Judicial System Upholds EPA Regulation: Greenhouse gases "Threat to human health and safety"

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=642FE412-DCB2-4A3D-B3D3-BF0BCB1401B3

In a surprisingly sweeping win for the Obama administration's climate policies, a federal appeals court said Tuesday that the Environmental Protection Agency is "unambiguously correct" in the legal reasoning behind its regulation of greenhouse gases.

The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit strenuously backed the EPA's finding that the climate-altering emissions pose a danger to public health and welfare. It also upheld the agency's early requirements for vehicles and new industrial plants while rejecting every challenge brought by a host of industry groups, states and other critics.In addition, the court approved the EPA's attempts to narrow the number of companies that must comply with its greenhouse gas rules. And the three-judge panel rejected attacks on the EPA's interpretation of climate science, including critics' argument that the "Climategate" email scandal required the agency to reconsider its decisions.

The court even mocked the critics' claim that the EPA had improperly "delegated" its scientific judgment to outside groups, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "This argument is little more than a semantic trick," the judges wrote, adding that building on past research "is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question."

While opponents can try to take the case to the Supreme Court, EPA supporters hailed the scope and tenor of the ruling as a victory that should have staying power.

So... "Duh"? I mean, no shit. The evidence is there, there is an extreme scientific consensus, and everyone with half a brain understands the basics of climate change. The NYT reports, more concisely:

A federal court has rejected Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency's finding that unregulated greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to human health and safety.

Yeah, this isn't rocket science, people.

Another victory for common sense. The idea that the GOP wants to get rid of the EPA entirely is fucking terrifying. My lungs hurt just thinking about it.

Why would anyone be against this? Do these people not know what happens if emissions aren't kept in check? Money's kinda useless when you die of black lung from breathing the fucking air!

wintercoat:
Why would anyone be against this? Do these people not know what happens if emissions aren't kept in check? Money's kinda useless when you die of black lung from breathing the fucking air!

This was, AFAICT, particularly for CO2 and Methane, gases which, outside of the context of gassing and global warming, cause very little harm. You're not going to die from breathing an atmosphere with slightly higher CO2 concentrations. This is why this case is so important - it means that global warming is officially recognized by the US legal system, and that human causes of it are considered a threat to health and human safety. THAT'S A BIG DEAL!

I have a secret hope that the GOP win, just so I see how long it takes for the US to wreck itself. Extreme schadenfreude essentially, though I know it'll fuck the rest of the world too.

Suave Charlie:
I have a secret hope that the GOP win, just so I see how long it takes for the US to wreck itself. Extreme schadenfreude essentially, though I know it'll fuck the rest of the world too.

Not worth it - they can bring all of us down with them.

Suave Charlie:
I have a secret hope that the GOP win, just so I see how long it takes for the US to wreck itself. Extreme schadenfreude essentially, though I know it'll fuck the rest of the world too.

Eh, my government has been building up a budget surplus in case of another financial crisis. Funny how they chose to do that in a US election year.

Nice little baby step. No, wait. Nice little not-backwards-step. Isn't it sad that things are so bad that this is counted as a win?
I liked the mocking part of it, though.
Maybe next, the USA can sign Kyoto or do any of the other very basic things?

Skeleon:
Nice little baby step. No, wait. Nice little not-backwards-step. Isn't it sad that things are so bad that this is counted as a win?

I know what you mean.

Skeleon:
Maybe next, the USA can sign Kyoto or do any of the other very basic things?

Dunno about that. Way back when the Howard government was in charge of Australia, they didn't sign Kyoto, and got a lot of flak over that. The was followed by the Rudd government, which did sign...only Australia is now in the list of countries that did sign but that aren't going to meet its target.

IMHO, the Howard government did the right thing. If you're not going to abide by the rules, don't sign and pretend you are.

Skeleon:
Nice little baby step. No, wait. Nice little not-backwards-step. Isn't it sad that things are so bad that this is counted as a win?
I liked the mocking part of it, though.
Maybe next, the USA can sign Kyoto or do any of the other very basic things?

Maybe someday, we can get back to the Geneva Convention.

(And Captcha says "Know your rights". I know, Cap, I know...)

Damn. Obamacare, Stolen Valour, and now this; the mightie righties must be having a collective stroke over there right now. That thought pleases me >:)

My personal opinion? The anti-EPA crowd should tape their cars shut, attach a hose to the exhaust and stick it in their car, turn on the engine and wait for a few hours while they breathe 'completely harmless' greenhouse gasses.

