Drinking from a fire hose...

[SkyDekker 1,141]

brenthutch

***>Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

Given the improvements in the ozone layer, pollution levels in the US and improvements in drinking water standards in most of the US from those evil, hateful regulations, he's not wrong.

If Trump really works at it, maybe we can have another river catch fire before he leaves office! Or another Donora.

Just how does approving the Keystone XL pipeline cause rivers to ignite?
This hyperbolic, "the sky is falling," rhetoric, is just one of the many reasons I laugh at lefties. How in the world do you ever expect to be taken seriously.

Without regulation how do you prevent this timelapse from being shot in New York, Chicago, or LA in the next couple of years?

https://gfycat.com/UnevenZealousBurro

[brenthutch 388]

Do you really think that Governor Brown would ever let that happen? I never said no regulations.

[jakee 1,257]

brenthutch

I share that I am glad that the new administration has shown a willingness to take a second look at overly burdensome EPA regulations, that somehow translates into burning rivers in the brains of many on this thread, yourself included.

Well that's quite literally not what you said, is it? You didn't say they'd look at it at all, you said they'd automatically remove it, billions of dollars worth at a time. You said they'd stop regulating and cut the budgets of the reguatory agencies.

Now, if you judge regulation on the cost to business rather than the effect on damaging and poisonous pollution and waste, you're going to have undesirable consequences. If you slash the budgets of regulatory agencies they won't just have to stop enforcing what you view as bad 'burdensome' regulation, they'll also be unable to enforce what you might view as good 'don't make rivers flammable' regulation.

If you think you can take a slash and burn approach to the EPA, OSHA and other regulators and industry wont take advantage in starting to use cheaper but unsafe practices then you're tragically naive.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JerryBaumchen 1,061]

Hi brent,

Quote

overly burdensome EPA regulations

Do you think that you could quantify this so that we ( well, at least me ) could have some idea of what you are concerned about?

Jerry Baumchen

PS) I recommend anyone concered about pollution & the EPA to read 'A Civil Action': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action

[brenthutch 388]

Clean Power Plan and the expansion of what is defined as wetlands to name a few.

[Phil1111 913]

I have to agree with Brent on the XL pipeline. Energy pipelines are the safest method to move petroleum products by far.

I have to disagree with rolling back environmental regulations unless they have no benefit to all of, environment, safety or costs.

trump has stated that he wants to roll back regulations on coal. Coal is dead. There will never be another coal mine built or coal fired power plant expansion. Although there is the prospect of legacy (existing) coal mines continued operations through deregulation. Natural gas is already cheaper than coal. Its more responsive to peak and irregular power demands than even coal.

In addition, more deregulation of fracking and drilling will bring more nat gas to the markets.

[billvon 2,426]

>Just how does approving the Keystone XL pipeline cause rivers to ignite?

The Keystone XL is an oil pipeline. One of the reasons for the current protest is that it runs very close to (and in one place under) the Missouri River. I'll let you figure out the rest.

However, the Keystone is only one, very small part of the issue. If that's all that changed (i.e. approval for Keystone) the overall impact would be very slight, both economic and environmental. It is, after all, not even really needed; we already have a pipeline that carries that oil from Canada to Nebraska; this will just increase the pipeline's capacity.

>This hyperbolic, "the sky is falling," rhetoric . . . .

. . . . is in your imagination. The sky isn't falling. And that's true of the environment, climate change, Muslims, Mexicans, crime, gay rights etc etc.

BTW I used those examples because we did actually have rivers that caught on fire, and we did actually have a smog that killed 20 people. Google "Cuyahoga River Fire" and "Donora smog." Those are actual results of lack of environmental regulation in the US. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

[Phil1111 913]

gowlerk

It's true. Regulations without enforcement are meaningless. And many, even most of the bad effects will take years to show up. Thanks, Donald.

Then there are all the regulations with regards to trumps conflict of interest matters.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/

Perhaps there is a reason why the income tax records weren't disclosed. Why there was no press conference regarding what he was going to do about the conflicts.

Perhaps a fire hose will be needed to put out all the fires when the "deregulation" bills hit the floor.

[brenthutch 388]

Near as I can tell rivers weren't burning and smog was not killing people in the US during the Bush administration.

"The Obama Administration is responsible for an unparalleled expansion of the regulatory state, with the imposition of 229 major regulations since 2009 at a cost of $108 billion annually (using the regulatory agencies’ own numbers). The actual costs are far greater, both because costs have not been fully quantified for a significant number of rules, and because many of the worst effects—the loss of freedom and opportunity, for example—are incalculable. The need for reform is urgent. The White House, Congress, and federal agencies routinely breach legislative and even constitutional boundaries, and increasingly dictate lifestyle choices rather than focusing on public health and safety."

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/05/red-tape-rising-2016-obama-regs-top-100-billion-annually

[billvon 2,426]

>Near as I can tell rivers weren't burning and smog was not killing people in the
>US during the Bush administration.

Right, and I never claimed they were. By the time Bush came along the EPA had already made a lot of progress.

