Jump to content
Tweety Tweety (Member) Expert Nurse

Obama asks EPA to back off draft ozone standard

Lounge   (1,714 Views 21 Comments)
6 Followers; 51,551 Visitors; 28,539 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
President Oama Friday asked the Environmental Protection Agency to drop the development of controversial rules to cut smog levels, pleasing the business community but upsetting environmentalists.

The business community and the Republican Party have loudly decried the possibility of more stringent rules on ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, as job-killers.

But to Obama's environmental base, the decision to back down from the ozone rules was the latest in a string of decisions and signals that suggest to them that the administration is backing away from key anti-pollution initiatives before the 2012 election to court business and anti-regulation voters.

Obama asks EPA to back off draft ozone standard - latimes.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not going to change my vote, personally. But it's a step in the right direction, away from ever more expensive, burdensome regulations that strangle jobs and hurt middle- and lower-income families by jacking up the price of gas and electricity. I don't care about the rich; they can manage either way. It's Middle America---AKA you and me---that will be hurt if the radical eco-warriors get their way, so anything that keeps the EPA from running amok is good IMO.

And no, I don't want to see every acre of land developed and the skyline full of tall buildings whose tops can't be seen for the smog. Somewhere between the enviro-nuts and the despoilers of the Earth, there ARE voices of reason........and those are the folks I hope will prevail in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But a number of environmental groups disagree, including the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It is frustrating to see them kowtowing to this notion that you can't save jobs and the environment, when in reality we know that the best way to have a successful economy is to have healthy people," Liz Perera of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy group, told HuffPost. "It's not helping our economy when people have to stay home to care for kids having asthma attacks."

Asthma alone costs the U.S. economy $20 billion a year due to health and productivity losses, according to the National Institutes of Health.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/02/obama-ozone-standard-epa-environmental-groups_n_947136.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

Edited by Tweety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not going to change my vote, personally. But it's a step in the right direction, away from ever more expensive, burdensome regulations that strangle jobs and hurt middle- and lower-income families by jacking up the price of gas and electricity. I don't care about the rich; they can manage either way. It's Middle America---AKA you and me---that will be hurt if the radical eco-warriors get their way, so anything that keeps the EPA from running amok is good IMO.

And no, I don't want to see every acre of land developed and the skyline full of tall buildings whose tops can't be seen for the smog. Somewhere between the enviro-nuts and the despoilers of the Earth, there ARE voices of reason........and those are the folks I hope will prevail in the long run.

Hear, hear! And just this week, I heard that there are 4 green energy companies, some making solar panels, that have declared bankruptcy in the past few months.... 3 in the past few days. Three (don't know if they are the same three) are companies where Obama gave a RAH-RAH speech.

People just cannot afford it and just because you build it, doesn't mean people will come, er, I mean, buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's just foreign competition and an overall bad economy that is causing the bankruptcies.

Solyndra, Solar-Panel Company Visited by Obama in 2010, Suspends Operation - Bloomberg

Chinese solar energy company Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. Ltd. (YGE: News ) reported Friday a profit for the second quarter that surged from last year, reflecting strong revenue growth and as the year-ago quarter was weighed down by a significant foreign currency translation loss.

http://www.rttnews.com/Content/BreakingNews.aspx?Id=1696402

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure that's part of it but about 6 or 7 years ago, when the economy wasn't all that bad, we inquired about solar panels. Retrofitting a house half the size we have would have cost close to $30,000 and there would be no financial benefit for about 25 years. That was the information given by the company. Now, I ask ya, what is the incentive there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sure that's part of it but about 6 or 7 years ago, when the economy wasn't all that bad, we inquired about solar panels. Retrofitting a house half the size we have would have cost close to $30,000 and there would be no financial benefit for about 25 years. That was the information given by the company. Now, I ask ya, what is the incentive there?

I haven't even considered even inquiring knowing I can't afford it. If I did go solar it wouldn't be a complete overhaul but baby steps...perhaps one that would heat the water, or run the appliances. But like most people, I'm just getting by. I've been noticing some solar panels around here on call boxes and street lights. That's cool.

Obama's stimulus to the above company was a big fail since they went bankrupt. A complete and total waste of taxpayer money.

The Chinese are a little better at forward thinking in that they are investing in infrastructure and clean energy. They also represent the worst because of their lack of regulation kills people.