If anyone comes out of that without changing his opinion, he's still a climate sceptic, but at least a fairly heroic one that you can't accuse of hypocrisy.

Blablahb:
My personal opinion? The anti-EPA crowd should tape their cars shut, attach a hose to the exhaust and stick it in their car, turn on the engine and wait for a few hours while they breathe 'completely harmless' greenhouse gasses.

If anyone comes out of that without changing his opinion, he's still a climate sceptic, but at least a fairly heroic one that you can't accuse of hypocrisy.

Apparently, at least in many places, modern petrol is much less dangerous then it was (though TV and movies are yet to catch up). Stupid environmentalists, stopping anti-EPA people from conveniently offing themselves.

everythingbeeps:
Another victory for common sense. The idea that the GOP wants to get rid of the EPA entirely is fucking terrifying. My lungs hurt just thinking about it.

Without an EPA, can a person harmed by another's excessive harmful actions not be handled through tort and actions for injunctive relief to protect others? If so, why do we need an EPA?

Gorfias:

everythingbeeps:
Another victory for common sense. The idea that the GOP wants to get rid of the EPA entirely is fucking terrifying. My lungs hurt just thinking about it.

Without an EPA, can a person harmed by another's excessive harmful actions not be handled through tort and actions for injunctive relief to protect others? If so, why do we need an EPA?

How is that preferable? For one thing, the companies we need protection from have armies of lawyers and unending stacks of money to bludgeon us with. The only thing that even has a chance of keeping them in check is the government.

For another, your plan would result in a lot more "get sick first, and then seek justice" cases rather than simple prevention.

Even with the EPA, we're already destroying the environment pretty handily. Without it? Forget it. Many industrial companies have made it perfectly clear they don't give a fuck about damaging the planet (or more specifically, damaging our ability to survive on it, since yeah, the planet itself isn't going anywhere.) Money is more important than breathable air.

Gorfias:

everythingbeeps:
Another victory for common sense. The idea that the GOP wants to get rid of the EPA entirely is fucking terrifying. My lungs hurt just thinking about it.

Without an EPA, can a person harmed by another's excessive harmful actions not be handled through tort and actions for injunctive relief to protect others? If so, why do we need an EPA?

This is typical US Conservative thinking, that money can fix things after they happen rather than preventing them from happening in the first place.

You would never successfully sue a company for air pollution, water pollution etc if there were no laws in place making it illegal. The reason is simple, you would have to sue every single company that was polluting otherwise the one you picked out will just argue that you could blame anyone of the polluters. Most people do not have the resources to fight a legal battle against a single corporate entity, how do you think they will go against fifty of them.

Your solution also does nothing to prevent indirect effects of pollution, global warming for example. No court is every going to let you sue a company for contributing to global warming, regardless of how much greenhouse gas they pump out.

Gorfias:

everythingbeeps:
Another victory for common sense. The idea that the GOP wants to get rid of the EPA entirely is fucking terrifying. My lungs hurt just thinking about it.

Without an EPA, can a person harmed by another's excessive harmful actions not be handled through tort and actions for injunctive relief to protect others? If so, why do we need an EPA?

Personally, I think being able to hold companies responsible for dumping shit in waterways and deliberately screwing up the ecological systems of the public and private areas around them is a good thing.

Gorfias:

everythingbeeps:
Another victory for common sense. The idea that the GOP wants to get rid of the EPA entirely is fucking terrifying. My lungs hurt just thinking about it.

Without an EPA, can a person harmed by another's excessive harmful actions not be handled through tort and actions for injunctive relief to protect others? If so, why do we need an EPA?

Yeah, let's sue the bastards that made billions of dollars and made our air unbreathable.
That would show them.

Jesus C. You lot are all for banning tobacco, but this is perfectly acceptable?
What is wrong with Republicans? Were they all dropped on their head as a kid?

Bassik:

Gorfias:

everythingbeeps:
Another victory for common sense. The idea that the GOP wants to get rid of the EPA entirely is fucking terrifying. My lungs hurt just thinking about it.

Without an EPA, can a person harmed by another's excessive harmful actions not be handled through tort and actions for injunctive relief to protect others? If so, why do we need an EPA?

Yeah, let's sue the bastards that made billions of dollars and made our air unbreathable.
That would show them.

