Texas Fracking Companies Self Regulating

[realibrad]

Well I can see where at the federal level, the Dems push harder for more regulatory authority as being witnessed by the constant complaining of such by the conservatives in this forum as well as the uniform ideological championing for less and ever less regulatory constraints for more profit by the same folks.

However, it's at the state level of government where the regulatory processes seem to get corrupted the most, including the federal ones where they are discretely and at times blatantly ignored. IMO, this is where Repub and Dem politicians seem more of the bird of the feather.

However, due to the fact that big business seems to be much more well represented by the Repub Party, especially as evidenced by the preponderance of legislation that they either promote or pass into law, I'd say the Repubs should be held more accountable in this regard.

That's fair.

 

[theeedude]

Both parties hate the EPA. Republicans explicitly want to do away with it, and Democrats make it useless with legislation. Both accomplish the same thing.

Both parties pass loopholes for companies.


These are facts. Both of the major parties are corrupt. I also have no doubt that if we got a 3rd major party, it too would become corrupt. Its the structure of our government right now.

Companies have found it very profitable to use the government.

To an extent both are corrupt, but GOP is not just corrupt, it's openly anti-regulation. There isn't really any hope for it.

 

[theeedude]

I don't really care if Texas is polluted, just like I don't care if China is polluted. That's their problem and for their people to do something about if they care. If they want to sacrifice their health for other people's profit, that's their decision. I don't plan on living in either place. All I can do is just make sure I don't buy food products from either, and vote Democrat to make sure California doesn't follow in their footsteps.

 

[MrPickins]

I don't really care if Texas is polluted, just like I don't care if China is polluted. That's their problem and for their people to do something about if they care. If they want to sacrifice their health for other people's profit, that's their decision. I don't plan on living in either place. All I can do is just make sure I don't buy food products from either, and vote Democrat to make sure California doesn't follow in their footsteps.

Last time I checked, Texas was a part of the United States of America, where China is not... 🙄

 

[realibrad]

To an extent both are corrupt, but GOP is not just corrupt, it's openly anti-regulation. There isn't really any hope for it.

I like less government regulation, because it seems like most "regulation" is simply loopholes to make companies better off.


Both parties are pandering. The issue with the GOP right now seems to be who they are pandering to. Their base is pretty strange right now. I just don't know that the Dems are any better. I would say most of what went down in 2008 rests on the Dems shoulders while the reps cheered them on.

But, in terms of environmental issue, both don't seem to care. I say that because of what they do.

Add ethanol to gas to help...turns out to be a net negative for the environment, but great for corn farmers.
Add a catalytic converter to all cars...turns out to be a way to pay GM and create a tariff on imports, even though a GM car with a CAT on it pollutes more than a Honda without one.

 

[realibrad]

I don't really care if Texas is polluted, just like I don't care if China is polluted. That's their problem and for their people to do something about if they care. If they want to sacrifice their health for other people's profit, that's their decision. I don't plan on living in either place. All I can do is just make sure I don't buy food products from either, and vote Democrat to make sure California doesn't follow in their footsteps.

That I don't agree with. A weak Texas is a weak US, and a weak US means my easy way of life is at risk. I want all states to be the best they can be, so the US as a whole is better off.

 

[brycejones]

So you're fine with the fact that their "self regulation" involves dumping toxic chemicals in unsafe and illegal ways? Can't say I'm surprised. You should consider getting some land near a fracking site since you feel their self regulation is such a good thing. I'm sure it'll work out for you.

He's cool with it happening in Texas since his is safely in a country with strong regulations and enforcement.

 

[theeedude]

That I don't agree with. A weak Texas is a weak US, and a weak US means my easy way of life is at risk. I want all states to be the best they can be, so the US as a whole is better off.

If Texas is lax on fracking, we get to have cheap energy. Good for the US.
It's good to have a state whose residents voluntarily vote to sacrifice their and their children's health so that people in other states can save some money at the pump without polluting their own backyards :thumbsup:

 

[theeedude]

Last time I checked, Texas was a part of the United States of America, where China is not... 🙄

Good point. Texans, being in the US, get to vote for their politicians, Chinese people, living in a dictatorship, don't. I am inclined to be more concerned about the Chinese people exposed to pollution against their will than Texans who time after time vote for politicians who support less regulations, and are getting exactly what they voted for.
As far as the United States part, Texans are very much against the United States federal government telling them how to do things, and think that things should be decided at state level. And at state level they elect the most anti-regulation politicians they can find. So again, they are getting what they are bargaining for.