I'm not quite understanding what you're saying about no financial benefit for 25 years. Were they saying it will take 25 years to pay for itself, or will your power bills be the same and magically be lowered in 25 years and thus showing a financial benefit then. Also, I'm not understanding your point, other than to change the subject to include another anti-environmental movement rant. (deja vu). Were the new regulations going to force people to buy solar energy in order to stop polluting the ozone?

Obama broke his campaign promise and caved to special interests and republicans yet again. No big surprise there. I can understand the focus right now should be on jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The impact would have been felt heavily in a band of Midwest and Great Plains states that are not themselves major sources of ozone pollution and that will be critical 2012 electoral battlegrounds.

In a statement, the president reiterated his commitment to environmental concerns, but added: “At the same time, I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover. With that in mind, and after careful consideration, I have requested that Administrator Jackson withdraw the draft Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards at this time.”

.....and people wonder why he's called a "DINO"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not quite understanding what you're saying about no financial benefit for 25 years. Were they saying it will take 25 years to pay for itself, or will your power bills be the same and magically be lowered in 25 years and thus showing a financial benefit then. Also, I'm not understanding your point, other than to change the subject to include another anti-environmental movement rant. (deja vu). Were the new regulations going to force people to buy solar energy in order to stop polluting the ozone?

QUOTE]

I don't remember exactly, but since we were talking about a house half the size of the one we have (in anticipation of downsizing) we didn't follow up. I do remember that we couldn't afford it either, and it appeared to have absolutely no benefit to us.

As far as changing the topic, in my opinion, this is green energy, and it all goes along with the ozone and the regs and trying to get people to buy and buy into, the idea that green is perfect...which it isn't?

And for one who doesn't want topics changed, you toss in the Chinese:lol2: Ever been to Taiwan. Rivers and streams there run green, blue, purple, red during the work week, colored with who knows what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't remember exactly, but since we were talking about a house half the size of the one we have (in anticipation of downsizing) we didn't follow up. I do remember that we couldn't afford it either, and it appeared to have absolutely no benefit to us.

As far as changing the topic, in my opinion, this is green energy, and it all goes along with the ozone and the regs and trying to get people to buy and buy into, the idea that green is perfect...which it isn't?

And for one who doesn't want topics changed, you toss in the Chinese:lol2: Ever been to Taiwan. Rivers and streams there run green, blue, purple, red during the work week, colored with who knows what?

Sorry if I came across as one whom doesn't like topics changed.....I just have to understand the point. Thanks for clarifying. I brought up the Chinese because it related to your change of topic, just in case you want to understand that point. But what's the point in bringing up Taiwan?:lol2:

I'm not really interested in having much of a conversation with someone who uses the term "eco-terrorist" or "eco-nut", nor someone whom applauds it. We've had enough conversations at this point we could write each other's posts. Marla was very predictable in her response. I've erased several posts in response and throw my hands up in the air at this point since I'm probably predictable as well. :uhoh3::uhoh3::uhoh3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry if I came across as one whom doesn't like topics changed.....I just have to understand the point. Thanks for clarifying. I brought up the Chinese because it related to your change of topic, just in case you want to understand that point. But what's the point in bringing up Taiwan?:lol2:

QUOTE]Taiwan/China the fruit falls close to the tree, and some of the photos I saw of the smog in Beijing for the Olympics ad stories of people being forced to wade through the muck-filled waters nearby to clean it up, plus what I personally saw in Taiwan, tells me that the Chinese aren't all that eco-friendly.....just that they want to believe they are and therefore make photo ops to try and prove that.

Yes, you are predictable:yeah: Can you throw us something once in a while that would totally confuse and maybe amaze us? :lol2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you are predictable:yeah: Can you throw us something once in a while that would totally confuse and maybe amaze us? :lol2:

Probably not. I'm pretty stable and steadfast. If that happens it will be spontaneously brilliant and amazing and not forced. Admittedly those moments are few and far between, especially from your point of view. :lol2:

Taiwan/China the fruit falls close to the tree, and some of the photos I saw of the smog in Beijing for the Olympics ad stories of people being forced to wade through the muck-filled waters nearby to clean it up, plus what I personally saw in Taiwan, tells me that the Chinese aren't all that eco-friendly.....just that they want to believe they are and therefore make photo ops to try and prove that.

BTW, I did say China was killing people. While they might be forward looking and investing they are good example of what can happen without regulation. Thanks for pointing that out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×

This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.