Jesus C. You lot are all for banning tobacco, but this is perfectly acceptable?
What is wrong with Republicans? Were they all dropped on their head as a kid?

From what I've been able to gather, the Republicans are all for small government, but only when it's convenient and agreeable for them. They're all for companies ruining the environment, minimizing if not eliminating welfare and government assistance, and minimizing if not eliminating corporate regulations like minimum wage, labor regulations, etc. But if you're gay, want an abortion, or want to do anything else they disagree with for any reason? Bring in the bans and regulations! They want the government all up in your business.

Gorfias:
Without an EPA, can a person harmed by another's excessive harmful actions not be handled through tort and actions for injunctive relief to protect others? If so, why do we need an EPA?

How do you realistically see that happen with the same effects?

For one thing one people strike back through legal means (which they often can't, or won't for lack of knowledge) after the damage has been done.

Good example: in the Netherland, the Geul river is heavily polluted by Belgians dumping toxic mining waste, including heavy metals like lead. Swimming is forbidden in that river.

Suppose nobody cared to put up signs (because those are environmental measures), I drink from that, swim in it, and then I get health problems. Then what? The Belgian mines have long been shut down, and it's not like the Belgian government will give a shit about what goes on across the border. Who am I going to sue to get compensation for damages already done, and who's going to clean up the mess?


Because even with environmental laws a lot stricter than in the US, nobody cares to clean that mess up.

Lilani:

Bassik:

Gorfias:

Without an EPA, can a person harmed by another's excessive harmful actions not be handled through tort and actions for injunctive relief to protect others? If so, why do we need an EPA?

Yeah, let's sue the bastards that made billions of dollars and made our air unbreathable.
That would show them.

Jesus C. You lot are all for banning tobacco, but this is perfectly acceptable?
What is wrong with Republicans? Were they all dropped on their head as a kid?

From what I've been able to gather, the Republicans are all for small government, but only when it's convenient and agreeable for them. They're all for companies ruining the environment, minimizing if not eliminating welfare and government assistance, and minimizing if not eliminating corporate regulations like minimum wage, labor regulations, etc. But if you're gay, want an abortion, or want to do anything else they disagree with for any reason? Bring in the bans and regulations! They want the government all up in your business.

What type of person would vote for them?
To me, Republican voters are as alien as North Koreans, hailing their Great Leader every night before they go to bed.
The indoctrination is different, but the result is the same: a lack of free thinking.

Now, Republican posters here, I agree that the Democrats are terrible as well, but you have to admit, when choosing between ass holes and crazies, it should be ass holes every time.

Sorry to not be quoting most, got about 8 replies! Hope some of y'all read this.

A big argument you had was that tort law comes into affect AFTER someone has already been hurt but you didn't really address INJUNCTION. Someone building in a way that you know will negatively impact you and/or your community, sue to have them stopped in the first place. No harm and no EPA involved.

You also note that business is powerful. Well, there is still pollution in the USA. The EPA is as effected as any other court by this. I still don't know what they do that is at all helpful in this matter. Get rid of them, let the law work, and we have smaller, less costly government. Good all around.

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
Without an EPA, can a person harmed by another's excessive harmful actions not be handled through tort and actions for injunctive relief to protect others? If so, why do we need an EPA?

How do you realistically see that happen with the same effects?

For one thing one people strike back through legal means (which they often can't, or won't for lack of knowledge) after the damage has been done.

Good example: in the Netherland, the Geul river is heavily polluted by Belgians dumping toxic mining waste, including heavy metals like lead. Swimming is forbidden in that river.

Suppose nobody cared to put up signs (because those are environmental measures), I drink from that, swim in it, and then I get health problems. Then what? The Belgian mines have long been shut down, and it's not like the Belgian government will give a shit about what goes on across the border. Who am I going to sue to get compensation for damages already done, and who's going to clean up the mess?

Because even with environmental laws a lot stricter than in the US, nobody cares to clean that mess up.

Quoting this as it was a bit more off topic from others that quoted me: You are writing of inter-governmental pollution. I honestly don't know how we handle that, but I think it can be done without the EPA. Example: China need not give a damn about it's own citizens, let alone others. What is Japan to do if great amounts of pollution from China reach Japan? I honestly don't know. I'm not waiting for the UN to be helpful. Are you?

Gorfias:
Sorry to not be quoting most, got about 8 replies! Hope some of y'all read this.