[quade 3]

Were you ever in Los Angeles prior to the '80s?

I was. I was born and raised here. It was awful. Bad enough where even just taking a breath hurt and it was difficult to see not just through, but because you're eyes would sting. Bad enough to actually kill people.

If you've never lived in a place with bad smog like that, I can see where a person might take a cavalier attitude toward the EPA. Not me. Fuck that shit.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 388]

I'm not suggesting that we get rid of environmental protection or all regulation. Let us just remove the hundred billion dollars of Obama's regulations. Just the prospect of less onerous governmental interference has led to booming stock markets. Ford just announced a billion dollar investment here in the US (instead of Mexico) citing the business friendly attitude of the incoming administration.

[JerryBaumchen 1,061]

Hi brent,

Quote

Ford just announced a billion dollar investment here in the US (instead of Mexico)

I realize that we may get our news from different sources. However, my local tv news today said that Ford cancelled a multi-billion dollar investment in Mexico and is doing a 700 million dollar investment in a US plant.

Jerry Baumchen

[brenthutch 388]

Wow that changes everything and completely invalidates my larger point.

While you are being overly pedantic, why don't you correct my figure of $100 billion in Obama's regulatory cost, when the actual number is $108 billion?

[Phil1111 913]

JerryBaumchen

Hi brent,

Quote

Ford just announced a billion dollar investment here in the US (instead of Mexico)

I realize that we may get our news from different sources. However, my local tv news today said that Ford cancelled a multi-billion dollar investment in Mexico and is doing a 700 million dollar investment in a US plant.

Jerry Baumchen

Agree

All good till the bills come due.
"Tax breaks in 2013 to such companies as Boeing Co., IBM Corp. and Toyota Motor Corp. were part of $17 billion from state and local governments, according to Good Jobs First. In 2014, the figure dropped to $7 billion, and last year fell to $4.8 billion, according to preliminary figures....

"Corporations have long gotten pretty much whatever they wanted under the guise that they are doing something wonderful for the community or society as a whole," wrote Tim Noonan of West Bend, Wisconsin, in a November 2014 letter to the board, arguing for greater disclosure of corporate incentives. “This is rarely ever the truth, they get what they want so a politician can make themselves look good for a reelection."

Louisiana, where declining oil prices slashed tax revenue, still provided $7 billion in tax breaks in 14 separate deals in the past three years. The cost of tax breaks and other incentives to corporations have exceeded state corporate income and franchise tax revenue by more than $225 million since November.

The state can ill afford such largess. The new governor, Democrat John Bel Edwards, took office in January facing a $950 million deficit in the current budget year and $2 billion in the next two.

Nor are incentives guarantors of prosperity. German Pellets Louisiana, a manufacturer of wood fuel for commercial and residential use, in 2013 received a $75 million industrial tax exemption for capital improvements under a state program for job creators. It filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in February. In a court filing, the company blamed slumping oil prices, warm winters and a bad investment...

"The pendulum may have been too generous,” Ciccarone said. “A correction is healthy, but you don’t want to create a hostile environment to economic activity."

The new GASB rules will require state and local governments to reveal the description and purpose of all tax abatements, the dollar amounts involved and provisions for recapturing the revenue.

"As the transparency gets better, that will increase the public outrage," said Thomas, who has followed trends in public subsidies for more than 20 years. "There’s an ebb and flow to subsidies, but somewhere down the line there will be another recession, and we’ll see what state and local governments do."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-26/taxpayer-gifts-to-companies-fall-70-as-u-s-states-pull-back

[brenthutch 388]

Yes subsidies are no less pernicious than over regulation.

[gowlerk 1,923]

brenthutch

Yes subsidies are no less pernicious than over regulation.

But they are also sometimes good, just less often. There is no use complaining about "over regulation". When you do that it is meaningless. All it does is identify something about your politics.

We have and need regulations. The invisible hand of the market needs to be controlled. Or it will simply destroy us. So pick a single regulation or set of regulations to discuss. If you do you may win a point. Or lose a point. But at least some words with real meaning can happen.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[PhreeZone 15]

JerryBaumchen

Hi brent,

Quote

Ford just announced a billion dollar investment here in the US (instead of Mexico)

I realize that we may get our news from different sources. However, my local tv news today said that Ford cancelled a multi-billion dollar investment in Mexico and is doing a 700 million dollar investment in a US plant.

Jerry Baumchen

Also of note was the line in most of the stories that Ford had decided they were going to be doing this no matter who won the election back in November since they felt this is what their shareholders were wanting of them. If Clinton had won the same thing was going to happen, trying to take credit for it is a stretch from either side.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 2,426]

>I'm not suggesting that we get rid of environmental protection or all regulation.

Good!

>Let us just remove the hundred billion dollars of Obama's regulations.

Yep. And the hundreds of billions of dollars caused by the CAFE requirements. And the hundreds of billions of dollars that air quality standards have cost us. Cut those and the economy will boom; keep them and we will kill US business.

Ford: If the “EPA does not suspend the [new rules], it will cause Ford to shut down.” Can't have that.

