patrick.net

indigenous says

Class Actions is most likely the answer as with the Stringfellow Acid Pits.

Short of that just tort law or even small claims court.

Either way the law was used.

If this was done instead of useless agencies the taxpayer would save money.

So after millions of people have been poisoned then litigating every single person's damage claim against an entire industry through the court system is somehow cheaper and easier than regulating the industry and not polluting in the first place? You just get weirder every day.

Class action is a joke. It's about lawyers mining money, nothing else. Litigants rarely get substantial compensation.

How can you be libertarian and support class action. Lawsuits go against everything libertarians stand for.

bob2356 says

So after millions of people have been poisoned then litigating every single person's damage claim against an entire industry through the court system is somehow cheaper and easier than regulating the industry and not polluting in the first place?

ONE of the idiocies of government is that they want to fix problems before they are problems they invent shit to fix to justify the agency that fixes the imaginary problem. So all of the agencies' actors view things through the narrative of finding something that justifies their paycheck. The money would be vastly better spent on violators of someones private property. bob2356 says

You just get weirder every day.

I am the benchmark, you are the one getting weirder.

bob2356 says

Lawsuits go against everything libertarians stand for.

Bullshit a rule of law is part of the libertarian tenet, they even have Xerces law in Somalia.

joeyjojojunior says

I get upset when people think that the actions of individuals is all that is needed. Would you composting stop:

1. Hooker Chemical from dumping industrial waste in the Love Canal?

2. WR Grace from spewing asbestos into the atmosphere for decades?

3. PG and E from contaminating the water supply?

Not too mention air regulations cleaning up smog, acid rain, etc.

My actions, no, my mentality, yes. Example... A few years back a company called BP dumped a bazillion gallons of oil into the gulf. Now regulations didn't stop it, and neither did my composting. But since that day my family has never once bought gas at an ARCO station. Why? After the spill I noticed their branding referenced their parent company, British Petroleum. ARCO is still owned by BP today, but you won't see it anywhere on their sign. There's a reason for that as I believe like minded people decided to stop frequenting their station.

If I find out someone is polluting they'll never get another cent from me. If it's in my town, I will do something about it. In the form of protest, and fines and legislation at the local level, where it needs to happen.

Washington doesn't know dick about my town, nor do they care to. So Fuck the EPA, I can handle my part just fine without them.

joeyjojojunior says

Sure--it's called regulatory capture. It's a well known phenomena. Like others have said--understanding this problem and fixing it is what is needed. Getting rid of all regulation certainly isn't the cure.

You don't fix a broken system, you through it out and start over. Or are you also a Trump believer?

"My actions, no, my mentality, yes. Example... A few years back a company called BP dumped a bazillion gallons of oil into the gulf. Now regulations didn't stop it, and neither did my composting. But since that day my family has never once bought gas at an ARCO station. Why? After the spill I noticed their branding referenced their parent company, British Petroleum. ARCO is still owned by BP today, but you won't see it anywhere on their sign. There's a reason for that as I believe like minded people decided to stop frequenting their station.

If I find out someone is polluting they'll never get another cent from me. If it's in my town, I will do something about it. In the form of protest, and fines and legislation at the local level, where it needs to happen.

Washington doesn't know dick about my town, nor do they care to. So Fuck the EPA, I can handle my part just fine without them."

Great--has your boycott caused them to pay for the cleanup? Or changed their behavior?

"You don't fix a broken system, you through it out and start over. Or are you also a Trump believer?"

OK--propose your new system then. Start over with what exactly?

joeyjojojunior says

Great--has your boycott caused them to pay for the cleanup? Or changed their behavior?

Has regulation...

I'll posit that my mindset has been more of a factor than the EPA's existence. Otherwise, why change the ARCO sign?

joeyjojojunior says

OK--propose your new system then. Start over with what exactly?