A big argument you had was that tort law comes into affect AFTER someone has already been hurt but you didn't really address INJUNCTION. Someone building in a way that you know will negatively impact you and/or your community, sue to have them stopped in the first place. No harm and no EPA involved.

You also note that business is powerful. Well, there is still pollution in the USA. The EPA is as effected as any other court by this. I still don't know what they do that is at all helpful in this matter. Get rid of them, let the law work, and we have smaller, less costly government. Good all around.

It is much cheaper to have an EPA with standardized guidelines, inspections and so on for vehicles, factories, and other pollutant-producing things than it is to try handle the issue through torts. Standardized guidelines are much more efficient than asking a decentralized judiciary to craft regulations for businesses and individuals on the fly. Inspections with established legal authority are much more efficient than holding a discovery process to determine the harm of every emission-producing machine. And having one agency to deal with all of it is much more efficient than having thousands of courts come up with differing ideas on what constitutes appropriate rewards, damages, and to whom they are to be paid. When the issue is specific, such as there being hexavalent chromium leaking into the groundwater of some town, then that is a matter appropriate for the judiciary (but that can also be handled by the EPA, I would think.) When the issue is broad, such as there being ill effects (like global climate change) due to the aggregate contribution of greenhouse gases from the actions of basically everyone living on earth (and others besides), the judiciary is ill-suited to the task. That's a matter for politics, not jurisprudence. Enacting regulations, levying sin taxes (carbon tax, for example) and deciding what is acceptable and what is not is much better left to a government agency or the legislative branch that empowers it than the many courts of this country.

Bassik:
What type of person would vote for them?
To me, Republican voters are as alien as North Koreans, hailing their Great Leader every night before they go to bed.
The indoctrination is different, but the result is the same: a lack of free thinking.

Now, Republican posters here, I agree that the Democrats are terrible as well, but you have to admit, when choosing between ass holes and crazies, it should be ass holes every time.

Well, people either agree with them on those social issues, or they're willing to forgive their positions on those because they dislike the Democrats even more. My dad, for example. He thinks gays should be able to marry and he thinks women should have the right to choose to have an abortion. But, he absolutely abhors Obamacare, he's not convinced of climate change (or if he is, he doesn't like anything the Democrats want to do about it), and he sells guns so he's afraid the Democrats are going to try and take away guns.

So...yeah. Their most vocal base are those crazy conservatives who agree with them on everything, but most of them just disagree with them less than they disagree with the Democrats. And to be fair, there are a good portion of Republicans who are also pro-gay and pro-choice. But the ones involved in politics are getting drowned out by the extremists, which in turn also silences the more moderate opinions of their voters. Because the conservatives find a lot of pride in being the "true conservative" running. They've taken their one-sidedness and turned it into a badge of honor they freely advertise, because so many on that side see it as a desirable trait.

Personally, I think they are going to self-destruct. If they lose this election in November then very soon, but if they don't then it might take a bit longer. But either way I think it will happen. The majority people are slowly but surely turning against them on all the social issues. If they keep listening to the silent minority like they have been, they are quickly going to render themselves irrelevant in the eyes of most US citizens. Just like in the 50s and 60s, they'll be the party of intolerance. They've already lost one Supreme Court battle to the Democrats with Obamacare. I'm fairly certain if anything regarding gay rights and abortion hit the Supreme Court they will also lose those. Abortion has a bit of a precedent with Roe v. Wade, and even though that has to do with birth control it's still likely to be taken into account. And there is no objective, legal reason for gay marriage to be outlawed, so if and when that gets judicial scrutiny the conservatives don't stand a chance (and it already happened in California, actually, when the highest court in that state struck down Proposition 8). Once they get two more inarguable losses like that, they will be forced to change their strategy and what part of their base they listen to.

Or at least I hope it turns out that way, anyway :-\ I'm no political expert. And I don't think of myself as a liberal or a conservative. I just lean some ways on some issues and other ways on other issues. But man, the Republicans have made their party so undesirable I won't be touching them with a 10 foot pole until they get their act together. Maybe if one of the candidates for congress or senate in my state are one of those more moderate conservatives I'll give them a chance. But from the ads I've been seeing, the way they throw around the term "true conservative" like it's some royal title, I'm thinking that's not going to happen.

Bassik:

Lilani:

Bassik:

Yeah, let's sue the bastards that made billions of dollars and made our air unbreathable.
That would show them.

