quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

LOL   I do Julia.   Have for many many years.   I just hate the over regulation

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

Yeah but where does the regulation stop?   There has to be an endpoint someplace.   Or do we continue with the trend and regulate which brand names and styles of clothes we can wear because everyone else ususes to much energy or has to many pollutants to suit somebody?   Or what foods we can eat because the fish require our water that is used in irrigation?  And how sure are we of the science?   I am not convinced one way or the other.  Just not convinced. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

In other words, asking the polluters to police themselves does NOT work.  And it will never work, because implementing expensive controls over themselves, dealing with their toxic wastes responsibly, etc., costs more than simply flushing it down the toilet.  This cuts into the profit margin, and would allow the shareholders to sue the company for misuse of company money.

So what do you suggest?  Companies wont self-regulate, and you dont want the government to regulate.

Im listening...

Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZenrageTheKeeper

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

In other words, asking the polluters to police themselves does NOT work.  And it will never work, because implementing expensive controls over themselves, dealing with their toxic wastes responsibly, etc., costs more than simply flushing it down the toilet.  This cuts into the profit margin, and would allow the shareholders to sue the company for misuse of company money.

So what do you suggest?  Companies wont self-regulate, and you dont want the government to regulate.

Im listening...

Sinergy

Oh its worse than you know. I used to live in Freeland, MI - about 15 minutes away from Dow Chemical Plant. They have poured so many pollutants and dioxins into the Tittabawassee river that it has been researched and discovered by the DNR of Michigan that eating the flesh of any animal within 30 miles of the Freeland/Midland area is to be considered carcenogenic to humans.

Of course, Dow has released its own "scientific research" paper.. about 2 weeks after the DNR report was released (you can tell they spent a lot of time on it) that completely contradicts what the DNR report stated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Have you researched whether it is cheaper to use energy efficient light bulbs?

   As previously stated   Yes I do use energy efficient light bulbs and I use energy efficient appliances too.

Have you researched whether pollution blooms from factory pig farms are killing the Gulf of Mexico?

   Actually I have worked in the sewer industry for many many years.   Fresno State, WEF and others are working on just that problem.  They are trying to develop digesters to contain the methane so it can be converted to electricity as opposed to allowing to to just go into the air or be flared off.
 
The Japanese and I belive it was JPL and NASA (in MS) are working on using plants to clean the waste stream.  Some kind of lilly but I forgot which one.

If we rely on free market principles and self policing, we end up with pig shit pools that end up getting flushed down rivers

See above.   And yes wastewater is dumped into rivers after it is processed and checked to make sure it meets the requirements of the water board for that area.

Mountains in Yellowstone blown apart by strip mining to get at the gold in them. 

Actually I am not aware of strip mining being used for gold, but other minerals yes.   And I know that the regulations require the land to be reclaimed after they are done.

Oil spills and derricks off our coasts or next to schools.

Have you researched the microbiology and other methods of control and cleanup for these?   I have.  In fact one of the worst cases that I have personally worked with was Fresno State Environmental Department.  The microbiology cleaned it up faster and better than any other method they tried.

In other words, asking the polluters to police themselves does NOT work.  And it will never work, because implementing expensive controls over themselves, dealing with their toxic wastes responsibly, etc., costs more than simply flushing it down the toilet.  This cuts into the profit margin, and would allow the shareholders to sue the company for misuse of company money.

Actually flushing it down the toilet causes more problems for the company and costs more than they want.  It is cheaper to clean it  up than try flushing it.

So what do you suggest?  Companies wont self-regulate, and you dont want the government to regulate.

I didn't suggest anything.   Nor will I.   But I do wonder where it will end.   AT what level will they quit regulating?   At the level of deciding what I can eat and wear?   I don't know.  I don't know that there is a solution?   Do we kill all the animals because the poop?  would make PETA kinda upset wouldn't it?

Im listening...

Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Have you researched whether it is cheaper to use energy efficient light bulbs?

  As previously stated   Yes I do use energy efficient light bulbs and I use energy efficient appliances too.

Have you researched whether pollution blooms from factory pig farms are killing the Gulf of Mexico?

  Actually I have worked in the sewer industry for many many years.   Fresno State, WEF and others are working on just that problem.  They are trying to develop digesters to contain the methane so it can be converted to electricity as opposed to allowing to to just go into the air or be flared off.
 
The Japanese and I belive it was JPL and NASA (in MS) are working on using plants to clean the waste stream.  Some kind of lilly but I forgot which one.

If we rely on free market principles and self policing, we end up with pig shit pools that end up getting flushed down rivers

See above.   And yes wastewater is dumped into rivers after it is processed and checked to make sure it meets the requirements of the water board for that area.

Mountains in Yellowstone blown apart by strip mining to get at the gold in them. 

Actually I am not aware of strip mining being used for gold, but other minerals yes.   And I know that the regulations require the land to be reclaimed after they are done.

Oil spills and derricks off our coasts or next to schools.

Have you researched the microbiology and other methods of control and cleanup for these?   I have.  In fact one of the worst cases that I have personally worked with was Fresno State Environmental Department.  The microbiology cleaned it up faster and better than any other method they tried.

In other words, asking the polluters to police themselves does NOT work.  And it will never work, because implementing expensive controls over themselves, dealing with their toxic wastes responsibly, etc., costs more than simply flushing it down the toilet.  This cuts into the profit margin, and would allow the shareholders to sue the company for misuse of company money.

Actually flushing it down the toilet causes more problems for the company and costs more than they want.  It is cheaper to clean it  up than try flushing it.

So what do you suggest?  Companies wont self-regulate, and you dont want the government to regulate.

I didn't suggest anything.   Nor will I.   But I do wonder where it will end.   AT what level will they quit regulating?   At the level of deciding what I can eat and wear?   I don't know.  I don't know that there is a solution?   Do we kill all the animals because the poop?  would make PETA kinda upset wouldn't it?

Im listening...

Sinergy

I worked at the 6th largest wastewater treatment plant in Cali.   We averaged 72+ million gallons per day.   Of that  1 dump truck went to the landfill (condoms, money, toys, plastics, wood, etc).   Approximately 270 tons of solids was composted and went back your and my home in the form of potting soil (it was mixed with the green waste from the city).  25 megawats of electricity were produced but they were expanding that capacity when I left.  The water was percolated into the ground and then reclaimed for use on ag irrigation and  park irrigation (saving millions of gallons of "fresh" water from being pumped out of the aquafer or from rivers.   the ponding basins were home to migratory birds, endangered species of turtles, and reptiles.   The EPA wanted us to landfill the solids to eliminate the potential for vectors, and dump the water into the river.   Although the river was listed as a navagatable waterway, there hadn't been any water other than occasional storm run off in recorded history.  Fortunately the Water Board kept that from happening. 
 
So you tell me.  How much intrusion in my personal decision making process should the EPA have?   

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

I am a bit puzzled by the statement that it is more cost effective to dump, say, arsenides from mining gold or dyes and preservatives used to make shoes, etc., (as done in most countries that lack regulatory government agencies overseeing it) into waterways.  In the United States, I would agree, because companies which do that tend to be sued.

No No   I didn't say it was more cost effective to dump   I said it wasn't.  and as far as other countries requirements I can't speak to them.   Most countries signed the ...  uh....  I forgot the name but that pack that was working on the environment - Kyoto?   whatever.   anyway we aren't the enforcer (thank god) of that.

Read Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" where he talks about mining in Montana and the environmental damage caused by it.  While I understand your comment about strip mines having to be "reclaimed," the reality is that a company comes in, strip mines the place into a dust bowl, declares bankruptcy, and what used to be a pristine and lovely wilderness is now a leaking pile of leaching chemicals that no other company wants to touch because they are now responsible for all future lawsuits for something that happened before they owned the place.

I can believe that they do declare bankruptcy as a part of their business plan.   Then it is up to the courts to control it.

.As far as the EPA is concerned, I believe that state laws which are more restrictive than federal laws trump the federal ones.  One of the things I like about California is the locals tend to vote aggressively for laws to protect things like the environment, waterways, owls, etc.

I would disagree.  but only to the concept that the state trumps the fed.   Different jurisdictions.   To me they should prosecute according to jurisdiction unless there is some requirement or treaty that says this that I am unaware of (like OSHA which allows state plans but sets guidelines for the states to follow if the do set state plans).

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Oh no, do not force people to take responsibility for the amount of unnecessary energy use they have.. Lord forbid we live sustainably... omg, don't look now, here come the light bulb Nazis making me use light bulbs that will save the planet and my electric bill!

Im not scared, I use energy efficient bulbs anyways, and so should you