Already stated, locals take care of their own problems, big government butts out. Have some belief in yourself, your neighbors, and your town. If you can't trust those people, what makes you think a bunch of suits, who are still just people, but are not from your town, and don't care how the water use to look, or how the air used to smell, will be more effective at combating pollution?

"Has regulation..."

Of course it has. Nobody with half a brain can argue that the EPA hasn't significantly improved air quality, significantly reduced instances of large chemical spills, cleaned up old waste sites, etc. This is fact.

"Already stated, locals take care of their own problems, big government butts out. Have some belief in yourself, your neighbors, and your town. If you can't trust those people, what makes you think a bunch of suits, who are still just people, but are not from your town, and don't care how the water use to look, or how the air used to smell, will be more effective at combating pollution?"

You're living in a dream world. What deterrents can you, your neighbors, and your town wield to stop ABC chemicals from dumping into your local river that supplies water to the town.

bob2356 says

How can you be libertarian and support class action. Lawsuits go against everything libertarians stand for.

You may be right; however, libertarians are more against big business(which implies big government); outside of class action, what other recourse would a libertarian have?

NuttBoxer says

Already stated, locals take care of their own problems, big government butts out.

Ideally maybe, but lot of people in bumblefuck might not know how to take care of their own problems. Like agricultural runoff, contamination secondary to fracking. If assuming strictly libertarian approach, those resources may not get tapped at all.

MMR says

bob2356 says

How can you be libertarian and support class action. Lawsuits go against everything libertarians stand for.

You may be right

How do you figure?

MMR says

You may be right; however, libertarians are more against big business

In any practical sense In today's America libertarian is big business. Without wealthy big business ultra rich libertarians the libertarian movement would be nothing but a couple web pages that say mises.org. The libertarian movement was a very, very tiny fringe group up until the 70's mostly consisting of a handful of what were considered university crackpots. The ultra rich have since poured untold millions into creating the libertarian movement that now completely controls the government and has a literal army of thoroughly indoctrinated people promoting big business version of libertarianism even though it goes totally against their own interests. Most don't even know what they are saying, just mumbling their newspeak platitudes like acolytes at some cult.

The most ardent self proclaimed libertarians in the country are the koch brothers. David once ran as vice president on the libertarian party ticket. Do you suppose the hundreds of ultra rich that attend the koch brothers event twice a year are there just to grill some steaks and swap pics of the grand kids? Maybe they are planning how to raise the standard of living for the poor and middle class? Probably not. These people have very valuable and limited time yet they manage to keep 2 weeks free a year for this event. They expect a serious financial return on investment for their time spent there. Their only goal is to become more wealthy any way they can.

You can argue ivory tower ideologically pure theory all you want, but the bottom line is the ultra rich and big business are calling the libertarian shots.

joeyjojojunior says

Of course it has. Nobody with half a brain can argue that the EPA hasn't significantly improved air quality, significantly reduced instances of large chemical spills, cleaned up old waste sites, etc. This is fact.

Proof? Here's mine...

NuttBoxer says

joeyjojojunior says

You're living in a dream world. What deterrents can you, your neighbors, and your town wield to stop ABC chemicals from dumping into your local river that supplies water to the town.

Media campaign/bad publicity, lawsuits, physically bar the entrance to their factory, jail them for breaking local pollution laws.

It's sad you believer in a savior who's man, just like you, fallible, just like you, and excessively wasteful while producing poor results, hopefully unlike you.

MMR says

Ideally maybe, but lot of people in bumblefuck might not know how to take care of their own problems. Like agricultural runoff, contamination secondary to fracking. If assuming strictly libertarian approach, those resources may not get tapped at all.

They may not. So goes life. You can't save someone from themselves, ask any psychiatrist.

"Media campaign/bad publicity, lawsuits, physically bar the entrance to their factory, jail them for breaking local pollution laws. It's sad you believer in a savior who's man, just like you, fallible, just like you, and excessively wasteful while producing poor results, hopefully unlike you."

