The same groups had sued the Bush administration over its ozone policy, but agreed to suspend the suit when the Obama administration came to office and promised to reconsider the Bush standard. That reconsideration was delayed several times before finally being killed by the president last month.And so it goes. Obama is like Bush.
October 12, 2011
"Instead of protecting people’s lungs as the law requires, this administration based its decision on politics, leaving tens of thousands of Americans at risk of sickness and suffering."
5 environmental groups have sued the Obama administration for rejecting stricter standards on ozone pollution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
47 comments:
If Obama wins in 2012, then all restraint will be gone from our Green King who hates business and industry with a passion.
except Obama is not eligible.
*Applauds decision*
Protecting our lungs...from ozone?
We must fight this scourge of temporary, minor inflammation.
I think it's a good sign that he's reluctant to do more damage to the economy, but I think TG is right on. We can't have another four years of Obama and his crew.
So a small group wants to use the courts to force regulations that will cause poverty our nation.
Is there still a giant hole in the ozone layer that's going to expand and fry every living creature on earth, so we're left with a planet covered with smoking sneakers? Or was that last decade's imminent crisis? I can never keep up with these people. Imminent doom never seems to arrive on time. But ozone pollution seems a good remedy for a depleting ozone layer.
And I think the O-zone (which is also the name of a condom shop in Boise, Idaho, in case you're ever in the area and need condoms), is a good word for the Reality Distortion Field that used to surround Obama. Kind of like the Twilight Zone.
Obama is like Bush
Environmental groups are the invariants here. If you don't live in a hovel, tithe to the church of the enlightened, and pay relief to the local Lord, they are against you. Since Obama didn't properly distribute the spoils after the conquest and hasn't yet reduced the previous inhabitants to serfdom, they naturally feel betrayed.
If they really care about our lungs, why don't they outlaw cigarettes?
This is just another example of the Progressive impulse to solve every problem by reducing our freedoms.
"If Obama wins in 2012, then all restraint will be gone from our Green King who hates business and industry with a passion."
Whereas all connection to reality is already gone from you, judging by your appraisal of Obama's alleged but mythical "hatred" of business and industry.
"And so it goes. Obama is like Bush."
Indeed so, but without the experience, competency, sincerity, anti-American, quasi-socialist ideology, mushrooming debt, unjustified war in Libya, gun-running scam to drug gangs in Mexico, whacked-out idiot voters and, of course, charm.
But in all other ways, yes, just like Bush.
Obama is like Bush
Not exactly. Obama is a Democrat. To environmental groups, that's worth a lot of forgiveness.
I'm tempted to stop by the library to see if every Audubon article sneers about the Obama Administration like they used to do about Bush. I really doubt it.
The incidences of Asthma are lower in countries like China where there is more pollution. Kind of counterintuitive eh?
BTW I hate that Lung Association commercial with the red pram and the "coughing" baby because pollution is SOOOOO BAD in the US. It was better 50 years ago than 100 years ago and it's even better now.
Another way they did not protect people's lungs is by banning over the counter asthma inhalers because of CFC's.
...Obama's alleged but mythical "hatred" of business and industry.
He hates profit which he equates with theft, as do you, Cookie. Quit the dodging semantics.
If the air is getting better, which by any standard it is, then why is asthma on the rise?
IF you take the EPA at its word, these new clean air standards would have saved 230,000 lives and $2 trillion.
IF the EPA is correct then it is indeed bad economics to delay implementation.
On the other hand, if the EPA is exaggerating the hazard then some heads should roll at the EPA, and Congress should make it clear that fear-mongering, and regulation based on it, will not be tolerated.
So, which is it?
Is there any level of protection they won't demand by a lawsuit, regardless of its costs?
It's not like national ozone levels are actually very high (indeed, the worst appear to be in the LA area, which can't really fix the problem because of geography).
We've hit the level of diminishing returns (arguably a decade or two ago) on ozone levels, given current technology and the damage done.
Coketown: Sadly, it doesn't work quite like that. Upper-atmosphere ozone is unrelated to surface-level ozone.
"He hates profit which he equates with theft...."
Two delusions in only eight words. Impressive.
"We've hit the level of diminishing returns (arguably a decade or two ago) on ozone levels, given current technology and the damage done."
"Doin' right ain't got no end."
These people continue to show us utterly fucking stupid they are. They have ZERO science to back up their idiotic claims.
I simply don't believe claims like this ("leaving tens of thousands of Americans at risk of sickness and suffering") anymore.
"On the other hand, if the EPA is exaggerating the hazard then some heads should roll at the EPA, and Congress should make it clear that fear-mongering, and regulation based on it, will not be tolerated."
When pigs fly.
If a little of something is good, more of it is always better.
That's a legal principle.
Obama is Bush
"He hates profit which he equates with theft...."
Two delusions in only eight words. Impressive.
------
Obama was a member of the socialist New Party and sought their endorsement during his congressional run.
"Obama was a member of the socialist New Party and sought their endorsement during his congressional run."
I don't know or care if that's true: what has he said or, more materially--done--as President that expresses hatred of business or the belief that profits are theft?
Heck, I can't even seen any evidence by his actions in office that he is even a Democrat. At best, he governs, as I've said before, as a decidely tepid liberal Republican.
"Obama is like Bush."
A fine example of the error of generalizing from a particular instance to an obviously false conclusion. If only it were true, as it is on a few issues. On most things, though, you've got to be kidding.
The difference is-
Obama gave these environmental groups Stimulus funds to be used to sue the EPA.
