McConnell Urges States Not Obey EPA On Coal

[phrodeau]

The ban on DDT has proven to cost the lives of untold numbers of people.

That's right, folks! With the New Math, you too can prove an untold number.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Proven to be a based on junk science as well.

No, actually.

DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) is a powerful halocarbon insecticide[1] with a controversial history. It is an extremely stable and decay-resistant chemical: the discoverer found that jars that had contained DDT and were subsequently autoclaved[2] still had enough DDT residue in them to kill insects. A little goes a long way.

DDT use was restricted and then banned in most Western countries in the 1960s and '70s, and in those countries where it remains legal, it is only used as a health measure to control the mosquitoes that spread malaria. Only China and India still manufacture it.

DDT bans and mass murder

"[DDT] should be used with caution, only when needed, and when no other effective, safe and affordable alternatives are locally available."

—Brenda Eskenazi, explaining the scientific consensus on DDT[3]

Horrifically stupid wingnuts and experts for hire will sometimes imply that a supposed worldwide ban on DDT has killed millions of people by giving them malaria or some other mosquito-borne disease, and that Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring was responsible for the alleged ban. The myth seems to have originated from the Competitive Enterprise Institute and from libertarian Roger Bate (and is promoted by his organization Africa Fighting Malaria).

Carson devoted some of her book into weighing the pros and cons of DDT use,[4] but her findings did not lead to a global ban. There was (and still is) no global ban on DDT; only agricultural use is banned. Places with deadly mosquito-borne illnesses still use DDT, and in some places excessive use has led to the development of DDT-resistant mosquitoes.[5][6] In fact, the drastic reduction of DDT use in agriculture delayed the onset of resistance in mosquitoes.

Not only is DDT still approved by WHO for use against malaria (in indoor residual spraying,[wp] which is the spraying of walls of a home so a mosquito landing after it bites should get a fatal dose), but the Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty (POPs) has a special clause for DDT.[7] Any nation may endorse the treaty calling for an end to DDT; but any nation may also use DDT at any time, for severe health reasons, by essentially writing a letter to WHO saying, "We have a health problem we think DDT may be useful to combat, so we're going to use DDT."[8]

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[phrodeau]

Motor oil in sewers? That would be peanuts to what's happened in North Dakota.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/27/2843021/oil-spills-unreported/

 

[unregistered]

 

[mark_j]

You mean the Clean Water Act?

EPA was established in 1970. Clean water act may have been one of the first legislations to come out of it but I don't recall specifically. The Clean Water and Clean Air Acts both came out in about the same time frame.

We are not talking about reasonable environmental law, we're talking about an agency that is advancing a "political agenda" outside of its legal mandate.

What is reasonable? I hear this term thrown around a lot but no one seems to be able to define "reasonable" in this context. One man's "reasonable" is another man's "oppression".

That said, where are you getting that the EPA has a political agenda? As far as I can see from the EPA's own web site they make no mention of a "political agenda". The administration may have one and uses the EPA as the enforcement, but I seriously doubt the EPA is arbitrarily setting it's own policy independent of administrative directive. Not to mention that it is a cabinet department and as such is subject to directive by the executive. If you want to throw blame around direct it properly at the people who call the shots, not the workers bees who carry it out..

The Military ought to have taught you that much..

The DDT ban was bullshit, based on junk science.

Doesn't seem like the junk science claim is true, unless you are basing this claim on the book "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson and folks have been argueing about that work since it was published in 1962. Besides the that, Carson never advocated a ban, she suggested that this chemical as well as the use of several others be "looked into".

Several years of research and court cases were heard before the EPA even got involved (remember they didn't exist in 1962). So this wasn't something that was a "knee jerk reaction" to a bunch of "whacko environmentalists". It was literally studied for at least 10 years before the creation of the EPA and the subsequent ban.

DDT's problem (along with 2 ,4, D and a couple of other chemicals) stems not so much from thier use, but from thier misuse/overuse and the fact that this stuff has an extremely long half life (15 to 30 years). I would suggest that you do some research on this before you go shooting your mouth off based on an article in The Atlantic.

Side Note:

DDT has not been completely banned, it is allowed for use as a "vector control agent". As such, the claim that its ban "killed more humanity than Hitler" is totally false. Not to mention that for use as a malaria control agent (mosquitos) malathion and bendiocarb are just as effective without the possible side effects.

I'm older than you are and don't remember anyone dumping their motor oil in the sewer. Even in the late 50s when I used to work in gas stations, used motor oil was kept and sold to oil re-claimers.

So what.. Still doesn't mean it didn't happen. Lots of stuff ends up in the storm drains and sewers that wasn't supposed to be there.. It doesn't happen by magic..

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

That's right, folks! With the New Math, you too can prove an untold number.

It's "PatriotMath", where any two numbers equal...anything you want it to be.

That's how the cowardly sack of obese Marine stench can look you in the eye and swear President Obama spent two billion dollars a day going to India...

and how the Chief can swear to Skyfather that one dollar, one quarter and one nickel equals....91 cents.

