FCA Busted!

General Discussion
21

Please don’t take this personally, because I’m going to try to make it about the issue, not you personally.

The view that we don’t need the EPA anymore is myopic, and here are my reasons for saying this:

-The most obvious reason is that, if we were to shut down the EPA, polluters would not regulate themselves. They would go back to their old ways of polluting indiscriminately.

-Here in Florida, toxic algae blooms in our waterways have become a routine annual event. In Jacksonville, toxic algae blooms happen in the Saint Johns River, and the pollution comes from paper mills. With Jacksonville being a conservative town in a red state, they don’t do anything about it. It’s become the new normal. Where I live in the Treasure Coast area, the Indian River Lagoon has been experiencing toxic algae blooms caused by runoff from corporate sugar plantations. It’s hurt tourism, which is crucial to our economy, so this isn’t just a liberal hippy issue, it’s an economic issue. If that weren’t bad enough, we now also have flesh-eating bacteria in the Indian River Lagoon. Try saying those words out loud, “FLESH-EATING BACTERIA,” and then try telling me we don’t need the EPA.

-Remember that huge oil spill a few years back in the Gulf of Mexico? According to the people who live on the coasts of Louisiana and Texas, the tar balls that washed up on shore were nothing new. They’ve been a byproduct of the offshore oil rigs and oil refineries for as long as most people can remember.

-The air quality in parts of Louisiana and near Houston, where the states refuse to regulate polluters, is terrible. Cancer rates and childhood asthma rates are high in those areas thanks to those polluters. In addition to the pollution from the oil industry, chemical companies build their plants there thanks to the lack of local and state regulation.

-The EPA dropped the ball in Flint, Michigan, but the water still isn’t safe to drink there, and I’d hate to see how bad it is now if the EPA wasn’t involved in solving the problem.

I am glad air quality has improved in places like Los Angeles and New York, but there are still plenty of places where the air still isn’t safe to breathe. Try telling someone who lives in Houston who suffers from childhood asthma that we don’t need the EPA. Try telling someone who lives in a cancer pocket in West Palm Beach where Lockheed Martin poisoned the water supply that we don’t need the EPA. Living in a cancer pocket can really open your eyes to the fact that environmental regulation shouldn’t be a partisan issue.

3 Likes
22

I don’t know. I drive a very low emissions Mazda6. It’s a blast to drive and gets almost 40mpg on the highway. I don’t think 54 mpg in 8 years would be that hard to reach, especially if all the SUV and truck driving people who don’t really NEED such monstrosities would buy something more appropriate for doing what they do 99.99% of the time. Driving on highways and roads with one person inside.

I grew up in NYC where you couldn’t breathe in the summer because the pollution was so bad. At night the cool air would invert over the city and press the hot, humid, toxic air down into our homes and we would lie in bed sweating and choking on the air. It’s much nicer now. I don’t think for a second that companies would hesitate to return NYC to its former disgusting state if the EPA removed all pollution controls and let industry self regulate.

2 Likes
23

Realize that I never said that. What I said was that it’s counterproductive to continue jacking the standards up beyond the point where the existing standards are already improving air and water quality on an ongoing basis. By “jacking the standards up” I also mean finding new and more applications… manifesting themselves as things like gas cans that can no longer be used without spilling gas. I finally modified mine by removing the dispersing part inside the spout, using a rubber table leg end to cap it, and drilling a hole in the can to allow air into the can when I’m pouring the gas out… and plugging the hole with a nail when I’m not pouring.

My '70s vintage “low water usage” toilet needs to be flushed twice… so I flush it twice. Three times if I’ve eaten a lot of cheese that day. I love cheese.

My car had a charcoal filter in the induction system so that any hydrocarbon molecules that find their way past an open intake valve cannot find their way into the atmosphere. It’s entirely possible that the manufacture of the filter paraphernalia adds more undesirables to the atmosphere than the filter prevents from entering the environment. Well, trapped before I removed it. Except for the carbon itself, all of the parts of the filter assembly are plastic.