Jesus C. You lot are all for banning tobacco, but this is perfectly acceptable?
What is wrong with Republicans? Were they all dropped on their head as a kid?

From what I've been able to gather, the Republicans are all for small government, but only when it's convenient and agreeable for them. They're all for companies ruining the environment, minimizing if not eliminating welfare and government assistance, and minimizing if not eliminating corporate regulations like minimum wage, labor regulations, etc. But if you're gay, want an abortion, or want to do anything else they disagree with for any reason? Bring in the bans and regulations! They want the government all up in your business.

What type of person would vote for them?
To me, Republican voters are as alien as North Koreans, hailing their Great Leader every night before they go to bed.
The indoctrination is different, but the result is the same: a lack of free thinking.

Now, Republican posters here, I agree that the Democrats are terrible as well, but you have to admit, when choosing between ass holes and crazies, it should be ass holes every time.

I remember Alex Pelosi shot a short documentary in Mississippi, asking people what the didn't like about the current government etc etc. At least with the case of the miserably rural poor, the vote purely on moral issues (abortion, gay marriage etc) because they've become so disenfrancised about the governments functionality with anything else. Basically "I'm poor and it's hard, no administration has changed that for as long as I can remember, so I'm just going to vote purely on my personal beliefs" That's really only applicable to poor rural conservatives, but I think it hold some validity for them.

Anyone else? Yeah, I got nothing.

Gorfias:

everythingbeeps:
Another victory for common sense. The idea that the GOP wants to get rid of the EPA entirely is fucking terrifying. My lungs hurt just thinking about it.

Without an EPA, can a person harmed by another's excessive harmful actions not be handled through tort and actions for injunctive relief to protect others? If so, why do we need an EPA?

You're joking, right?

CO2 isn't exactly tagged. When the oceans rise because global warming caused the ice caps to melt and destroy my house near the sea; when weather patterns change and my farm that has been a productive, vibrant bit of land for generations becomes a drought-ravaged dust bowl destroying my livelihood, I can't exactly say, "Oh, well this carbon cam from General Motors cars so I want x million dollars from them."

This is great news. I'm pleased to hear this.

everythingbeeps:
(or more specifically, damaging our ability to survive on it, since yeah, the planet itself isn't going anywhere.)

But the planet is going somewhere.

The sun is losing mass at a steady rate via conversion of mass to energy, so the Earth is steadily moving farther and farther away from the Sun. Also, when the sun runs out of fuel it will expand and then blow out its outer layers to form a white dwarf, which is probably going to be too light to be able to keep Earth in orbit. So yeah, the Earth is going somewhere.

Just saying :P

Pingieking:
But the planet is going somewhere.

The sun is losing mass at a steady rate via conversion of mass to energy, so the Earth is steadily moving farther and farther away from the Sun. Also, when the sun runs out of fuel it will expand and then blow out its outer layers to form a white dwarf, which is probably going to be too light to be able to keep Earth in orbit. So yeah, the Earth is going somewhere.

Just saying :P

Smartarse. Why don't you bring up the heat death of the universe while you're at it? ^^

Pingieking:

everythingbeeps:
(or more specifically, damaging our ability to survive on it, since yeah, the planet itself isn't going anywhere.)

But the planet is going somewhere.

The sun is losing mass at a steady rate via conversion of mass to energy, so the Earth is steadily moving farther and farther away from the Sun. Also, when the sun runs out of fuel it will expand and then blow out its outer layers to form a white dwarf, which is probably going to be too light to be able to keep Earth in orbit. So yeah, the Earth is going somewhere.

Just saying :P

You forgot to mention the bit about it revolving in an elliptical orbit around a star, which is itself in motion.

Mind you, there's no absolute reference point, so it could be argued that it's valid to say everything else is moving instead.

Katatori-kun:

Gorfias:

everythingbeeps:
Another victory for common sense. The idea that the GOP wants to get rid of the EPA entirely is fucking terrifying. My lungs hurt just thinking about it.

Without an EPA, can a person harmed by another's excessive harmful actions not be handled through tort and actions for injunctive relief to protect others? If so, why do we need an EPA?

You're joking, right?

CO2 isn't exactly tagged. When the oceans rise because global warming caused the ice caps to melt and destroy my house near the sea; when weather patterns change and my farm that has been a productive, vibrant bit of land for generations becomes a drought-ravaged dust bowl destroying my livelihood, I can't exactly say, "Oh, well this carbon cam from General Motors cars so I want x million dollars from them."

