|
Post by lar on Feb 22, 2017 19:18:29 GMT -5
We are afraid that is not good enough, James. We have, with due consideration and infinite mercy, ruled that in order to avoid the direct imposition of ordinance #24, section b, article 4, you shall in a strongly suggested act of penance be required to sing "God Save the Queen" in your skivvies while wearing a cowboy hat. (If you do not have a cowboy hat, a derby with a small feather shall suffice.) As this is your first offense of this particular nature and as this is a merciful court, you need not post your penancicle performance on YouTube (unless, of course, you wish to). In the absence of either of the hats mentioned, I went with a tea cosy. Hope that's satisfactory. I admire your style, James!
|
|
|
Post by james on Feb 22, 2017 21:18:24 GMT -5
Thanks lar, my tea was temporarily verging on the tepid though.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Feb 22, 2017 21:40:14 GMT -5
You haven't seen Lar's tea cozy, have you?
|
|
|
Post by lar on Feb 22, 2017 22:53:30 GMT -5
You haven't seen Lar's tea cozy, have you? My tea cozy is dusty and rusty after years of non-use. I know it's around here somewhere. I believe I put it someplace where I knew I could find it again. There must be a lot of stuff in that spot because I don't seem to be able to find anything I put there.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Feb 23, 2017 13:03:44 GMT -5
Here's a particularly grotesque example. Look at this screen grab from the WaPo site and ask yourself what you think. ( Here's the link.) If you know anything about the specific rule in question, it was one that Obama implemented that represented nothing but pure harassment of the mining industry. It had to do with where companies were allowed to put dirt (yes, dirt) that was excavated prior to any actual extraction taking place. Environmentalists (I would say "environmental extremists") called this dirt "mining waste", but it was nothing of the sort. It's just dirt. This rule was nothing more than an attempt to impose needless costs on mining companies without creating any actual environmental benefits.
|
|
|
Post by james on Feb 23, 2017 13:46:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Feb 23, 2017 13:52:02 GMT -5
"This rule is effective January 19, 2017."
Yes. The rule so important that Obama literally waited until the final day of his term to implement it.
You can't make this shit up.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Feb 23, 2017 13:53:12 GMT -5
I had indeed done some reading-up on this when the story broke, and while it's not quite a toxic-waste-nightmare matter, neither is it about reversing "pure harassment of the mining industry." I'll leave a Google search on the history of the Stream Protection Regulation and its relation to the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as an exercise for the student. Extractive industries always need regulation--otherwise they get to do their extracting and leave behind messes that someone else has to clean up. This has been the history of mining and lumbering forever. And since when is it OK to dump large amounts of anything into a watershed? How much "just dirt" does it take to constitute pollution? And what's in the "just dirt" that comes from coal-rich land (or, in this case, mountain- and hilltops)? A piece in that red rag Forbes is less hysterical about the matter: www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2017/02/03/will-undoing-the-stream-protection-rule-really-help-coal/#74a47d4ce785The "job-killer" and "war on coal" mantras are SOP for an industry that has historically operated on a pass-on-your-losses business model and routinely leaves behind both environmental and human damage for the rest of us to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Feb 23, 2017 13:57:23 GMT -5
Alternative headline: "Obama Allows Dumping Mining Waste Into Waterways For 99.966% Of His Presidency"
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 23, 2017 14:10:27 GMT -5
And since when is it OK to dump large amounts of anything into a watershed? How much "just dirt" does it take to constitute pollution? And just how much water does it take to be a "watershed"? I'll leave that Google search to the professor.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Feb 23, 2017 15:01:28 GMT -5
Well, actually the regulation was aimed at streams, but the larger dumping issue does extend to watersheds. A stream would be a component of a watershed--not that that changes the point I was making. Attempts to portray the mining industry, and coal-mining in particular, as poor little victims of government harassment ignore that industry's history of environmental and labor-practices mischief. Resource extraction is not a cost-free activity, and extractive industries will always need regulation, lest the costs get passed on to everyone else so that the proprietors can maximize their profits.
