Thomas asks…
Why do environmental extremists oppose economic progress?
“A controversial proposal to build a massive underground pipeline to carry 700,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the oil sands of Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Texas has become the environmental issue of the summer, pitting developers and labor unions desperate for construction jobs against environmentalists and Native American tribes who fear the pipeline will spell environmental disaster.
TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL project would consist of more than 1,700 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipe, about 327 miles of which would be in Canada while the rest would snake southward through the central United States. Because the pipeline would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada, and Morgan, Mont., a special permit from the U.S. Department of State is required for the project to proceed.”
The Expert answers:
Progress for how long, yes these projects have short term gains that will benefit many depressed communities providing employment and economic stability for a while. What happens after the pipeline has been built. What happens if there was a major catastrophe or sabotage, these aren’t simply musings of environmental terrorists but of concerned people as well. Progress, but at what cost.
Richard asks…
Are Environmental issues exclusively for the purpose of crippling America?
Environmentalism is the direct cause of our dependence on foreign oil and $4 / gas. Environmental groups sue oil exploration companies at every drill site and cause a two year process to take ten years. Further, Americans are constantly losing the individual rights to use their own property as they see fit due to a U.N. Treaty called Agenda 21 (look it up). Even the border fence, mandated by Congress, vital to our security, was held up because environmentalists sued over a miniscule amount of habitat for some breed of cat. Global Elitists are behind all of these efforts.
Global Elitists are pushing for a “Trans America Corridor”. This is a planned multi-lane international freeway from the Mexican border in Texas, to our border with Canada in the north. The highway is planned to be at least 1,300 feet wide, and will be approximately 1,500 miles long. Mmmm, let’s do the math. That works out to be somewhere near ONE QUARTER MILLION SQUARE ACRES.
Global Elitists (all of the Democrats and the “Bush” wing of the Republican Party) get what they want. If they want to stifle our energy production, bring on the screaming Environmentalists. If they want to destroy American sovereignty with open borders and an International Highway, Environmentalists say NOTHING about a 250,000 square acres slab of concrete.
Why is this not the biggest Environmental issue in history? Connect the dots.
http://www.mmlv.us/nacorridors.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1544550/Texans-fear-US-sovereignty-will-disappear-down-superhighway.html
http://www.edhtelegraph.com/detail/84695.html
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15763
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/11/michael-crichton-praises-new-skeptical-environmentalists-guide-global
Winterules: Yes, you are making my point. What they shouldn’t fight they fight, what they should fight – – – not a word.
Environmentalist: I think you completely missed the point – – – – who’s alex jones?
The Expert answers:
They didn’t start out that way, but ever since the environmental movement was taken over by a bunch of socialists, the goal has been to destroy our capitalist economy.
Unfortunately it’s working.
James asks…
Is Texas right to fight US EPA over greenhouse gases?
EPA Takes Over Texas Air Permit Process
12/24/2010
Tulsa World
JEFF CARLTON
DALLAS – The Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday that it is taking the unprecedented step of directly issuing air permits to industries in Texas, citing the state’s unwillingness to comply with greenhouse gas regulations going into effect Jan. 2.
EPA officials indicated they reluctantly were taking over Clean Air Act Permits for greenhouse gas emissions because “officials in Texas have made clear … they have no intention of implementing this portion of the federal air permitting program.”
“EPA prefers that the state of Texas and all states remain the permitting authority for (greenhouse gas) sources,” the agency said in a statement. “In the same way that EPA has worked with other states and local agencies, the agency stands ready to do the same with (Texas).”
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the world’s second largest environmental regulatory agency after the EPA, has said it will not modify its permitting process to include greenhouse gas emissions. In a statement Thursday, the TCEQ said it is still studying the EPA’s plan to take over permitting in Texas, adding that it is neither a “common sense approach nor a reasonable approach.”
“The EPA cannot measure reductions in (carbon dioxide) or any other (greenhouse gas) with this new regulation, and the EPA cannot correlate this new regulation to any environmental or health benefit,” the TCEQ said.
The federal agency also plans to issue greenhouse gas permits in seven other states – Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Oregon and Wyoming. But those states have indicated they are revising their permitting process to comply with greenhouse gas emission regulations.
Texas, which estimated 167 projects would be affected by the new rules, stands alone in refusing to modify its permitting process. The Lone Star State has more oil refineries, chemical plants and coal-fired power plants than any other state, and leads the nation in greenhouse gas emissions and industrial pollution.
Texas and the EPA have repeatedly clashed over environmental issues, a division Gov. Rick Perry used on the campaign trail as an example of Washington trampling on states’ rights.
The new greenhouse gas rules go into effect Jan. 2. They require the nation’s largest industries to meet more stringent greenhouse gas emissions standards in new facilities or ones that are undergoing significant modifications.
The standards were enacted after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases are pollutants that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act and a 2009 EPA finding that the gases can pose a danger to human health. SUBHEAD: Texas officials refuse to include greenhouse gases in their regulatory authorizations.
Originally published by JEFF CARLTON Associated Press.
(c) 2010 Tulsa World. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.
