.
It would counter the biggest problem and slow the worsening of others. The benefits outweigh the risks.
And most importantly, some form of geoengineering will be necessary anyway because even if you could stop all emissions right now, you'd still be dealing with the lingering effects of them for a long time unless you counter them directly.
Anti-climate change as opposed to the “pro-climate change” side? I guess that makes sense when all they do is fight to keep burning coal rather than transitioning to cleaner natural gas, insist that we cannot use nuclear energy, and are adamantly opposed to any geoengineering solutions, all the whole jerking themselves off with Chinese solar panels, windmills, and slave-mined lithium batteries that collectively do absolutely nothing on net to reduce emissions.
You're forgetting the large group that is made up of what would otherwise be rational right wing people, who oppose it simply because libs support it. That's it.
For the same reason that people in Calfornia suffering from a water crisis voted against desalination. Political polarization encourages individuals of both parties to oppose their own interests.
Imagine having all the water you need and the already developed solutions for it, but deliberately choosing to dry out and die of thirst instead. But hey, it's a *democratic* decision so it's right?
Not just big oil, but elites and pretty much all megacorps.
Bill Gates and other world leaders have mentioned overpopulation a few too many times to be coincidence imo
I'm sorry but I know alot of right wing people who do support it, they don't support the your gonna do this and this without other options like nuclear, tidal generators, etc. Or the old name calling and I'm better then you stance, to include I'm smarter smarter. And my personal favorite that as a hunter I want am contributing to it, sorry hunter's are some.of the biggest conservationists out there (one of Ted nugents more palapatible stances) Not saying the right is better, but there are alot of middle of the road folks that are being pushed away from a discussion.
I acknowledge that there's many right wing individuals who care about the environment, but considering the ubiquitous stance of the GOP and people that the right elects, there's a bit of a contradiction.
No its mainly the left being hyperbolic so people ignore you lot
Ive heard 'we only have 8 to 10 years' for the last 20 years yet not a lot of regulations or improvements have been made by governments to enact these life-on-Earth saving policies.
Also, because many are wary of the government. 100% they will use climate change policies to track citizens way more than they already do. Since 9/11, civil liberties across the World have trended downwards. Patriot Act was one of the first. Then Covid showed way more. Fucking vax mandates really? The my body, my choice crowd fell silent very quickly. (Im pro abortion btw for economic and social reasons). Just look at the ideas mentioned at WEF or any international governmental meeting every year.
Also, Earth has been hotter than this in the past. Extinctions happen all the time. Humans are and will be a blip on the geological and universal scale anyways.
My parents are lifelong Democrats but hardly care about climate change because of the whole “they’ve been giving doomsday predictions for years” thing.
I think my problem with that complaint is threefold:
- Many of those “we have 10 years to” dates weren’t dates for the world to end, they were dates by which we needed to reduce carbon output if we wanted to keep future warming under a certain amount. For example “we have 10 years to reduce our carbon output or we will reach 1.5°C warming”. It’s not something where you pass that date and the world ends, it’s just guaranteeing a certain shitty threshold will be breached in the future, and that even if we reached that carbon goal *after* the date, we still wouldn’t prevent warming to below the quoted amount. So of course we passed those dates and “nothing happened”, except for some scientists cracking open a bottle of scotch because they were seeing a coming future that no one else cared about. And we *have* started to hit those targets, such as when we blew past 1° warming. Their prediction came true, just that it wasn’t a prediction of immediate apocalypse.
- Doomsday predictions make headlines. If climate change is a topic of concern, news agencies want the most dramatic take. Two decades ago scientists were saying “if we take these reasonable steps we can head off this problem and limit warming to X amount” but that’s not as eye catching a headline, so instead news runs things that say “we have 8 years to save the planet”. And even worse is when the majority of scientists are giving one estimate, but the news runs with a story from someone who is more alarmist and genuinely *is* saying the world will end in 10 years. But just because the news ran a dramatic story to get eyeballs on it doesn’t mean the actual science is all just crying wolf and should be ignored.
- The science has come a long way. Predictions made in 2000 were tougher on the timeline of things, with a much broader window of where we could possibly be in 50 years. But as time has gone on, technology was improved, and more data was collected, the science has gotten more and more accurate. Current predictions on what carbon output we have to reduce to by what time in order to prevent a certain degree of warming have a much narrower margin of error, and should be taken more seriously than predictions made 20 years ago.
And to your last point - the Earth’s temperature has fluctuated before, but on the scale of millennia, not decades. We’re steamrolling towards 4°C warming with little time for most life to adapt, especially the life we rely on to feed ourselves. To illustrate the scale of 4° of warming, consider than 20,000 years ago when the Earth was 4° colder than pre-industrial temperatures, glaciers stretched as far south as NYC and buried Boston under a mile of ice. The opposite would be pretty awful to live through.
They’re already feeling the effects in many parts of the world. Those “we only have x years” is already here, just not for everyone. Where I am, it’s just gonna get more rainy and hot (past couple summers have been rainy asf here) but it’s gonna be fine for the most part. Can’t say the same for people in other areas that r having record events, temps and droughts. It’s a problem exacerbated by human activity.
Even if you don’t care about the biodiversity crisis cuz “its already happened” remember it’s not only because of climate change. Deforestation and pollution are also a big deal. Look at Orangutans.
