Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
I'm running for congress
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: [QB] [QUOTE]Pollution Nobody likes air pollution. The only question anyone has is whether clean air is worth the price. Everyone draws that line in a different place. I see no obvious reason the federal government should be involved in drawing one line for everyone. As such, I would advocate the removal of air pollution standards from the federal government's hands, placing that issue back with the states where it belongs. Exceptions would be made for facilities on state borders, where emissions would affect more than one state. There are two major sources of pollution can definitely be replaced by superior technologies, and I'd like to see those new technologies further developed and implemented. First, I'm a firm advocate of alternative fuel technology, whether fuel cell, biodiesel (particularly algae-based), ethanol, or electric vehicle. However, I do not support projects that have no potential to be a net environmental improvement. The energy balance of ethanol in particular has been a target of significant criticism in this regard. More research is required before I can determine whether to support ethanol as a clean fuel. Second, I want to shut down coal power plants and replace them with cleaner sources of grid power, such as modern nuclear plants and large-scale solar thermal installations. Nuclear power is far from perfect, but it is far cleaner and safer than coal plants. Solar thermal power plants have far greater efficiency than photovoltaics, are less weather dependent, and have a smaller ecological footprint. I will support any measure that I believe will advance these goals. [/QUOTE]You kind of contradict yourself here as EPA standards are the sole regulation for coal pollution plants you want to close. Also, leaving pollution standards up to states is very shortsighted: pollution often affects hundreds of miles from the source- allowing one state to, for example, dump chemicals into a river would be a disaster for fisheries at that river's end in some other state- not to mention sickness caused and property damages associated with polluted streams etc. Also consider that the coal insustry are major canpaign supporters in several states, making state-level regulation dubious at best. Currently, the EPA does no where near enough to curb polluters- fines at best taht usually go unpaid. Giving states sole discresion would also force states to form their own EPA's to enforce/audit state compliances. Currently there exists no mechanism in most states (certainly in Florida) to enforce even ntional standards- there's just no money for it at the state level. A good example is Big Sugar's pollution of the Florida Everglades National Park- although a federal court and the state's Supreme Court has ordered them to pay tens of millions in clean-up fines, they have yet to pay a dime. This was with the full weight of Clinton's EPA enforcing and documenting the pollution. Bush's administration cut EPA inspectors to on-quarter their clinton-era number and thay have yet to be replaced. No way a state could handle the burden of the EPA- even if that state somehow was a mecca of scientists, lawyers and inspectors looking for such work. Your notion of gun control needs some tweaking as well- why [i]not[/i] have handgun owners renew their liscenes? Seems only reasonable as you have to do it for your driver's liscence and every other kind. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3