I believe the EPA has gone well beyond its original mandate and has become a behemoth focused on only its political power. It’s “head” is not a scientist… it’s a politician. I believe it needs to be reined back to only its enforcement functions. Additional regulations and/or enhancement of regulations should only be done through the legislative process where they’ll be properly vetted.

1 Like
24

Fair enough. You didn’t say we no longer need the EPA.

The first low flow toilets were a disaster. I agree. The automatic low flow toilets we have at work are terrible too, and they’re in a relatively new building. However, the low flow household toilets they have now are much better. They function better and they get the job done with one flush. My mother’s house has two of them, and I like how they function.

I haven’t personally had a problem with any of my plastic gasoline receptacles, or their spouts. I guess I’ve been lucky to have made the ones I have last, so I haven’t needed to buy a new one in a while.

At least we agree that there are problems that are worth fixing, and we agree the head of the EPA should not be a political appointee. It’s nice to end on common ground.

25

My low flow toilet gets 40mpg and is low emissions.

2 Likes
26

No they’re not… Water quality in this country is still on the decline. You’ll find pockets where quality has improved, but they were already extremely bad. They’ve improved to just really bad. But in general, water quality in many parts of this country is NOT improving. Companies are still finding new ways to dump their toxic waste on us.

Air quality has improved, but it’s still NOT great. Especially in cities. I can see a huge difference in air quality when I visit Boston for a day compared to my rural home surrounded by trees. People get to this attitude, that it’s GOOD ENOUGH.

Maybe they have gone a little far in some areas…but industry has gone FARTHER in the opposite direction.

27

Yup…water quality is improving…

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/epa-wont-pay-claims-in-mine-spill-that-released-3m-gallons-of-toxic-water/ar-AAlQJro?li=BBnb7Kz

28

Let’s not get too far into thinking that DC will save us. We have toxic algae in Minnesota too. Have to be very careful with dogs going in the water at certain times of the year and there aren’t paper plants in the area. Also you will find flesh eating amoeba in virtually every body of water, including Minnesota. That’s why people are told not to take in lake water. There is no cure. They can enter through the eyes, nose and mouth and its a painful death. Really has nothing to do with the EPA. Seems to have something to do with the temperature of the water at certain times of the year.

Just to change the subject though, now “they” have indicted three Takata execs, which maybe makes more sense for the harm done. Didn’t say who exactly indicted them or if we need to send a team with face masks to go pick them up, but they clearly had a hand in producing a dangerous product resulting in deaths. Not the same impact as VW or Chrysler in my view anyway.

29

This is exactly it (and I understand that @the_same_mountainbik is not arguing to shut down the EPA, but many are). A business, particularly a large corporate one with a board of directors and shareholders, exists to make as much profit as possible. Shareholders generally aren’t even happy with steady profits – if you don’t make more money this quarter than you made last quarter, the shareholders get angry.

Based on that, a business is going to do everything it can get away with to minimize expenses and maximize income.

Properly disposing of toxic waste is expensive; dumping it in the Mississippi is free, and so absent the threat of the government severely punishing a factory, the factory will dump their waste in the river.

Polluters weren’t polluting because they didn’t know any better or because they didn’t understand what pollution was. They were polluting because they were allowed to pollute. If they are once again allowed to pollute, they will.

As to the fuel economy standards, the “science” is twofold: 1) Oil is a limited resource and will eventually run out, and the worse our fuel economy is the faster it will run out. And 2) every gallon of gasoline represents a set amount of pollution created when the oil was extracted, when it was refined, and when it was burned in our cars. A car that gets 50mpg uses half as much gas per year than it would if it got 25mpg, and that means half as much pollution being generated by that car.

This isn’t rocket science, it’s just plain, simple, logic.