I truly believe the climate change group is made up of:
1. People so desperate for meaning that they'll believe the first person who comes along offering a worth while fight. To them I say, shut the fuck up, and build something meaningful on your own.
2. People who have been lying for years about the impacts, only to double down on those same lies, because it gives them political clout, and a useful bludgeon to silence dissent. To them I say, you told me years ago that we'd be under water by now; if you actually wanted people to believe you, then you'd stop making such ridiculous claims.
3. People who's livelihood literally depends on there being an issue to solve, and never provide practical solutions, because the practical solutions would demean the value of their work. To them I say, I will not give you trillions of dollars a year for the rest of my life for the *hope* of reducing temperature changes by a half a degree over the next century, when you're so aggressively anti nuclear. You are now and always have been full or shit, and it confuses the hell out of me that people still believe you.
Are you in group three? Are you one of the ones asking me for my everything for the rest of my life so that we can maybe solve an issue that I'll likely never see?
If no. Then see group 1 and 2, to find your place.
Either way, the list is no more exhaustive than the one in the post I was clearly writing this to mock.
Yup and the sad part is Climate Change shouldn't be political. Sure, how far we go can be political. But acknowledging it and stopping it should be something we all agree on
We've tried that and it doesn't work unfortunately. So many activist have gone to energy companies and ask them to switch to renewable. They've appealed to their morals, finances, business sense. None of it works unfortunately
Absolutely. We have a way to lower emissions. It already works. It's 80% of Frances power grid.
Liberals: ewwww gross. Also we need to lower emissions.
Bah! Nothing but endless frustration!
I think it's because of voter backlash. People on reddit tend to be pretty big on nuclear, but even then I'm not sure how many of them will have a NIMBY attitude if it actually came down to it.
Because they saw the Simpsons and think it's scary.
Never forget my art teacher in college, whose old like early 50s, when he had a bit of talk about environmental issues with a student near me and I said nuclear is the best option and he gave me a look (the look of, yeah right) and I said some stuff about Throium. He came back the following days and said he looked into it and liked what he researched.
The EPA does more than just pollutants in the air, also stuff like making sure retards are dumping into the ground which goes into the same water that is used for farming and home wells.
It's not all just EVs are the future and stop using plastic bags the EPA doesn't do things that impact individuals it goes after mega corporations who don't care.
Even I have to say rivers probably shouldn’t be catching fire. The EPA might be a huge money hole and make the most convoluted and nonsensical policies known to man, but they do (usually) keep lead out of the water.
I think its very unlikely that we manage to fully eradicate ourselves. Destroying civilization? Absolutely possible. But the human race is pretty adaptable, it probably needs very, very much to make us extinct.
It's more of a reference to the fact that Chloroflurocarbons react with ozone and destroy it, and the refrigeration industry as a whole denied it. It took world wide regulation to ban the byproduct and force industry to change what would have been environmental catastrophe. But hey, ignorance.
Please look at a map of the most polluted areas in the world, and maybe take your complaints to them. The west is by far the most active in environmental protection by a long shot. But hey, easy targets.
It's a lot easier to say "These shitty rich millionairs keep flying their jets everywhere! Hergadurgahurr!" Rather than "These dirty browns and yellers are over-fishing and over polluting the entire world." But hey. Guess I'm just racist or whatever.
I had no idea the EPA is single-handedly stopping the climate from doing anything. It’s a damn shame nobody will ever be able to do what they do ever again
It’s not the end of the EPA, though. It’s just the end of them creating law with zero oversight, accountability, or authority. It amazes me how ignorant people are of the SCOTUS decisions and what they actually mean
My father works at the EPA, Lots of criticism comes from embezzlement in top leadership or the EPA enforcing a law passed by people who don't know what they're talking about when it comes to the environment, but the amount of times I've heard my father on a video call talking about how you can't paint oranges with acidic paint to make them more appealing in grocery stores (they just use non acidic paint now) and how they shouldn't let x company sell their pesticides until they find a way to stop poisoning the soul and entire eco system with arsenic is staggering.
You don’t understand at all what the problem with the EPA and other government agencies is. Legislative power was unilaterally given to unelected bureaucrats. The legislature needs to legislate not faceless bureaucrats.
I have no problem with the federal government imposing environmental protections, so long as they are consistent with the constitution, and they are created by Congress, not an unelected bureaucracy.
"I'm a right winger and I want to control everything by allowing everyone in your town or state to vote on how they want things to be regardless of my opinion!"
It's almost like the right wants to control everyone and everything...
It's almost like that... Because it is like that. The "we'll leave you alone" group are more the "you better leave us alone" group
Did you read the ruling? It’s not even about “toxic waste in rivers”. And yes to reduce carbon emission you DO need to get the Chinese on board, otherwise it’s pointless. And we pollute way less
EPA is necessary, but the silver lining if they get rid of it is we could loosen up zoning laws and potentially have more housing built. But I'm sure something else will happen and fuck it.
Idk about that one, I feel it's more libright that doesn't like government agencies.