 

[MrPickins]

Good point. Texans, being in the US, get to vote for their politicians, Chinese people, living in a dictatorship, don't. I am inclined to be more concerned about the Chinese people exposed to pollution against their will than Texans who time after time vote for politicians who support less regulations, and are getting exactly what they voted for.

You act like people only vote one way in Texas, which is not the case...

Before you cast stones, you may want to acknowledge the fact that CA cities consistently top the list of most polluted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution_in_the_United_States

As far as the United States part, Texans are very much against the United States federal government telling them how to do things, and think that things should be decided at state level. And at state level they elect the most anti-regulation politicians they can find. So again, they are getting what they are bargaining for.

Again, you paint the state with a wide paintbrush. we're not all supporters of Gov. Goodhair.

I suppose everyone in CA is a hacky-sack playing, couscous eating hippy who has wet dreams about big govt?

Get real.

 

[CPA]

But Texas is one of those largely "hands off" states when it comes to regulation. The regulations are extremely lax and the enforcement and inspections are almost nonexistent. If not for a private third party group this violation would not have been discovered because the state doesn't try to enforce regulations on the fracking industry.

The only way you get 100% enforcement is to have a regulator on hand every minute of the day. Obviously, that won't happen in any state or any industry. I would gather most reports of non-compliance are reported by a third party rather than found by a regulatory agency.

 

[realibrad]

If Texas is lax on fracking, we get to have cheap energy. Good for the US.
It's good to have a state whose residents voluntarily vote to sacrifice their and their children's health so that people in other states can save some money at the pump without polluting their own backyards :thumbsup:

That is not looking at the whole picture though. Texas is a big place, and hurting Texas hurts the US. A lot come from that state, and even if I don't like the politics that comes from there, does not mean I think we should use it up, and throw it away.

Having people be productive is important. If everyone starts getting sick, how am I better off? Not only will you have people suffering and possibly dying, but then you would see a flood of taxpayer money go to the state. The taxpayers would pay for the profits of the business, because the business did not need to factor the cost of pollution.

 

[theeedude]

You act like people only vote one way in Texas, which is not the case...

Before you cast stones, you may want to acknowledge the fact that CA cities consistently top the list of most polluted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution_in_the_United_States




Again, you paint the state with a wide paintbrush. we're not all supporters of Gov. Goodhair.

I suppose everyone in CA is a hacky-sack playing, couscous eating hippy who has wet dreams about big govt?

Get real.

I choose not to live in L.A. or central valley. Ultimately it's fight or flight. Either vote for politicians who will properly regulate pollution, or vote with your feet. Or do neither and continue to sacrifice your and your family's health to provide the rest of the country with cheap gas. I am fine with that.
People in L.A. vote for politicians who support stricter environmental regulations. California has the strictest environmental standards in the world. L.A. polluted due to its geography that traps pollution and a high population, not because its residents deliberately vote to undermine pollution regulation to make their state "good for business."

 

[Brainonska511]

I like less government regulation, because it seems like most "regulation" is simply loopholes to make companies better off.

A blind adherence to less regulation is idiotic. We should want smart and effective regulations put in place. In some cases, that might mean more, in others, it might mean less. Some companies are always going to try to find ways to skirt the spirit of the law or outright ignore it no matter what we do. Letting them get a free pass by doing away with regulations and enforcement they've managed to bypass is not the way to fight that problem.

 

[theeedude]

That is not looking at the whole picture though. Texas is a big place, and hurting Texas hurts the US. A lot come from that state, and even if I don't like the politics that comes from there, does not mean I think we should use it up, and throw it away.

Having people be productive is important. If everyone starts getting sick, how am I better off? Not only will you have people suffering and possibly dying, but then you would see a flood of taxpayer money go to the state. The taxpayers would pay for the profits of the business, because the business did not need to factor the cost of pollution.

Do Texans want people from California or the Federal government to care? Last I checked they elect politicians who are telling everyone who will listen to stay out and let this be handled at the state level. And at the state level, they elect politicians who let the industry regulate itself. Again, they want this, and it's good for all of us NIMBY states to have IMBY states like Texas to supply us with cheap energy.

 

[realibrad]

A blind adherence to less regulation is idiotic. We should want smart and effective regulations put in place. In some cases, that might mean more, in others, it might mean less. Some companies are always going to try to find ways to skirt the spirit of the law or outright ignore it no matter what we do. Letting them get a free pass by doing away with regulations and enforcement they've managed to bypass is not the way to fight that problem.

I don't think I was advocating blind adherence. I said I "like" it, and in context its relative to the current world we live in.

I also agree that some companies will try to get away with things. Where we differ is on what we should do about that.