 

[mark_j]

We not talking about what's unreasonable, we're talking about what is legal, and Professor Tribe has defined the illegality.

Is it not within the Executive pervue to issue policy orders to his cabinet?

Even in the military one is taught that an illegal order is null and void.

Yeah, and if you disobey a direct order you better be DAMN SURE you are right or they are going to burn you at the stake, so to speak.

The article wasn't in "The Atlantic," you condescending fool. See post #55, learn how to fucking read, maybe you'll be up on the facts.

Excuse me, that was apparently a typo on my part. But shall I quote what The New Atlantis is and let the class decide how credible they are?

 

[Disgustipated]

Bullshit! Certainly not among business people, landowners, automobile consumers, farmers, and ranchers.

As a business owner and someone who buys personal cars and leases a fleet, I can say you're full of shit.

(vettescatter, please do not diddle to that last sentence).

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

It is not within the power of the President or the EPA to unilaterally shut down industry and dictate energy sources to the rest of the country. War has not been declared by Congress which is the only vehicle the CinC has to completely direct the economy of the United States of America as FDR did in WWII.

What industry has been unilaterally shut down? Insisting that energy producers minimize emissions of toxic and harmful substances drives innovation to make energy sources cleaner which is a good thing all around but it hasn't shut down anything.

What energy source has been dictated to the rest of the country? Coal, oil, and gas are all still in use all across the country. Gasoline and Diesel power the vast majority of vehicles.

Just more hyperbolic bullshit from you, as usual.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

John Stossel points out:

"It's possible climate change may become a problem. But even if industrialization brings warming, we've got more important problems. On my TV show this week, statistician Bjorn Lomborg points out that "air pollution kills 4.3 million people each year ... We need to get a sense of priority." That deadly air pollution happens because, to keep warm, poor people burn dung in their huts.

There are reasons not to do that, but who ever died of it?

 

[KingOrfeo]

It is not within the power of the President or the EPA to unilaterally shut down industry and dictate energy sources to the rest of the country. War has not been declared by Congress which is the only vehicle the CinC has to completely direct the economy of the United States of America as FDR did in WWII.

The EPA needs no war powers to regulate smokestack emissions, which is all it is trying to do here.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

It cannot shut down an entire industry or write regulations that are designed to do so.

1. Say who? Show me the statute, show me the case.

2. Saying these regs are designed to shut down the entire coal industry is bullshit. They are designed to protect air quality and limit greenhouse-gas emissions, and that is all. It's up to the industry to find a way to comply while remaining profitable, if it can. If it can't, we're better off without it. But I'm confident it can, it just won't be quite as profitable as now.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Obama has failed in his attempts to dictate energy sources to America, but that doesn't mean he didn't try, and it doesn't mean he isn't trying to shut down the coal industry now. He promised to bankrupt the coal industry through regulation, that isn't his job or within his power.

He wasted billions in his childish attempt to promote solar power and wind as primary energy sources, sources already discarded as inadequate by the far more advanced and intelligent private sector. He failed in his bid to magically switch the civil society over to electric cars as well, the dumb fuck. He doesn't understand that the market will decide what energy we use and what kind of cars we'll buy or won't buy.

So the President and the EPA hasn't unilaterally shut down anything, contrary to your first claim. Now the goalposts move to he "tried to" by doing exactly what I said, insisting that power generation facilities comply with emissions standards or face fines.

Encouraging research into alternate forms of energy production isn't childish nor has it been a waste of money. Newsflash: the private sector with the aid of government funding has made huge leaps in alternative power generation research. Fire up your Google and look up "perovskite solar cells" and their newer cousin that uses tin instead of lead.

In the US, cheap shale gas has been pushing coal out of the electricity market and there are already indications that industries are beginning to prepare for the day when solar and other renewables push shale gas out of the energy market, by shifting into higher value products. Exxon is expanding its Baytown, Texas refinery to include a gas-to-plastics operation, and the German chemical company BASF is exploring the possibility of making its largest single-site investment ever, by building a shale-gas-to-plastics facility on the Gulf Coast.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

There are limits to the regulatory authority of the EPA. read the letter link I just posted to KO.

The letter asserts, wrongly, that the EPA can't enforce standards set out by government policy. That is their function.

I'm sure the good Governor of Wyoming would prefer that it wasn't so, being a major coal producing state, but it's simply not true.

The assertion that making energy production facilities comply with emissions standards would "hamstring the energy and electricity sectors" is hyperbolic bullshit. His entire argument centers around "we mine coal, we use coal, we need coal.", "but, but China and India!" and "We need more time to comply".

Fuck that, you have been asked nicely, cajoled, and threatened with small fines, and did little to nothing to mitigate your emissions, relying instead on deadlines forever being pushed back.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Go to the fifth paragraph on page 4 and read from there.

The Governor of Wisconsin's opinion is duly noted and dismissed as *gasp* his opinion. He's more than welcome to fight the EPA in court.