|
|
|
Post by david on Feb 23, 2017 15:22:45 GMT -5
Here's a particularly grotesque example. Look at this screen grab from the WaPo site and ask yourself what you think. ( Here's the link.) If you know anything about the specific rule in question, it was one that Obama implemented that represented nothing but pure harassment of the mining industry. It had to do with where companies were allowed to put dirt (yes, dirt) that was excavated prior to any actual extraction taking place. Environmentalists (I would say "environmental extremists") called this dirt "mining waste", but it was nothing of the sort. It's just dirt. This rule was nothing more than an attempt to impose needless costs on mining companies without creating any actual environmental benefits. Jeff, Your characterization of "nothing but pure harassment" is perhaps more misleading than the Washington Post headline. Are you aware that dumping dirt can have devastating effects on streams? The silt in stream beds destroys the areas where trout and salmon lay eggs. Here on the west coast logging areas close to streams, where the logging roads and soil disruption caused erosion of soils, has been responsible for the decline in trout and salmon populations. I can now only catch and release trout in most of the streams I fished (and could keep fish) 30 years ago. For a few years, fishing was prohibited on some of the streams. Logging is now supposed to be regulated to leave a buffer zone between clearcuts and the streams and logging roads and streams, but the regulations are not always followed.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 23, 2017 15:48:07 GMT -5
Well, actually the regulation was aimed at streams, but the larger dumping issue does extend to watersheds. A stream would be a component of a watershed--not that that changes the point I was making. Attempts to portray the mining industry, and coal-mining in particular, as poor little victims of government harassment ignore that industry's history of environmental and labor-practices mischief. Resource extraction is not a cost-free activity, and extractive industries will always need regulation, lest the costs get passed on to everyone else so that the proprietors can maximize their profits. No. The original legislation that these regulations stem from (sorry, can't find a Wiki page. I'll try to go slow) was aimed at "navigable waters"- you know, one's that can practically hold boats of a decent size. Through EPA efforts it has now been defined down to "watersheds" which has no real meaning. It can be and has been applied (and judgements with heavy costs assessed) to low spots in the ground that gather water when it rains a lot. Technically places that spend 99% of the time with no water whatsoever. This is EPA's legacy of regulatory over-reach. It is the complete regulatory imbalance that has given Scott Pruitt (and to a degree Donald Trump) his career and is looking to end the careers of a number of agency personnel. Sure, some things need regulating. Reasonable folks generally agree. Businesses also need reasonable accommodation to run. But this is what happens when the regulators run wild and lawless. And there's more on the way.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Feb 23, 2017 16:08:02 GMT -5
Jeff, Your characterization of "nothing but pure harassment" is perhaps more misleading than the Washington Post headline. Yeah, but I'm just a guy who drinks too much gin at lunch and blabbers about crap on the Internet. I'd hope expectations of me are lower than the WaPo.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 23, 2017 16:19:49 GMT -5
Jeff, Your characterization of "nothing but pure harassment" is perhaps more misleading than the Washington Post headline. Yeah, but I'm just a guy who drinks too much gin at lunch and blabbers about crap on the Internet. I'd hope expectations of me are lower than the WaPo. The honest truth is that regulation by definition needs an effective end point. Beyond that it truly does constitute pure harassment. Everything EPA has done for at least the last decade has been pure harassment.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Feb 23, 2017 16:30:26 GMT -5
Jeff, Your characterization of "nothing but pure harassment" is perhaps more misleading than the Washington Post headline. Yeah, but I'm just a guy who drinks too much gin at lunch and blabbers about crap on the Internet. I'd hope expectations of me are lower than the WaPo. Gin well that's the whole problem right there. Clear alcohol is for pouring on your feet to kill fungus, drinking alcohol is not clear.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Feb 23, 2017 16:33:28 GMT -5
Yeah, but I'm just a guy who drinks too much gin at lunch and blabbers about crap on the Internet. I'd hope expectations of me are lower than the WaPo. The honest truth is that regulation by definition needs an effective end point. Functionally, the end point is always defined as "more".
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Feb 23, 2017 16:33:43 GMT -5
Is it that big a step from dirt in public waters to arson on public land (Hammonds), and all that followed?
|
|
|
Post by james on Feb 23, 2017 16:41:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Feb 23, 2017 16:46:14 GMT -5
Jeff, Your characterization of "nothing but pure harassment" is perhaps more misleading than the Washington Post headline. Yeah, but I'm just a guy who drinks too much gin at lunch and blabbers about crap on the Internet. I'd hope expectations of me are lower than the WaPo. Much lower, I got you covered.
|
|