Chrysler: New CAFE standards might “outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars—or even smaller ones—within five years.” And no one wants to live in a world where there are only subcompacts.

And those statements were made in . . . the 1970's. And yet here we are, 40 years later, and the US car industry is doing quite well. SUV's are everywhere, even with those horrible CAFE requirements. And the CAFE/emissions requirements that the EPA has driven have given rise to entire new industries - the ECU industry, catalytic converter manufacture, hybrid drivetrain manufacture. Cars, on an adjusted dollar basis, are cheaper than they ever have been, and are safer, more efficient and faster. Fewer people are dying and cars are costing people less to buy and operate. Pretty good outcome for Americans.

So I am all for cutting the regulations that make no sense. But I'm not for killing needed regulation just because it costs money initially - because in the long run, the technology it drives both saves us money and creates new jobs. (And we save lives in the meantime.)

>Just the prospect of less onerous governmental interference has led to booming stock markets.

Great! We have the desired outcome already.

[millertime24 8]

Quote

SUV's are everywhere, even with those horrible CAFE requirements. And the CAFE/emissions requirements that the EPA has driven have given rise to entire new industries - the ECU industry, catalytic converter manufacture, hybrid drivetrain manufacture.

Im guessing that you have no idea how negativeliy emmisions controll systems affect a vehicle. Maybe not all emmisions controll systems, but on my diesel I'm very aware of the negative effects the exhaust gas recircualtion (EGR) has. It essentially feeds burned exhaust back through my intake and into my comustion chamber. Have you any idea how much soot is deposited throughout the intake because of this process? I do. It restricts air flow which causes the engine to run less efficient. If I wanted to fix it I would remove the exhaust gas cooler, re-route the EGR coolant lines, block the exhaust return from the manifold, remove the cat converter, and put a tune on the vehicles computer to wipe out the entire EGR system from the computers coding. From what I understand the engine would run more efficiently and I would get much better fuel economy. But I would never do that...

Muff #5048

[gowlerk 1,923]

If you were to do that, where would the soot go instead?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[DanG 1]

Quote

From what I understand the engine would run more efficiently and I would get much better fuel economy.

What is your clearly theoretical understanding of how this process would affect your emissions?

- Dan G

[brenthutch 388]

billvon

>I'm not suggesting that we get rid of environmental protection or all regulation.

Good!

>Let us just remove the hundred billion dollars of Obama's regulations.

Yep. And the hundreds of billions of dollars caused by the CAFE requirements. And the hundreds of billions of dollars that air quality standards have cost us. Cut those and the economy will boom; keep them and we will kill US business.

It might not kill businesses, it does kill people.

"According to the Brookings Institution, a 500-lb weight reduction of the average car increased annual highway fatalities by 2,200-3,900 and serious injuries by 11,000 and 19,500 per year. USA Today found that 7,700 deaths occurred for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards. Smaller cars accounted for up to 12,144 deaths in 1997, 37% of all vehicle fatalities for that year. The National Academy of Sciences found that smaller, lighter vehicles "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993." The National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration study demonstrated that reducing a vehicle's weight by only one hundred pounds increased the fatality rate by as much as 5.63% for light cars, 4.70% for heavier cars, and 3.06% for light trucks. These rates translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for heavier cars, and 14,705 for light trucks between 1996 and 1999."

[Phil1111 913]

brenthutch

***>I'm not suggesting that we get rid of environmental protection or all regulation.

Good!

>Let us just remove the hundred billion dollars of Obama's regulations.

Yep. And the hundreds of billions of dollars caused by the CAFE requirements. And the hundreds of billions of dollars that air quality standards have cost us. Cut those and the economy will boom; keep them and we will kill US business.

It might not kill businesses, it does kill people.

"According to the Brookings Institution, a 500-lb weight reduction of the average car increased annual highway fatalities by 2,200-3,900 and serious injuries by 11,000 and 19,500 per year. USA Today found that 7,700 deaths occurred for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards. Smaller cars accounted for up to 12,144 deaths in 1997, 37% of all vehicle fatalities for that year. The National Academy of Sciences found that smaller, lighter vehicles "probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993." The National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration study demonstrated that reducing a vehicle's weight by only one hundred pounds increased the fatality rate by as much as 5.63% for light cars, 4.70% for heavier cars, and 3.06% for light trucks. These rates translated into additional traffic fatalities of 13,608 for light cars, 10,884 for heavier cars, and 14,705 for light trucks between 1996 and 1999."

Thats a great point because the biggest driver, if you pardon the pun. In reducing auto emissions and simultaneously improving fuel economy. Is weight reduction of cars and light trucks.

I knew you would see the light on the environment Brent.Everyone does sooner or later.

Congratulations Brent!

[normiss 622]

Isn't there a $25,000 fine if caught towing any weight commercially with a deleted diesel?
Why would you want to dump that soot into the atmosphere?

"It essentially feeds burned exhaust back through my intake and into my combustion chamber."
I LOVE turbos!