A savior? wtf are you talking about?

You somehow believe that it's impossible for a multi billion dollar corporation to buy off a local politician? How is it any different to have local people trying to regulate things other than them not having the time, people, expertise, or money?

NuttBoxer says

Proof? Here's mine...

Proof you are an idiot? That was a cleanup of abandoned by a mining company toxic waste that had a collapse in the mine while it was being pumped out. OMG there was one whole problem in cleaning up thousands of sites over 40 years. You probably have a worse safety record picking your nose. .

NuttBoxer says

Media campaign/bad publicity, lawsuits, physically bar the entrance to their factory, jail them for breaking local pollution laws.

Yea, that worked out so well for so many years that we had rivers so polluted they were catching fire.

joeyjojojunior says

"Really, so the EPA exists on who's dime? If you can't make the connection between backdoor deals and government agencies, then you'll never understand why the EPA doesn't give a shit about pollution."

OK, educate me. Show me the backdoor deals that connect the EPA to the government funding from completely separate agencies.

Crickets chirping, lots of crickets chirping.

The EPA put a dome on Springfield.

Enough said.

bob2356 says

OK, educate me. Show me the backdoor deals that connect the EPA to the government funding from completely separate agencies.

Not possible to educate someone who knows everything.

There is no backdoor deals necessary, the question is what is the cost of the EPA and what good have they done.

These mines were worked in a different time frame, so then in your mind the EPA comes into save the day in the present as if the mines were the oger. The mines are an anachronism.

Meanwhile the EPA and every other government agency cost ridiculous amounts of money while providing very questionable results.

E.G.:

Its annual budget is fairly modest in Beltway terms, at a little less than $11 billion, but that's not where the vast majority of its costs come from. Complying with EPA regulations costs the U.S. economy $353 billion per year — more than 30 times its budget — according to the best available estimate.

The noble EPA cost the economy 364 billion dollars EVERY year, do they provide 364 billion dollars worth of benefit? I think not, not even close.

What about the department of energy?

What about the subsidization of ethanol at a net cost to the taxpayer as ethanol takes more energy to produce than it gives.

As an added benefit the ogallala aquifer is being irreparable damaged to make ADM and others rich.

Added regulation or modified regulation? That's what's important in Bobby's mind.
A government apologist...

"In 1991, DENR provided its first assessment of acid rain in the United States. It reported that 5% of New England Lakes were acidic, with sulfates being the most common problem. They noted that 2% of the lakes could no longer support Brook Trout, and 6% of the lakes were unsuitable for the survival of many species of minnow.

Meanwhile, in 1989, the U.S. Congress passed a series of amendments to the Clean Air Act. Title IV of these amendments established the Acid Rain Program, a cap and trade system designed to control emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Title IV called for a total reduction of about 10 million tons of SO2 emissions from power plants. It was implemented in two phases. Phase I began in 1995, and limited sulfur dioxide emissions from 110 of the largest power plants to a combined total of 8.7 million tons of sulfur dioxide.

During the 1990s, research continued. On March 10, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). This rule provides states with a solution to the problem of power plant pollution that drifts from one state to another. CAIR will permanently cap emissions of SO2 and NOx in the eastern United States. When fully implemented, CAIR will reduce SO2 emissions in 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia by over 70% and NOx emissions by over 60% from 2003 levels.[28]

Overall, the program's cap and trade program has been successful in achieving its goals. Since the 1990s, SO2 emissions have dropped 40%, and according to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976.[29][30] Conventional regulation was used in the European Union, which saw a decrease of over 70% in SO2 emissions during the same time period.[31]

In 2007, total SO2 emissions were 8.9 million tons, achieving the program's long-term goal ahead of the 2010 statutory deadline.[32]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain

And for Nutt--

How would a local neighborhood, municipality, or individual stop factories 1000 miles away from polluting the environment and causing acid rain to fall in your area? Boycott? Great--do you boycott every company that has a factory in the Midwest? How do you know which ones are emitting the NOX and SOX?