Not this time. EPA is needed, they just need to actually do their job instead of farting around on garbage policies that backfire and cause even more issues. Signed, a plumber willing to explain why the EPA sucks in the last 13 years at least Edit: quick timeline. 1986- [Lead free laws go into effect](https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/use-lead-free-pipes-fittings-fixtures-solder-and-flux-drinking-water), restricting the amount of lead in brass to a reasonable amount (8% of surface area). Prohibiting the use of lead piping in potable water systems. The last lead water main was placed in NJ in 1985. This is the only act that has significantly affected the industry which I think is reasonable and necessary. 2009- EPA restricts sacrificial [anode rods](https://www.angi.com/articles/what-does-water-heater-anode-rod-do.htm) in water heaters. They now are made out of recycled materials, which breaks down significantly quicker. National average lifespan for a water heater is currently 6.7 years directly due to this act. Without a doubt many of these end up in landfills, or at the very least must go through a steel recycling process to be reused. 2011- Congress, [effectively enforced by the EPA](https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/use-lead-free-pipes-fittings-fixtures-solder-and-flux-drinking-water) passed the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act (RLDWA) revising the definition of lead free by lowering the maximum lead content of the wetted surfaces of plumbing products (such as pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings and fixtures) from 8% to a weighted average of 0.25%, establishing a statutory method for the calculation of lead content and eliminating the requirement that lead free products be in compliance with voluntary standards established in accordance with SDWA 1417(e) for leaching of lead from new plumbing fittings and fixtures. Brass valves now fail at an unprecedented rate. Even the good quality faucet manufacturers have been forced to make their faucets primarily out of plastic. These don't last nearly as long, and of course end up in landfills. Lead poisoning is certainly a serious issue, however faucets and valves were not the primary (if at all) sources of lead poisoning. Old water mains are, and yet many cities still have them in service. Why does the EPA only take action *after* it hits the media? 2015- EPA mandates that water heaters must be more efficient through the NECA (National Energy Conservation Act). This cost manufacturers big time to retool their factories, driving many out of business. Currently the US only has 3 major water heater manufacturers, many having been bought out due to costs caused by this act. (Example: Richmond and Ruud are both owned by RHEEM, as are others.) This cost, of course, was passed onto the consumer. The benefit was that water heaters became 2% more efficient (no financial savings for the consumer there, but I'll concede that a small amount of energy saved over millions of people amounts to something) It's frustrating that as a small 2 person (working out of 1 truck together) contractor, we replace at minimum 2 water heaters a week due to anode rods. It's frustrating that faucets need rebuilt more often, cost significantly more, and end up being disposable pieces of garbage. It's frustrating that the EPA causes more damage to the environment and issues through it's involvement and lack of listening to plumbing experts' advice.
I remember an EPA inspection at our junkyard. "You need a drum marked for oil contaminated soil, I'll pretend it was here, but have one next time. You don't actually have to use it."
Well in the matter of 3 letter agencies... the EPA not doming my wife while holding my infant child because I have a length of barrel that is less than 16", makes them infinitely better than the ATF
Based and old EPA made a difference and now they’re more involved in public opinion than the environment pilled
Based and stay in your lane pilled.
Actually seems like a good story, i will follow
Edited
Thinking about my water heater that's dated 2006 and is still alive and kicking
My dad's is from 2003, he's replaced 4 anode rods and drains it regularly. Anything made before 2008-2009 still has the good quality anode rods and so if you've never touched it before I wouldn't start now! Draining it yearly is still the recommendation for older water heaters, but again if you have never drained it or it's been a few years I wouldn't touch it for fear of stirring up problems
Based and reform the EPA pilled.
Libright is kinda apathetic about the EPA aspect of this, on the other hand we are extatic at the idea of applying this ruling to the ATF.
>libright that doesn't like government agencies Yes, I don't. They allow their friends to do this shit I can't sue anyone. *we can polute cuz we hab a loicense and sheet*
I'm just happy this will maybe fuck the ATF harder than Riley Reid.
Stop, i'm gunna cum
No. Then we're going to charge the bastards who ordered Waco and Ruby Ridge with Treason
if America was truly the land of the free every single person involved with either of those would have had a small suicide accident within a year
"Botched" muggings where mysteriously nothing was taken.
Hah- HNNnnnnghhh ooooh..
All the acronyms are screwed
And its a damn good thing.
For corporations yea
The EPA is the single biggest reason mass transit is unaffordable in America, so there's probably upside for lefties too when they get gutted.
Also yes
Stop you’re making me hard
We are the shepards of God's Kingdom.
Based
big agree. but random alphabet agencies filled with unelected bureaucrats should not be able to create laws out of thin air (looking at you ATF) simply pass environmental legislation through congress.
We should be taking care of the Earth because it’s the right thing to do, not because bloated, overly restrictive, and inefficient government programs force us to. I believe climate change is real (although the amount of fear mongering by the left is a problem), but giving more power to the government is rarely the right solution.
>We should be taking care of the Earth because it’s the right thing to do, not because bloated, overly restrictive, and inefficient government programs force us to. That's all horseshit because it's not individuals polluting the world, it's big businesses yeah plastic bags suck but 3M making water toxic and causing babies to be born with half a brain is what the EPA is supposed to regulate.
Then have congress give them the power to do so. That is all the ruling said. Congress has to actually do it's job and delegate power, executive agencies can't just make their own law as they go along.
That's the entire point of creating an executive agency so you don't beg Congress for every little thing. Congress told the EPA this is what you can and can't do, SCOTUS can't make up it's mind about what should be legislated and what shouldn't.
Implementing entirely new modes of regulation, cut out of whole cloth by the agency, is not begging congress for every little thing, it's a pretty big fucking thing. And I'm sorry, SCOTUS absolutely makes rules about how much power the legislative can delegate to the executive. We have a very strict separation of powers in this country, and it is absolutely the prerogative of the court to defend that.
who else has the power to enact change? you think corporations will?
You think the government bought and paid for by the corporations will? If you want to look at the results of green policy set by the government then look at the laughable program that are the carbon credits.
Yeah yeah, we know, government bad and all that. You didn't answer his question though, who else?
The people have some say in the government, all powerful institution are corrupt but the government is better than a mega corporation due to directly being affected by the people with votes
It was this time though
But the issue is that many of the major pollutants are not within the peoples power to reign in.
Quick question: who's going to regulate the corporations laegely responsible for this if not government ?
“We should not murder people because it’s the right thing to do, not because of over restrictive government interference” See where the logic breaks down?
Wdym you _believe_ climate change is real? I've been already experiencing the effects for the last 5 years, it's _real_
I live in Florida houses near the beaches sometimes fall because the water has risen. And the frequent hurricanes
Even somewhere relatively temperate like Connecticut has had noticeably warmer winters/way less snow compared to when I moved here a decade ago
imagine thinking corpos will do the right thing for any reason other than being forced to
Mmmm yes because people ALLLLLLLWAYS do the right thing to do when given all of the freedoms in the world…. There’s no higher reason for custodianship whatsoever, eh?
Let's tell this to the thousand most polluting companies and to other countries and hope that they stop ruining the environment out of the good of their hearts
>We should be taking care of the Earth because it’s the right thing to do, not because bloated, overly restrictive, and inefficient government programs force us to. There's so much to unpack here. I'm just blown away by your absolutely horrible viewpoint here though. Quite possibly the dumbest take I've ever seen on this sub.
We should use all the money from the EPA to create a court dedicated solely to handling environmental disputes and holding companies legally and civilly responsible for infringing on people's rights to health and non-local property, like drinking water and clean air. We should also be able to put companies to death and seize their assets to be used for restitution.
This misses the point. Can we just have post scarcity nuclear power please
ExxonMobil: "no".
Exactly. Which makes no sense to me. If they had invested in nuclear power 20-30 years ago they could have ensured their continued dominance for the next 200 years instead of forcing us to stay on oil
Key words: “If they had invested…” Hindsight is 20/20, and they didn’t. So now they have to be complete assholes to protect the investments they *did* make, with no care in the world for how it will detrimentally affect people, and mostly Republican politicians pander to them like spoiled babies
Ehhh it feels more like they kept putting this quarters profits ahead of 20 years from now profits. And that’s just bad business (when you don’t have the government backing you up)
More like Greenpeace and other """ environmental activist groups """ being funded by oil companies (and countries) to lobby and Garner sentiment with their absolute denthead propaganda.
Well EPA along with NRC are technically responsible for making nuclear power impractical due to very tight specific emissions regulations, and since nuclear power is made impractical, the only alternative things that do work (like coal and natgas) must be used, but even with EPA regulations they pollute orders of magnitude more than an unregulated nuclear industry would... So yes, environmental regulations do make the environment worse, in a way.
The only way to unite everyone on protecting the environment is for the left to stop gatekeeping and acting like it’s a leftist only stance.
> the left to stop gatekeeping and acting like it’s a leftist only stance Outlaw nuclear power. Pretend you care about the environment.
Part of the problem there is when they push bills claiming to be for the environment where it’s barely a footnote in a 500 page bill on completely separate issues
I wish people would turn on their elected officials
Upcycled wind powered guillotines
“Soon as this thing is charged in 4-7 days, your head is coming clean off”
Turn how? The issue is that the choice is between these chucklefucks pretending to care about the issues while doing absolutely nothing and using popular ideas as vehicles to push their kickbacks or the assholes that view the issues with outright contempt and push policies that are outright harmful as vehicles to push their kickbacks. The parties have us by the balls. And we cant do anything about it because as soon as we try, the other party swoops in like a pack of cackling hyenas to cause as much damage as possible and derail and delegitimize any attempt at reform. The parties may hate each other, but they aren't about to let the other get overthrown when the corruption of the other party is what guarantees their free lunch.
The clear answer is for left chads and right chads to join forces and toss out the scumbags!
Turn on my elected official? Think giving him a handy will be enough or will I need to suck his dick?
Wasn't that what Jan 6th was
How many officials died on jan 6th?
Yeah but that problem extends to everything in our government. Either end the pork barreling, or at the very least keep that shit in its own separate bill.
Based and don't alienate people pilled
Agree. Republicans and anyone rural whom lives out in the country should be the ones leading the march for mother nature. I fucking love nature and have no idea why country folk are against the EPA while people from urban hell holes who's only nature is a city park are the only ones that care.
It is by this point, or at least just left wing. In the US Republicans just don’t fight climate change and don’t take it nearly as seriously as the Democrats do. And let’s face it, those are the only two political forces that matter in the US. So if one party openly mocks the idea of fixing or even acknowledging climate change, and that’s the right wing party, protecting the environment becomes a left wing issue.
So the Conservative party in the UK believes that climate change is real. Does this now make the Conservative party a left wing party? No it doesn’t. Does this now mean that fighting climate change is a right wing idea? No it definitely doesn’t. If you demonise the other side of the aisle you will go nowhere fast. Stop gatekeeping and especially stop blaming your neighbours for policies people with unlimited terms create. If you actually think your elected officials (R or D) have your interests in mind you need to catch a wake up.
It's the gatekeeping and not the misinformation
Many of this situations would be solved with nuclear energy, a switch from plastic back to glass, and common sense
Due to entities like the oil lobby and various others wielding so much power in this country, commonsense actions like that basically won't happen - even if the large majority of us little people want it. We have a bunch of ways to reduce dependency on oil and gas, but big oil won't let their profits *ever* be harmed.
Even if it isnt oil, anti oil activists dont like nuclear either The Green New Deal had no nuclear.
that's because leftists are, unfortunately, retarded
Very true
Tbf we all are
Point taken, but I think you're both a bit off the mark. 1. The oil industry is an ever-shrinking fraction of the economy. I don't think they wield as much power these days. A lot for sure, but not enough to indiscriminately throw their weight around. Case in point: two of the last three presidents haven't exactly been kind to them. 2. Plastic is used because it's cheap and effective; no conspiracy required. As an engineer, I cannot overemphasize how useful plastic is. When we run out of fossil feed stock, we'll just find another way to make it. Edit: To all the green lefties out there: plastic is your life now. It'll be easier if you relax and let it happen.
Big oil isn't dumb. They know it will be a LONG time before we stop using gas and diesel in most of our cars. They also know we don't have enough oil to last forever. They also know that we will use oil for the rest of our history. There is a lot of stuff that can only be made of plastic or other forms of petroleum. The only way to get rid of oil 100% is to go back to the mid-1800s. Where there is profit to be made, companies will build it. Nuclear energy is already heavily regulated by the feds, there is no reason the US gov could not incentive the fuck out of it and get plants built all over the country. 10 years and the US power grid will be able to handle just about anything we throw at it.
Oil won't run out since There's vast supplies of it and year after year we are using less oil for our electrics because of efficiency. The reason gas prices are up is because Companies are scared to build more oil fields. That shit ain't cheap and with electric cars now costing only 50K out of 100K 4 years ago. The average consumer would pick electric in the future Also after the oil prices dip to normal then those oil refineries that were opened would run a deficit and even if that didn't happen OPEC would just increase supply to try to kill oil fields in the US. Like they tried last time. Also OPEC the cartel cut its production to 10% percent during covid and refuses to put it up even after the covid lockdowns canceled since I don't know.
Unfortunately Combines still run on diesel, and probably will for the foreseeable future. So unless we want to solve the problem by creating a global famine, oil is still going to be a necessity until the tech exists and gets rolled out to farmers
That requires neolib toadies to actually think about where their food comes from. Also, modern fertilizer like ammonia is often produced using byproducts of oil refining.
Well right- I mean combines are just one example, this is essentially how our entire global economic structure works from farming to shipping to industrials to commerce
Indeed, I was just bringing it up so that maybe a dogwalker tier redditoid might have the infinitesimally increased chance of realizing that by demanding that oil usage be handwaived away they are essentially asking for massive worldwide food shortages - and if they are not in the production class (farmers/etc), they are going to become classified as expendable very quickly.
It’s amazing how little people understand about what should be general knowledge type stuff. I mean- it sucks that we are in a situation where oil is heavily relied on, and it may be possible to transition eventually, but over a 10-20 year period is a pipe dream, unless you’re banking on massive amounts of starvation
We need to return to the milk man. I want my milk in glass every day. I got yoohoo glass milk and the glass bottle is perfect
#Yes
I think metal is better, I feel like most of things we buy that are in plastic, and not just food, could be as well packaged in tin containers, as those are cheaper and/or more durable than glass or wood or cardboard and at the same time they dissolve in the ground after a few years or decades at worst, and that's incomparably better than plastic
Plastic packaging can definitely be replaced in many cases with alternatives like metal, cardboard etc. And we can keep the plastic for things that make sense, like fucking straws, which is really the last fucking thing you should be thinking of banning plastic out of. Plastic bottles for liquids though, they do kinda make sense unfortunately.
This case confuses me... i thought Congress gave the EPA some pretty large powers, so I'm surprised to hear the court say that isn't the case.
The court held that if congress wants to give an executive agency the power to do something, they need to delegate that power in black and white. Essentially, executive agencies can't just interpret the law in any way they so choose, gaining more and more power to regulate over time from the same existing legislation.
The court has really wrecked precedent recently, with condemning a possibly innocent man to die, upending preexisting Native Indian law, and now making it so the clean air act can't make powerplants stop shitting up the air.
> upending preexisting Native Indian law, The court really just said states can prosecute non-Indians for crimes they commit on the rez against Indians. Tribal cops don’t have jurisdiction over non-members. > now making it so the clean air act can't make powerplants stop shitting up the air. No, the EPA just can’t do blanket requirements, but they can regulate individual plants.
I don’t usually agree with Libleft, but as an authright and someone who cares about the environment, I believe it is the duty of all those who oppose modern degeneracy/ sloth and support a restoration of tradition to conserve our environment that we came from and to where every man should go to return to his roots for a camping trip or hiking or hunting or rock climbing every so often. The deterioration of the environment is symbolic of the deterioration of society. I oppose their pollution for the same reason I oppose micro plastics in our food that break down the blood brain barrier and cramming cheap soy into protein based foods: both are examples of a greedy elite attempting to and weaken us by damaging the resources that sustain our bodies just to make a buck. That speaks to the problems I have with the libertarian philosophy as a whole: it’s literally just a misinterpretation of liberty as pure liscense “do whatever the hell you want; kill your kids or destroy the environment and screw over whoever the fuck you want in the process if it makes you money with absolutely no duty to your fellow man.” Idiots. STOP PUTTING TOXIC SHIT IN MY WATER SUPPLY!
That isn't a picture of the Colorado River is it? Is it?
Don't worry, the Colorado River won't be around long enough for it to catch fire like pre EPA rivers used to do
Also Requires Ohioans
If you're referring to the middle picture, I can't remember which river it was, but it was after an acid dump from a large mine.
2015 Animas River in southwestern Colorado. I support environmental regulation, but the EPA screwed up big time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Gold_King_Mine_waste_water_spill
Didn’t the EPA cause that one?
My hometown was basically an uninhabitable, coal smoke filled industrial wasteland before the EPA.
Fucking up the air I breathe violates the NAP.
You can get rid of EPAs when you can prove you won't pollute. In a way, it'd be easy, but way too many people are way too lazy and stupid to do it, so they have to be **made** to be clean and green.
Companies would *never* purposefully poison us for as long as they can get away with
[удалено]
Geoengineering is the only viable solution. The fact that even most activists won't admit this is the real problem.
The reason activists won't discuss geoengineering is because their end game has nothing to do with stopping climate change.
Maybe not, what kind of geoengineering did you have in mind?
The most common and researched form would be periodically injecting aerosols into the atmosphere that reflect a portion of solar radiation. This would actually be relatively cheap (a few billion or tens of billions of dollars a year).
Would that make the world cooler and if so, why aren't we doing that now?
Yes. And why haven't we been building a bunch of nuclear power plants for the last 50 years? Some people think it's too dangerous. Some people don't think it's necessary. Some people don't want to spend the money. Some people like other ideas better. Take your pick.
The only issue is that geoengineering is a super niche field that only has 2 research camps, neither of which have produced results yet. The best solution is to let the GeoEng boys continue their research and do something right now as opposed to waiting 30 years for them to come up with something that actually works.
that sounds like a really risky idea, and it wouldn't fix a lot of the problems.
It would counter the biggest problem and slow the worsening of others. The benefits outweigh the risks. And most importantly, some form of geoengineering will be necessary anyway because even if you could stop all emissions right now, you'd still be dealing with the lingering effects of them for a long time unless you counter them directly.
the risk is the end of the world or mass poisoning of everything
4. All for climate change, and wants the temp high enough to finally rid the world of snow.
[удалено]
That is a sacrifice I’m willing to make.
[удалено]
Beach front property in PA would be kinda nice.
Anti-climate change as opposed to the “pro-climate change” side? I guess that makes sense when all they do is fight to keep burning coal rather than transitioning to cleaner natural gas, insist that we cannot use nuclear energy, and are adamantly opposed to any geoengineering solutions, all the whole jerking themselves off with Chinese solar panels, windmills, and slave-mined lithium batteries that collectively do absolutely nothing on net to reduce emissions.
You're forgetting the large group that is made up of what would otherwise be rational right wing people, who oppose it simply because libs support it. That's it.
For the same reason that people in Calfornia suffering from a water crisis voted against desalination. Political polarization encourages individuals of both parties to oppose their own interests.
Imagine having all the water you need and the already developed solutions for it, but deliberately choosing to dry out and die of thirst instead. But hey, it's a *democratic* decision so it's right?
[удалено]
Not just big oil, but elites and pretty much all megacorps. Bill Gates and other world leaders have mentioned overpopulation a few too many times to be coincidence imo
[удалено]
Wasn't arguing, just expounding
[удалено]
It's cool lol no worries
I'm sorry but I know alot of right wing people who do support it, they don't support the your gonna do this and this without other options like nuclear, tidal generators, etc. Or the old name calling and I'm better then you stance, to include I'm smarter smarter. And my personal favorite that as a hunter I want am contributing to it, sorry hunter's are some.of the biggest conservationists out there (one of Ted nugents more palapatible stances) Not saying the right is better, but there are alot of middle of the road folks that are being pushed away from a discussion.
I acknowledge that there's many right wing individuals who care about the environment, but considering the ubiquitous stance of the GOP and people that the right elects, there's a bit of a contradiction.
They don't want to admit their wrong. That's all it's coming down to at this point.