The reason there is so much legislation is because companies want to take advantage of the large and powerful government. That is why you see companies pump money into elections. I don't think there is an effective way to get money out of politics, so I think the better solution would be to reduce the desire for companies to use the government. Weaken the government, and you reduce the incentive for those companies. You will then see less loophole legislation. I don't mind legislation, if that legislation is productive. The problem I have is that most isint, and we keep adding more.

 

[kage69]

No doubt that the GOP is far more explicit in hating the EPA.

And willing to act on it no less, so I'll take this to mean you agree with me.

But I don't see how you can argue that the Dems are Pro EPA.

Well of course you don't. That would require me to have argued that the Dems are Pro EPA, which I have not.

Both parties are pandering to their bases, and both don't care about anything past getting elected.

On this irrelevant point we can definitely agree. With regard to the issue I think it's more germane to discuss what the particular politicians do, instead of what they say on the election trail. They look good for voters, and do good for donors, but there are politicians out there that work towards keeping us from looking like Mexico or China. They are in the minority, sure, but they are also largely anathema to popular GOP culture. I just don't think panderers bear much significance in the comparison though. One party clearly has a better track record (not without blemishes and caveats, granted) with the environment, and I don't feel it's a coincidence that the party that thinks science is something to support or reject depending on the issue at hand has a terrible record.

 

[shira]

I don't really care if Texas is polluted, just like I don't care if China is polluted. That's their problem and for their people to do something about if they care. If they want to sacrifice their health for other people's profit, that's their decision. I don't plan on living in either place. All I can do is just make sure I don't buy food products from either, and vote Democrat to make sure California doesn't follow in their footsteps.

Well, you should care. Because when all of those dead chickens die after coming home to roost to their polluted Texas hen houses the bill for the cleanup will fall on the rest of us.

 

[theeedude]

Well, you should care. Because when all of those dead chickens die after coming home to roost to their polluted Texas hen houses the bill for the cleanup will fall on the rest of us.

Why? Let Texas clean itself up, if they want to, and not if they don't.

 

[realibrad]

And willing to act on it no less, so I'll take this to mean you agree with me.


Well of course you don't. That would require me to have argued that the Dems are Pro EPA, which I have not.

On this irrelevant point we can definitely agree. With regard to the issue I think it's more germane to discuss what the particular politicians do, instead of what they say on the election trail. They look good for voters, and do good for donors, but there are politicians out there that work towards keeping us from looking like Mexico or China. They are in the minority, sure, but they are also largely anathema to popular GOP culture. I just don't think panderers bear much significance in the comparison though. One party clearly has a better record (not without blemishes and caveats, granted) with the environment, and I don't feel it's a coincidence that it's the party that thinks science is something to support or reject depending on the issue at hand.

I am now very confused.

I make the statement that both parties are crappy in terms of the environment. You then give me the prerequisite of disproving you by showing where another administration has hurt the EPA. I show an example where Dems attack the EPA which I believed showed a clear example of dems hating the EPA.

So where do I now stand? Did I clearly show that both sides are crappy when it comes to the EPA? Are we in agreement that both parties are crap?

Or must I go through google and find a Dem administration that has done something negative?

 

[kage69]

I am now very confused.

I make the statement that both parties are crappy in terms of the environment. You then give me the prerequisite of disproving you by showing where another administration has hurt the EPA. I show an example where Dems attack the EPA which I believed showed a clear example of dems hating the EPA.

So where do I now stand? Did I clearly show that both sides are crappy when it comes to the EPA? Are we in agreement that both parties are crap?

Or must I go through google and find a Dem administration that has done something negative?

In addition to the confusion, I don't think you remember 2000-2008 very well.

Your need to maintain the "both parties are the same" line is why you act like scale and severity are unnecessary aspects of this. Cheney/Bush are widely regarded as undoing decades (a century's worth, if you listen to the Sierra Club) of environmental protections. Can you point to a single Dem admin regarded to have done the same? Can you think of a single Dem president that not only ignores scientific consensus, but actively worked to silence it? Has a Dem admin ever barred the EPA from conducting studies on climate changes effects on endangered species? Any gutting of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts? How about de-funding the cleanup efforts of industrial mercury or arsenic? Has a Dem president dragged ass on carbon emissions and renewable energy so long that dozens of states got tired of waiting and had to enact their own laws? You need more leads, just let me know, that period of time is rife with them.