Jojo

Any relation to Jojo the circus boy?

The answer is the court system. As in class action law suits.

Central to that is private property and making the commons private. This is how you bring back endangered species.

indigenous says

The noble EPA cost the economy 364 billion dollars EVERY year, do they provide 364 billion dollars worth of benefit? I think not, not even close.

Proof other than it's true because I believe it should be true?

Feel free to look up the impact statement for any or all of epa's regulations. It's public record. It's reported to congress. There is a cost benefit analysis for every single regulation that costs more than 100 million. Ronald Reagan made that mandatory. The cost must not exceed the health and environmental benefit.

Mises.org didn't mention that? Shocking I tell you, simply shocking. I can't imagine why that would be skipped.

That makes sense, a report on chickens disappearing from the hen house by the fox.

The element that is missing from your fairy tale is called price discovery it isn't mentioned in any of your reports.

What branch of the government do you benefit from?

indigenous says

This is how you bring back endangered species.

yep, look at all the endangered species coming back in the cuyahoga circa 1969. It's amazing how well species come back in a pool of burning toxins.

indigenous says

That makes sense, a report on chickens disappearing from the hen house by the fox.

I'm not seeing the data you posted. It's true because I believe it should be true.

Another anachronism from Bobby... probably having nothing to do with endangered species

indigenous says

Another anachronism from Bobby... probably having nothing to do with endangered species

It's true because I believe it should be true.

bob2356 says

I'm not seeing the data you posted. It's true because I believe it should be true.

A devout follower of the scientific method, Keynes would be proud.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

I'm not seeing the data you posted. It's true because I believe it should be true.

A devout follower of the scientific method, Keynes would be proud.

I'm overwhelmed by all the support you have provided for your argument. It's so extensive it's just shocking.

It's true because I believe it should be true.

bob2356 says

I'm overwhelmed by all the support you have provided for your argument. It's so extensive it's just shocking.

Back at ya, I'm overwhelmed by all the verbiage you have provided as if that is the truth.

The point is that there is no price discovery for the "benefits" you extol. Clearly you benefit from the government.

"The answer is the court system. As in class action law suits"

Great--so who do I sue? There are probably 10K factories in the Midwest spewing NOX, SOX, CO into the atmosphere causing acid rain somewhere NE of there.

How do I get the data I need to prove that those factories emitted for the last 10 years? I'm sure they didn't test unless they had to and with no EPA, they wouldn't have to.

Lawyers figure it out they always do.

joeyjojojunior says

You somehow believe that it's impossible for a multi billion dollar corporation to buy off a local politician?

You somehow think that statement only applies to local politicians. Again, your savior central government is made up of supermen who are above reproach.joeyjojojunior says

How is it any different to have local people trying to regulate things other than them not having the time, people, expertise, or money?

Again, only people from far far away can know what's best for anytown USA. We all's some bumpkins in these haw parts! We needs fancy gum'ent masser's to tell us sickum from come here! Shucks, if we was to meet in ta town hall we might commence to pluckin chickens 'stead of figur'in out wat ta do 'bout that big compnia tha's making our water smell.

bob2356 says

Proof you are an idiot?

I see you didn't want to include the proof...

bob2356 says

That was a cleanup

So the EPA cleans up by just flushing everything into the nearby river. Isn't that what big corporations do.. wait, but the EPA is supposed to stop...

bob2356 says

OMG there was one whole problem in cleaning up thousands of sites over 40 years.

http://watchdog.org/234655/ga-epa-spill/

Nope, that one just has the best pictures.

bob2356 says

Yea, that worked out so well for so many years that we had rivers so polluted they were catching fire.

No dates, facts, or anything other than your opinion of rivers catching fire being tied to pollution the EPA would've stopped. Well shoot, that's enough evidence for me.