2 Likes
30

Yes, companies do what they can to maximize profits. However, local and state governments could also have put laws in place to limit pollution before the EPA was formed in 1970. Why didn’t they? Because they, too, have an interest in profits. If they put laws in place to protect themselves, their own environment, and their own people, the companies and the money will go to the city, county, or state next door.

Sorry, I just get kind of sick of industry portrayed as the only bad guy as far as pollution is concerned and the only one concerned about profits.

2 Likes
31

Here you go @oldtimer-11

http://www.ruralking.com/ez-pour-replacement-spout-kit-10050.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=CjwKEAiAtefDBRDTnbDnvM735xISJABlvGOvhDANQ75EbXZEuC6OByu84YmMq_6apFVYS3xqQEB2zBoCnKjw_wcB

There is a thriving business selling replacements for these awful nozzles. I had one on a small gas jug I got from HF that allowed more gas to spill on the ground than into the tank.

1 Like
32

This is the debate… the recurring debate… that never ends.
I think I’ll respectfully bow out now. :relaxed:

33

@whitey, when administrative laws are made, they are with the knowledge of the appointed officials. Appointed officials don’t make policy, they implement the President’s policy with respect to they agency. My concern is that anyone, and not necessarily you, would believe that federal agency employees would behave like anarchists.

34

All car makers from A to Z try to skirt the law. Some get caught, others don’t.

1 Like
35

But you think large corporations are going to save us. Been drinking the cool aid again???

36

Water pollution from industries has been dropping. The increases are from farms and runoff from cities. The NRC summarized in in 2008 like this for the Mississippi:
" The Clean Water Act has reduced much pollution in the Mississippi River from “point sources” such as industries and water treatment plants, but problems stemming from urban runoff, agriculture, and other “non-point sources” have proven more difficult to address."

37

Says who? We just had a large cluster here in NH effect up to 5 different towns. Industry finds new ways all
time. And just because in some areas industry is polluting less doesn’t mean the water is good. The damage has been done. And many lakes and rivers are beyond help.

And let’s not forget fracking. Countless wells have been made undrinkable.

38

Countless wells??? That is 100% nonsense. Prove it! This fracking hysteria is one of the worst creations of Hollywood.

So the largest river in the US, draining many of its most industrial rivers, is improving from reduced industrial pollution, and that’s not significant? Incidents happen now, just like they have in the past. But the data says it’s less frequent. Cars crashing now doesn’t mean it’s worse now, right?

39

Main point: Whether we depend on self policing or government oversight, there will be inefficiencies. Differences in opinions on what the correct amount of government oversight is makes the issue even more complicated.

Secondary point: I agree with @MikeInNH that government oversight is needed to keep industry straight. Without it, Midwest and Mideast power plants would burn coal without significant (any?) pollution abatement equipment, and Eastern rivers and lakes would have significant fish kills associated with acid rain again. That is also why local governments cannot be counted on the handle air and water quality issues. They will do what is best for their citizens and everyone to the east can fix it themselves. I imagine that is what folks from the Appalachian coal state’s prefer.

Another thing: Maryland has moved on to putting agriculture and residential runoff into the spot light. The past governor and congress put a tax on runoff to pay for Chesapeake Bay cleanup. The reasoning was that most of the Bay’s pollution was now coming from runoff. I was disappointed with the method chosen for calculating the tax (square footage of roof and paved areas), but they had to figure out something if revenue had to be generated to quell the effects of pollution.

1 Like
40

Oh please!!! I know you have vested interest in the oil industry…and they’ve never polluted one drop of oil or air in their existence. Typical

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fracking_and_water_pollution

Rivers don’t remove industrial pollution…they just MOVE it.

Drinking water in the US has had many new problems to deal with since the Clean Water Act of 1974.

Our drinking water in many cities is safe…but NOT because the water supply is that much safer…but because of the added filters and chemicals (chlorine) to make it safe to drink.

2 Likes