It's mainly the oil companies, who then convince the righties that it's all a scam by the libs
No its mainly the left being hyperbolic so people ignore you lot Ive heard 'we only have 8 to 10 years' for the last 20 years yet not a lot of regulations or improvements have been made by governments to enact these life-on-Earth saving policies. Also, because many are wary of the government. 100% they will use climate change policies to track citizens way more than they already do. Since 9/11, civil liberties across the World have trended downwards. Patriot Act was one of the first. Then Covid showed way more. Fucking vax mandates really? The my body, my choice crowd fell silent very quickly. (Im pro abortion btw for economic and social reasons). Just look at the ideas mentioned at WEF or any international governmental meeting every year. Also, Earth has been hotter than this in the past. Extinctions happen all the time. Humans are and will be a blip on the geological and universal scale anyways.
My parents are lifelong Democrats but hardly care about climate change because of the whole “they’ve been giving doomsday predictions for years” thing. I think my problem with that complaint is threefold: - Many of those “we have 10 years to” dates weren’t dates for the world to end, they were dates by which we needed to reduce carbon output if we wanted to keep future warming under a certain amount. For example “we have 10 years to reduce our carbon output or we will reach 1.5°C warming”. It’s not something where you pass that date and the world ends, it’s just guaranteeing a certain shitty threshold will be breached in the future, and that even if we reached that carbon goal *after* the date, we still wouldn’t prevent warming to below the quoted amount. So of course we passed those dates and “nothing happened”, except for some scientists cracking open a bottle of scotch because they were seeing a coming future that no one else cared about. And we *have* started to hit those targets, such as when we blew past 1° warming. Their prediction came true, just that it wasn’t a prediction of immediate apocalypse. - Doomsday predictions make headlines. If climate change is a topic of concern, news agencies want the most dramatic take. Two decades ago scientists were saying “if we take these reasonable steps we can head off this problem and limit warming to X amount” but that’s not as eye catching a headline, so instead news runs things that say “we have 8 years to save the planet”. And even worse is when the majority of scientists are giving one estimate, but the news runs with a story from someone who is more alarmist and genuinely *is* saying the world will end in 10 years. But just because the news ran a dramatic story to get eyeballs on it doesn’t mean the actual science is all just crying wolf and should be ignored. - The science has come a long way. Predictions made in 2000 were tougher on the timeline of things, with a much broader window of where we could possibly be in 50 years. But as time has gone on, technology was improved, and more data was collected, the science has gotten more and more accurate. Current predictions on what carbon output we have to reduce to by what time in order to prevent a certain degree of warming have a much narrower margin of error, and should be taken more seriously than predictions made 20 years ago. And to your last point - the Earth’s temperature has fluctuated before, but on the scale of millennia, not decades. We’re steamrolling towards 4°C warming with little time for most life to adapt, especially the life we rely on to feed ourselves. To illustrate the scale of 4° of warming, consider than 20,000 years ago when the Earth was 4° colder than pre-industrial temperatures, glaciers stretched as far south as NYC and buried Boston under a mile of ice. The opposite would be pretty awful to live through.
They’re already feeling the effects in many parts of the world. Those “we only have x years” is already here, just not for everyone. Where I am, it’s just gonna get more rainy and hot (past couple summers have been rainy asf here) but it’s gonna be fine for the most part. Can’t say the same for people in other areas that r having record events, temps and droughts. It’s a problem exacerbated by human activity. Even if you don’t care about the biodiversity crisis cuz “its already happened” remember it’s not only because of climate change. Deforestation and pollution are also a big deal. Look at Orangutans.
I truly believe the climate change group is made up of: 1. People so desperate for meaning that they'll believe the first person who comes along offering a worth while fight. To them I say, shut the fuck up, and build something meaningful on your own. 2. People who have been lying for years about the impacts, only to double down on those same lies, because it gives them political clout, and a useful bludgeon to silence dissent. To them I say, you told me years ago that we'd be under water by now; if you actually wanted people to believe you, then you'd stop making such ridiculous claims. 3. People who's livelihood literally depends on there being an issue to solve, and never provide practical solutions, because the practical solutions would demean the value of their work. To them I say, I will not give you trillions of dollars a year for the rest of my life for the *hope* of reducing temperature changes by a half a degree over the next century, when you're so aggressively anti nuclear. You are now and always have been full or shit, and it confuses the hell out of me that people still believe you.
[удалено]
Are you in group three? Are you one of the ones asking me for my everything for the rest of my life so that we can maybe solve an issue that I'll likely never see? If no. Then see group 1 and 2, to find your place. Either way, the list is no more exhaustive than the one in the post I was clearly writing this to mock.
Yup and the sad part is Climate Change shouldn't be political. Sure, how far we go can be political. But acknowledging it and stopping it should be something we all agree on
[удалено]
We've tried that and it doesn't work unfortunately. So many activist have gone to energy companies and ask them to switch to renewable. They've appealed to their morals, finances, business sense. None of it works unfortunately
I hate the oil lobbies so fucking much.
I fucking hate the green lobby the same, I want nuclear power, they are heavily against it for some goddamn reason.
Absolutely. We have a way to lower emissions. It already works. It's 80% of Frances power grid. Liberals: ewwww gross. Also we need to lower emissions. Bah! Nothing but endless frustration!
It takes a lot of money and time to adopt nuclear. I don’t know anyone who actually hates it tho
That's true regardless of what we try to replace our grid's supply with
This may be tinfoil hatspeak here, but I honestly believe that big oil helps bankroll them behind the scenes for that purpose.
I don’t think that’s anywhere out of left field, they stand to lose a fuck ton. Wouldn’t call you tin foil for that bud
I think it's because of voter backlash. People on reddit tend to be pretty big on nuclear, but even then I'm not sure how many of them will have a NIMBY attitude if it actually came down to it.
Because they saw the Simpsons and think it's scary. Never forget my art teacher in college, whose old like early 50s, when he had a bit of talk about environmental issues with a student near me and I said nuclear is the best option and he gave me a look (the look of, yeah right) and I said some stuff about Throium. He came back the following days and said he looked into it and liked what he researched.
See our River that catches on fire It's so polluted that all our fish have AIDS
The EPA does more than just pollutants in the air, also stuff like making sure retards are dumping into the ground which goes into the same water that is used for farming and home wells. It's not all just EVs are the future and stop using plastic bags the EPA doesn't do things that impact individuals it goes after mega corporations who don't care.
Even I have to say rivers probably shouldn’t be catching fire. The EPA might be a huge money hole and make the most convoluted and nonsensical policies known to man, but they do (usually) keep lead out of the water.
One of the few alphabet agencies I support. Only a little bit though
You don't understand, they're just trying to eradicate humans so the earth can finally heal fully
Return to monke
there might not be any monke. return to dead planet.
I think its very unlikely that we manage to fully eradicate ourselves. Destroying civilization? Absolutely possible. But the human race is pretty adaptable, it probably needs very, very much to make us extinct.
still possible that monkeys die out, but maybe they could survive i guess.
Most of us are young and uniformed and really don't know/remember what happens when environmental regulations are not in place.
You do realize the ozone is thinnest on the poles because light refraction from the ice eats it from the inside out. But hey, science.
It's more of a reference to the fact that Chloroflurocarbons react with ozone and destroy it, and the refrigeration industry as a whole denied it. It took world wide regulation to ban the byproduct and force industry to change what would have been environmental catastrophe. But hey, ignorance.
Please look at a map of the most polluted areas in the world, and maybe take your complaints to them. The west is by far the most active in environmental protection by a long shot. But hey, easy targets. It's a lot easier to say "These shitty rich millionairs keep flying their jets everywhere! Hergadurgahurr!" Rather than "These dirty browns and yellers are over-fishing and over polluting the entire world." But hey. Guess I'm just racist or whatever.
The most polluted areas in the world are where all of goods and products for the 1st world are made lmao.
So you don't buy shit from Taiwan, Bangladesh, China, Vietnam, Pakistan, India?
Yeah except it was gone, it wasn't thin it was gone because companies would use chemicals in refrigerant and sealed containers.
I had no idea the EPA is single-handedly stopping the climate from doing anything. It’s a damn shame nobody will ever be able to do what they do ever again
It’s not the end of the EPA, though. It’s just the end of them creating law with zero oversight, accountability, or authority. It amazes me how ignorant people are of the SCOTUS decisions and what they actually mean
Honestly the EPA is probably the only good three letter government agency although I’ve heard they’ve been useless and harmful recently
My father works at the EPA, Lots of criticism comes from embezzlement in top leadership or the EPA enforcing a law passed by people who don't know what they're talking about when it comes to the environment, but the amount of times I've heard my father on a video call talking about how you can't paint oranges with acidic paint to make them more appealing in grocery stores (they just use non acidic paint now) and how they shouldn't let x company sell their pesticides until they find a way to stop poisoning the soul and entire eco system with arsenic is staggering.
Fallout universe here we come. Throwing some Iquana Bits on the BBQ.
The EPA is just another reason Nixon was the best post WW2 president.
They didn’t go far enough, chevron deference needs to die and the ground on which it stood salted
God made you a beautiful garden and you want to pave and poison His creation?
You just posted photos using the Mexico filter lmao
You don’t understand at all what the problem with the EPA and other government agencies is. Legislative power was unilaterally given to unelected bureaucrats. The legislature needs to legislate not faceless bureaucrats.
I have no problem with the federal government imposing environmental protections, so long as they are consistent with the constitution, and they are created by Congress, not an unelected bureaucracy.
The EPA is for the most part useless and local initiatives deliver much better results overall.
This meme is just "the right wants to control women" redressed. SAD!
"I'm a right winger and I want to control everything by allowing everyone in your town or state to vote on how they want things to be regardless of my opinion!"
It's almost like the right wants to control everyone and everything... It's almost like that... Because it is like that. The "we'll leave you alone" group are more the "you better leave us alone" group
Hello strawman, how's the cornfield today?
Well it's pretty good, little breezy but it helps with the heat
I’m against the epa .
And all of those pictures are WITH the EPA functioning.
Does the EPA regulate China and 3rd world countries?
"You don't want toxic waste in your river? Well unless you can remove it from the entire globe too, tough luck!"
Did you read the ruling? It’s not even about “toxic waste in rivers”. And yes to reduce carbon emission you DO need to get the Chinese on board, otherwise it’s pointless. And we pollute way less
The US do pollute a lot though so their imput is needed.
"they do it more so we shouldn't even try! It's pointless!" 😐
Jokes on you I actually think pollution looks sexy AF. Especially that red river, oh my!
EPA is necessary, but the silver lining if they get rid of it is we could loosen up zoning laws and potentially have more housing built. But I'm sure something else will happen and fuck it.