tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3293222456618380543.post2357428708303352261..comments2022-11-07T01:32:41.279-08:00Comments on This Week in Reality: Toomey takes on the EPA for all our sakesJodine Mayberryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16738507307333004854noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3293222456618380543.post-2185016543837470672011-08-18T10:31:44.803-07:002011-08-18T10:31:44.803-07:00Actually, the EPA exempted milk and milk products ...Actually, the EPA exempted milk and milk products last April when the absurdity of the 1970s rule was called to its attention. <br />Copy and paste to your URL address bar:<br /> <br />http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/722B4E05C8312D528525787000692B36<br /><br />The U.S. Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, No. 05-1120 (http://www.supremecourt.gov -- look up opinions, search Massachusetts) mandated that the EPA regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (yes methane is one) believed to affect climate change, which the Supreme Court seems wholly convinced exists. The EPA didn't wanna but the court held that the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec.7521(a)(1), gave it the power and moral mandate to do so. That section give the EPA the power to regulate any air pollution "reasonably ... anticipated to endanger public health and welfare." Ozone fits into this category as well. Please look up EPA & ozone. No space to explain the whole thing here.<br /><br />Not sure what your point is about training and renovation projects. I do know the EPA is mandating training for renovators to deal with lead paint as it has since 1976 when it outlawed the use of lead paint in houses. What's the problem with that?<br /><br />I find several articles about technologies to use methane gas and manure as energy sources. Don't see a problem with that either. Why not turn a pollutant into a clean energy produce? Cattle ranchers might benefit financially and heck, it might even create jobs." <br /> <br />The EPA is by no means perfect. Everybody is always suing it for either trying to do too much or doing too little. I probably wrtote about 4,000 articles about suits against the EPA myself in my last job as a legal writer.<br /><br />But why is the rightwing opposition's first and most radical reaction to seize on the most extreme examples and then to embrace the most irrevocable solution, get rid of it? How about making it better, making it more responsive to small businessmen and farmers and ranchers? How about revising the laws it is mandated to enforce? You'd be throwing away 40 years of trial and error, 40 years of building a sound constitutional basis for its regulations, 40 years of experience in very, very technical and scientific issues, and 40 years of proven ability to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. And replacing it with what?Jodine Mayberryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16738507307333004854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3293222456618380543.post-33843686632728548952011-08-17T13:11:24.926-07:002011-08-17T13:11:24.926-07:00EPA now classifies milk as a pollutant.
EPA climat...EPA now classifies milk as a pollutant.<br />EPA climate change regulations.<br />EPA’s new restrictions on ozone pollution.<br />EPA’s new training requirements for renovation projects.<br />After the state of Massachusetts filed suit to force the EPA to enforce the Clean Air Act in terms of greenhouse gases, the agency began plans to target cattle ranches and feed lots. This was due to the amount of methane gas expelled from cow manure. The EPA, however, neglected to do the same for horse ranches. Is horseshit better for the environment than cowshit?<br /><br />The EPA is like the ATF, it needs to go and be replaced by something with a clue!Dannythemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11989960286856430952noreply@blogger.com