What does the EPA do to regulate CO2 from China?

Seanchaidh:

Gorfias:
Get rid of them (EPA), let the law work, and we have smaller, less costly government. Good all around.

It is much cheaper to have an EPA with standardized guidelines, inspections and so on for vehicles, factories, and other pollutant-producing things than it is to try handle the issue through torts.

Don't we already have both? If we only had one, wouldn't we realize greater efficiencies?

You've written that the two seem to work well in defined areas. I tend to still think, get rid of the EPA, and the courts will do at least as well without them, while creating greater efficiency. JMHO.

EDIT: ITMT, getting rid of the EPA is a debatable idea that deserves its own thread. For people on this thread to simply assume it is insane to want to be rid of it strikes me as silly.

Gorfias:

Katatori-kun:

Gorfias:

Without an EPA, can a person harmed by another's excessive harmful actions not be handled through tort and actions for injunctive relief to protect others? If so, why do we need an EPA?

You're joking, right?

CO2 isn't exactly tagged. When the oceans rise because global warming caused the ice caps to melt and destroy my house near the sea; when weather patterns change and my farm that has been a productive, vibrant bit of land for generations becomes a drought-ravaged dust bowl destroying my livelihood, I can't exactly say, "Oh, well this carbon cam from General Motors cars so I want x million dollars from them."

What does the EPA do to regulate CO2 from China?

Nothing. What's your point? Surely you're not about to suggest in an insultingly facile strawman that a government law that doesn't cover other sovereign nations has no benefit in protecting its own people. Because I've got news for you: The local police can't protect you from piracy on the high seas either, but that doesn't invalidate your local anti-theft laws.

In any case, the US is in a much stronger position to negotiate China into reducing it's carbon emissions when the US is willing to be bound by the same laws. "You guys really need to stop doing this thing we're totally willing to do," has never been a strong negotiating stance.

Katatori-kun:

Gorfias:

What does the EPA do to regulate CO2 from China?

Nothing.

Thank you.

What's your point? Surely you're not about to suggest in an insultingly facile strawman that a government law that doesn't cover other sovereign nations has no benefit in protecting its own people. Because I've got news for you: The local police can't protect you from piracy on the high seas either, but that doesn't invalidate your local anti-theft laws.

In any case, the US is in a much stronger position to negotiate China into reducing it's carbon emissions when the US is willing to be bound by the same laws. "You guys really need to stop doing this thing we're totally willing to do," has never been a strong negotiating stance.

Sounds like a lot of nothing adding up to, "we do not need an EPA." Again, thank you. As I posted before, people need to stop the nonsense about the idea that we don't need an EPA is absurd. You can argue that it is helpful. I think it is not. But to argue it is vital is silly sounding.

Gorfias:
Sounds like a lot of nothing adding up to, "we do not need an EPA." Again, thank you. As I posted before, people need to stop the nonsense about the idea that we don't need an EPA is absurd. You can argue that it is helpful. I think it is not. But to argue it is vital is silly sounding.

Hooray for sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending you heard what you wanted to hear!

Nothing I said suggests even remotely that we don't need an EPA. We do. For a reason that you've studiously avoided this entire thread. Prevention is better than cure. The ability to sue a company for millions for causing environmental damage that destroys your livelihood, ruins your health and destroys your quality of living for the short remainder of your life is poor compensation. Better to stop the poison before anyone gets affected.

Katatori-kun:

Gorfias:
Sounds like a lot of nothing adding up to, "we do not need an EPA." Again, thank you. As I posted before, people need to stop the nonsense about the idea that we don't need an EPA is absurd. You can argue that it is helpful. I think it is not. But to argue it is vital is silly sounding.

Hooray for sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending you heard what you wanted to hear!

Nothing I said suggests even remotely that we don't need an EPA. We do. For a reason that you've studiously avoided this entire thread. Prevention is better than cure. The ability to sue a company for millions for causing environmental damage that destroys your livelihood, ruins your health and destroys your quality of living for the short remainder of your life is poor compensation. Better to stop the poison before anyone gets affected.

I've noticed that the Libertarian ideal of 'social responsibility' seems to boil down to "well, if the survivors can figure out who did it, they can just sue!" This strikes me as inadequate.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked