View Single Post
Old 05-17-2011, 12:20 PM   #26 (permalink)
Mantus
lascivious
 
Mantus's Avatar
 
Ace,

You keep sidetracking this discussion by demonizing the EPA. We are talking about whether the GOP are smearing, misrepresenting and attacking science in this thread; not the reasons behind these actions. I'm participating in this discussion because I believe that such actions lead to poor, shortsighted and dangerous policies. I'm here with the pretense that ignorance of US government officials has ramifications for the entire world.

Also, I find your criticism of the EPA to be lackluster and I've gone to answer some questions you've posed just to demonstrate how superficial they appear from my point of view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
Just to take a moment and look at the semantics in the summary in a nit piky way - why would they use the word "possible" with climate change if they truly wanted to eliminate science for the discussion. Would a better way be to state with clearly worded language that green house gases have no relation to climate change and therefore the EPA has no authority to regulate green house gasses in any attempt to address climate change?
Indeed. To me using the word "possible" indicates that they are not quite convinced regarding climate change - and this is true.

Of course a direct challenge to climate change science would never fly. However, we have to understand that clear language is of no consequence here. Once this bill passes climate change with regards to the EPA is no longer a debatable issue. The consequences here is that a new agency will be required to deal with climate change.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
I think it is clear that the intent is to restrict the EPA going on a one agency crusade against any and all industries with any type of CO2 footprint.
Yes, isn't that the EPA's job? Would you prefer two, three, or ten agencies to be on this crusade? The EPA seems like an ideal candidate for the job – you just have to figure out how it should go about it. If the Energy Tax Prevention Act is passed there would be no choice but to create more government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
The EPA with that kind of authority can regulate every facet of American life. Regardless of the climate change debate, should one agency have that kind of power in your opinion?
I get it. You don't want another federal agency to stick their grubby little hands into your business. So should every state have their own army? Should every state have their own embassy in countries all over the world? Why bother with a with a federal government at all?

The federal government is there to deal with issues that affect all Americans. Global warming is an issue that effects all Americans. An issue that effects the entire country should be overseen by a federal agency. P.R. 910 asks a federal agency to ignore a national issue which should fall under it's mandate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
Do you have any concerns regarding the EPA exercising that power in a manner inconsistent with what is in the best interest of the environment and the country?
I'm concerned with how every government agency exercises it's powers. H.R. 910 ask the EPA to stop acting regarding climate change indefinitely. It's like being unhappy with how USDA handles Mad Cow Decease and writing a law that strikes BSE from USDA's agenda entirely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
What if the next President appointed me as the head of the EPA, would you want me to have the power?
Or the head of CIA, Department of Agriculture, Compress, Defense, Energy...I guess it would depend on what kind of person you are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
Assuming your answer is no to the last question, how would you want to control the EPA?
Just like any other agency. You give them boundaries that allow them to do their job while having minimal impact on citizens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
Perhaps a more narrow mandate from Congress, with defined minimum and maximum expectations?
Exactly.



On a lighter note.

Ace, even though we disagree, I want to thank you for continuing to respond because our discussion has brought me tremendous insight and knowledge due to the amount of research I had to do in order to continue participating in this thread. I hope it has been a similar experience for you. Cheers!

Last edited by Mantus; 05-17-2011 at 12:26 PM..
Mantus is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360