Wierd, huh?
Does the law require protecting people's lungs? Lungs uber alles? No. The law requires implementation of air quality standards. This group just doesn't like the standards that have been implemented versus the ones it recommends. boohoo. drama. Sickness, suffering, lawbreaking. Scorched earth.
Beware any group which incorporates "Justice" and/or "Peace" in its title. (See, e.g., Earthjustice.) They want these things on their terms only, which is not the same as wanting actual justice or actual peace.
(Members of Earthjustice could not be reached for comment as they are all out for their afternoon smoke break.)
Well, at least he's gotten something right.
No matter WHAT this President does, even if it goes along with a Conservative agenda, he will be criticized by at least half of the conservatives. Hmmm, I wonder why that is?
Obama has been way too much like Bush, that is why he lost support among his base.If he were NEARLY as liberal as conservatives wished he were, there most likely wouldn't be protesters on Wall street today.
If he were NEARLY as liberal as conservatives wished he were
Yes, because if he were liberal he wouldn't be trying to impose fascism.
(Oh, did you mean "liberal" in the modern sense? Sorry. Used to talking to adults...)
"This is just another example of the Progressive impulse to solve every problem by reducing our freedoms."
Brilliant AST.
"No matter WHAT this President does, even if it goes along with a Conservative agenda, he will be criticized by at least half of the conservatives. Hmmm, I wonder why that is?"
Because we are racists and hate Black people, Right Mito?
BTW-this is what happens when "science" becomes a ploy for wealth redistribution; people feel no need to believe what they are told. I assume anymore that what comes out of EPA is agenda driven pseudo science.
Holmes,
It is isn't just over the counter asthma inhalers that have been banned. Several years ago the EPA forced the makers of prescription asthma inhalers to switch to ozone-friendly propellants. The result was that the cost of inhalers increased. My patients tell me they are also less effective. (There is some debate whether this is just perception or reality, but there is some evidence that it is reality.) This is regulatory malpractice in my opinion. The contents of inhalers - including their propellants- are inhaled. They aren't sprayed into the environment. Seems like they could have made an exception for asthma inhalers. No evidence of environmental gain - but they have harmed asthmatics.
Maybe the problem for liberals in general and the environmentalists in particular is that our basic environmental problems really have been solved. The cost of dealing with what's left is prohibitively expensive.
But it's just so much fun to demonstrate and issue angry press releases and threaten lawsuits! They can't give it up. Like drug addicts or alcoholics.
So in the end they make things up. Like AGW, and surface-level ozone, and whatever. If we solve ozone today, they'll just be agitating for something else that positively must be regulated tomorrow.
Caplight, I can't answer that question for you, only you know what is in your heart. I think as we get closer to November 2012, we will see what happens with Herman Caine.I think the are enough Conservatives that are not bigots that he may have a chance.But then again that 999 thing already has him marked as a cultist.Poor Romney got rejected by Evangelicals for being a Mormon. Bigotry keeps rearing it's head among Conservatives.
Actually, the real problem if Cain is nominated will be all the bigoted and balkanized Democrats, all too easily swayed by their tribal concerns.
This Administration has banned what is the only effective propellant to rescue inhalers. It's hard to see how they're "protecting the lungs" of asthmatics.
He's like Bush but less principled, and less competent.
Bush was competent?? He may have been principled, will give him that.
Ever consider 'they' are protecting you from STARVING TO DEATH? Or freezing to DEATH?
That might be a bit more important than some 'maybe' pollution.
The EPA only exists to justify its existence. It is a totally useless department and is ripe for overhaul.
How clean is clean? How clear is clear? How stupid is stupid?
If the air is getting better, which by any standard it is, then why is asthma on the rise?
Because the air is too clean?
Our immune systems need exposure to build up a resistance.
Doesn't someone suggest there is more skin cancer because the air is cleaner?
More harmful rays hitting us?
The difference is-
Obama gave these environmental groups Stimulus funds to be used to sue the EPA.
Wierd, huh?
I don't think so - Klamath Falls, one of the injured parties had the same complaint. The goo-goos were using gov't funds to sue the private business owner - I think he was a farmer?
There's a law on the books somewhere to put Uncle Deep Pockets on the hook for this type of stuff
"Doesn't someone suggest there is more skin cancer because the air is cleaner?
"More harmful rays hitting us?"
It's been posited that skin cancer rates are skyrocketing because more UV rays are hitting us, because the ozone layer is thinner, not because the air is "cleaner".
A thicker ozone layer does not mean the air is "dirtier" and a thinner ozone layer does not mean the air is "cleaner."
"The EPA only exists to justify its existence. It is a totally useless department and is ripe for overhaul."
And you come to this conclusion...how?
Do you deny that we flood the air, water, and land with effluents and pollutants of all kinds, or that such pollutants, when released or accumulated into the environment in sufficient quantities can be, at least, irritants, and at worst, poisonous and deadly?
Assuming you do not deny the above, do you not see the need to have an agency charged with the study and reporting of the pollutants we pour into the world and the impact they have on us?
If you lived near an entity that was saturating your immediate environment--nearby rivers or lakes, the groundwater, etc.--with deadly carcinogens, would you not want an agency that could investigate this, report it, recommend or pass regulations requiring the polluting entity to clean up its act for the safety of you, you family and friends, and your community?
Or do you not mind others shitting where you eat and sleep?
"Maybe the problem...is that our basic environmental problems really have been solved."
Such barking idiocy beggars belief.
Post a Comment