The Expert answers:
The judicial branch has by allowing the epa to, by executive decree, perform a task which is specifically a legislative branch responsibility, acted outside of its constitutional purview. The legislative branch should act to cancel the epa’s funding for this particular activity, if that fails, then they could cut off all funding to the epa, a function which is eminently doable, and a high probability in the new congress beginning in 2011.
Texas is absolutely correct in not complying with a order from the epa which has not been passed by the congress. Expect to see some fireworks on this one, among other things in the new congress.
Sandy asks…
Should state or federal governments regulate the environment?
Environmental regulations can be tricky, because there are regulations set by the federal EPA, and then there are often other regulations set by state environmental agencies.
This issue is coming to a head in Texas, which has long had very lax state environmental regulations. About 200 Texas facilities are now operating with air and water permits that are either out of date or have been disapproved by the EPA. Texas had issued flexible pollution permits, and in one example such a permit has allowed Shell’s Deer Park refinery to emit nearly double the amount of sulfur dioxide than would be permissible if it had a federally acceptable permit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/30/rick-perry-texas-epa_n_802643.html
A counter-example is California, where state environmental regulations tend to be stricter than federal regulations.
The issue also relates to global warming, as Texas is the main state trying to sue the EPA, claiming that its Supreme Court-mandated greenhouse gas regulations are overstepping boundaries and meddling in states’ rights.
If environmental regulation were left up to individual states, there would be a lot more variation in pollution levels. California’s would remain quite low and safe, whereas Texas‘ would be quite high and probably put Texans’ health at risk. When it comes to greenhouse gases, only a few states would regulate them at all, whereas with the federal EPA in charge, all states will have the same greenhouse gas regulations.
What do you think – should state or federal governments regulate the environment?
The Expert answers:
Should state or federal governments regulate the environment?
Both. It depends on the scale of the effects of an action.
For example, water pollution an local biodiversity here are generally dealt with by local and county councils, but with national regulations and a national appeals procedure, these in turn within a european union framework. Air quality and pollutants that can travel globally really ought be ultimately regulated by an international framework. Otherwise there is no recompense for damage by your neighbors pollution. Oh, you get that already by you, soot from china, from the factories making our trainers and ipods. How ironic. And we get the muck from eastern europe when the wind is in the east. Not so bad now, but still measurable with a rain gauge and ph tester in my own back yard a few years ago – ph of only just over 5 compared to 6 – 6 1/2 from any other quater.
Happy new year dana! And keep up the good work in the other place, we are very proud of you.
George asks…
Bill writing exercise (please help me)?
Your bill may be on any state legislative subject you wish. The war in Iraq and immigration reform are federal responsibilities, but there are state responsibilities also. For instance, the State of Texas could reward Iraq War veterans from Texas by some method (free tuition to state colleges, additional funding for new homes, extra exemption from property taxes). On immigration, the City of Farmers Branch recently passed an ordinance requiring that landlords check on the legal residency status of potential renters. The ordinance is currently unenforceable because of a federal court injunction, but this may change. There are lots of other state subjects for legislation – taxes, gambling, roads, social service spending, education, law enforcement, environmental issues, and the list is lengthy. Use your imagination, but narrow the subject to a reasonable item for one bill.
Put an arbitrary number in HB [ ]. In each legislative session, the state legislature numbers the bills and resolutions that are filed. This bill was filed in the Texas House of Representatives, HB [ ] by you.
Section 1 requires definitions. The law must be specific to reduce “wiggle room” for people to escape the purpose of the law.
Section 2 is the “meat” of the law. What are the components of the law? What are you trying to accomplish? Will the new law require another state agency or can an existing state agency enforce it?
Section 3 establishes the penalties for violating the law. There can be civil and/or criminal penalties.
Texas Legislative Services HB[ ]
Filed by [ ]
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
[ ]
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
Section 1. Definitions.
[ ]
Section 2. Provisions.
[ ]
Section 3. Penalties.
[ ]
Section 4. Repealer Clause
All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are herewith repealed to the extent of the conflict.
Section 5. Severability Clause
If any portion of this Act shall be declared unconstitutional, it is the intent of this Legislature that the other portions of this Act shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 6. Emergency Clause
The importance of this legislation and the crowded conditions of the calendars of both Houses create an imperative public necessity that the Constitutional Rule requiring that Bills be read on three separate days in each House be suspended, and that this Act shall take effect immediately upon its passage, and it is so enacted.
I just dont get it, but if i pick issue like IMMIGRATION then i write about it. The thing is that i dont know what to write about the definition
would you please just help me writing the definition for immigration?
The Expert answers:
O.K. First think of what your ‘new law’ is going to be about.It will be easier if you select a topic that you feel strongly about and that to date has no law enacted as you would wish to see.
Then in definitions write clearly exactly who your law is going to apply to and be detailed here Men-women-minors-landlords who exactly?.
Then in Section 2 ‘provisions ‘ write what your law is about.’
Then,section 3 write down the penalties for not observing your law.
Will they encompass a fine,imprisonment or both?.If so how much/for how long?
Powered by Yahoo! Answers