So no, you didn't show both sides are equally crappy, and no, on the environment they are certainly not the same, not even close. Yeah, I would break out the google if I were you. Add "moving the goalposts" in the search field while you're there. The issue isn't that Dems have done something negative towards the EPA/environment, the issue is you trying to maintain the fiction that both parties are equally bad regarding the EPA/environment - which is demonstrably false. I'm the curious type and willing to hear different views though, so I summoned the audacity to request you try to back up your views.

I hope that helps with your confusion.

 

[michal1980]

In addition to the confusion, I don't think you remember 2000-2008 very well.

Your need to maintain the "both parties are the same" line is why you act like scale and severity are unnecessary aspects of this. Cheney/Bush are widely regarded as undoing decades (a century's worth, if you listen to the Sierra Club) of environmental protections. Can you point to a single Dem admin regarded to have done the same? Can you think of a single Dem president that not only ignores scientific consensus, but actively worked to silence it? Has a Dem admin ever barred the EPA from conducting studies on climate changes effects on endangered species? Any gutting of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts? How about de-funding the cleanup efforts of industrial mercury or arsenic? Has a Dem president dragged ass on carbon emissions and renewable energy so long that dozens of states got tired of waiting and had to enact their own laws? You need more leads, just let me know, that period of time is rife with them.

So no, you didn't show both sides are equally crappy, and no, on the environment they are certainly not the same, not even close. Yeah, I would break out the google if I were you. Add "moving the goalposts" in the search field while you're there. The issue isn't that Dems have done something negative towards the EPA/environment, the issue is you trying to maintain the fiction that both parties are equally bad regarding the EPA/environment - which is demonstrably false. I'm the curious type and willing to hear different views though, so I summoned the audacity to request you to back you position up.

I hope that helps with your confusion.

liberal states enacting liberal policy news at 11

 

[kage69]

liberal states enacting liberal policy news at 11

Hack cherry picking, maintains pathetic forum reputation, stay tuned...

 

[realibrad]

In addition to the confusion, I don't think you remember 2000-2008 very well.

Your need to maintain the "both parties are the same" line is why you act like scale and severity are unnecessary aspects of this. Cheney/Bush are widely regarded as undoing decades (a century's worth, if you listen to the Sierra Club) of environmental protections. Can you point to a single Dem admin regarded to have done the same? Can you think of a single Dem president that not only ignores scientific consensus, but actively worked to silence it? Has a Dem admin ever barred the EPA from conducting studies on climate changes effects on endangered species? Any gutting of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts? How about de-funding the cleanup efforts of industrial mercury or arsenic? Has a Dem president dragged ass on carbon emissions and renewable energy so long that dozens of states got tired of waiting and had to enact their own laws? You need more leads, just let me know, that period of time is rife with them.

So no, you didn't show both sides are equally crappy, and no, on the environment they are certainly not the same, not even close. Yeah, I would break out the google if I were you. Add "moving the goalposts" in the search field while you're there. The issue isn't that Dems have done something negative towards the EPA/environment, the issue is you trying to maintain the fiction that both parties are equally bad regarding the EPA/environment - which is demonstrably false. I'm the curious type and willing to hear different views though, so I summoned the audacity to request you try to back up your views.

I hope that helps with your confusion.

My comment was that both parties hate the EPA. You have now expanded it into something that I never said. I agree that the GOP probably hates the EPA more, but both use it as a tool for their political ends.

If you want to argue something that I never said then say so, but I did not say that both parties are equal in everything.

Here is what I said...
"Both parties hate the EPA. Republicans explicitly want to do away with it, and Democrats make it useless with legislation. Both accomplish the same thing.

Both parties pass loopholes for companies. "

I agree that the GOP is far worse on environmental issues, but that has nothing to do with the statements I made. The EPA does very little to improve the environment so hurting the EPA has little effect in that area. By no means is the current GOP pro environment compared to the Dems, but both dont like the EPA.

 

[HumblePie]

So wait, the video in the OP was of a tanker that was leaking at the time due to a possible malfunction. Some lady saw it, and video taped it instead of calling the proper authorities to come clean up the spill. Instead the video gets posted as "proof" of illegal dumping and all the idiots here buy into that claim. Wow.... just shaking my head at this.

No one in Texas condones illegal dumping. It is ILLEGAL here like anywhere else. There are laws and regulations the companies have to follow. Will some companies or employee be less scrupulous and try to do illegal things? Sure, people break the law everywhere for various shit. They do have inspectors and regulators that try to catch them though. Some will be missed just like some criminals everywhere get away. It's tragic when it does.

Still when something like a spill is noticed you don't fucking run home to get a damn camera to video tape it for a shill of a website. You fucking call the authorities ASAP to get them out there to clean the shit up before it gets worse.