House Republicans Vote to End Rule Stopping Coal Mining Debris From Being Dumped in Streams
91 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;51765831]Are they seriously fucking playing the jobs card here[/QUOTE]
There's that old saying an ex-foreman used to say:
"Do something, even if it's wrong".
this makes me sick to my stomach, which has been a recurring theme ever since this administration began.
i just want this daily nightmare to be over already
-snip-
[media]https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/827246742856933376[/media]
...it passed
4 dems voted for it.
[media]https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/827252890356051969[/media]
Midterm elections can't come fast enough.
[quote] "The stream protection rule is really just a thinly veiled attempt to wipe out coal mining jobs," Ryan, R-Wis., said.[/quote]
"Oh no! They saw through my villainous scheme to wipe out jobs it was the perfect plan how could I fail!"
[QUOTE=piddlezmcfuz;51768461]In this thread I learned that RIPBILLYMAYS thinks that life, health, and wellbeing are secondary to profit
The terrifying thing is that half of the country, and the bulk of our government at the moment, agree with this sentiment.
Honestly who gives a shit if anyone gets an economic advantage through causing harm to the planet and the people on it? Fuck those guys. They should be regulated to death anyway for willingly causing harm.[/QUOTE]
The sad thing is, I'm pretty sure the mindset that has led to this is built into the very foundations of America, and hence is at the core of what it means to be an American. I mean the entire notion of the American dream is basically, "you deserve to be in whatever position you're in in life." If you do well in life, then it's because you're a hard working entrepreneur who has persevered against all odds, and you deserve to reap the benefits without interference. If you're not doing well in life then it's probably your own fault because you're lazy, you don't try hard enough, and until you pick yourself up by your bootstraps you deserve nothing (even when in real life sometimes the universe has conspired against you and you've just been dealt a particularly shitty hand).
The hard working entrepreneurs then turn around and says to everyone, "hey, the big bad government is taking my hard earned money away through taxes and by forcing me to adhere to ridiculous regulations! It's not fair!" and everyone gets riled up.
:snip:
[QUOTE=AbioFlesh;51765798]The fuck is wrong with these people?[/QUOTE]
They don't have to drink the water [I]so they don't give a fuck[/I].
What I don't understand is why anyone is surprised by this. This is the republican party, period. This is day in day out policy for them.
[editline]3rd February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51766116]Im asking for evidence supporting or refuting the claim that mining companies are uncompetitive because other mining companies are saving money by dumping shit into the rivers.[/QUOTE]
Negro [I]please[/I]
Are you seriously saying with a straight fucking face the [B]last 50 years[/B] of irrefutable impact that can be observed [I]right now with the naked fucking eye[/I] and by looking at ANY fiscal economic throughput report with nonrenewable energy since the 1980's is [I]speculation?[/I]
No one in an engineering program is that obtuse by accident.
After reading all these news about Republicans I'm convinced they're just pure movie villains who only give a shit about money and [I]nothing[/I] else.
[QUOTE=SgtTupelo;51770152]After reading all these news about Republicans I'm convinced they're just pure movie villains who only give a shit about money and [I]nothing[/I] else.[/QUOTE]
They care about being reelected too, and as a result restrict human rights to appeal to Christians and xenophobes, since that is their entire voting base. Gotta make their voters feel vindicated as they are royally fucked over by policy meant to fill the pockets of the 1%
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51765970]Can anyone back or refute the claims that it makes countries uncompetitive?
Dumping coal trails into rivers is bad but there's no point in stopping if others dump into it anyway.[/QUOTE]
WHAT.
ripbillymays you've said some dumb shit over the past year or so but this takes the cake. Other states polluting their own rivers and damaging their own environments is not an excuse for us to, especially because the impact of dumping pollutants into rivers is insanely localized, damaging (in some cases severely) the surrounding ecosystem and water tables. Aka the community that lives around that coal mine/plant.
You know how your parents probably used to say "well if Tony jumped off a bridge, would you?" but it just never really seemed to fit the situation? This is a case where that fits fuckin perfectly.
I mean this genuinely, what the fuck is running through your head to make a justification like that? Like WHAT?
I don't know what you're all so concerned about, I replaced my ice machine with a coal machine years ago, haven't been healthier, water just tastes so good when there's a fucking rock in it.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51765970]Can anyone back or refute the claims that it makes countries uncompetitive?
Dumping coal trails into rivers is bad but there's no point in stopping if others dump into it anyway.[/QUOTE]
But in all seriousness, to have this kind of logic, you must've survived on nothing BUT coal while growing up.
its fine, its clean coal, so itll just be like dumping soap into the streams haha
We should put lead back in the gasoline.
We're trying to recreate the past, right?
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51765970]Can anyone back or refute the claims that it makes countries uncompetitive?
Dumping coal trails into rivers is bad but there's no point in stopping if others dump into it anyway.[/QUOTE]
I was fully expecting someone to defend this, but not in this mind-boggling amount of stupidity.
I guess I'm not allowed to ask questions.
I rescind the post that dumping because others are doing it is justifiable but keep in mind that the reason Republicans are trying to justify it is supposedly because of economics. They aren't elaborating if companies dumping into American rivers are more competitive than the ones who keep rivers clean, or they can't compete with Chinese companies that dump into Chinese rivers. I am asking for data on this because its not clear what Republicans are trying to say.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51777544]I guess I'm not allowed to ask questions.
I rescind the post that dumping because others are doing it is justifiable but keep in mind that the reason Republicans are trying to justify it is supposedly because of economics. They aren't elaborating if companies dumping into American rivers are more competitive than the ones who keep rivers clean, or they can't compete with Chinese companies that dump into Chinese rivers. I am asking for data on this because its not clear what Republicans are trying to say.[/QUOTE]
Okay, simple question
If the US had to dump in rivers to be competitive, is it worth it?
[QUOTE=Tomo Takino;51777452]I was fully expecting someone to defend this, but not in this mind-boggling amount of stupidity.[/QUOTE]
RIPBILLY "No, I mean I take my coffee [I][b]black[/b][/I]" MAYS.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51777590]Okay, simple question
If the US had to dump in rivers to be competitive, is it worth it?[/QUOTE]
The simple answer is no because I like my natural resources.
The answer that you need to show [I] to Congress[/I] is more complicated.
As an example, something that is not accounted for in the use of nuclear energy is the amount of deaths avoided by air pollution [URL="http://docdro.id/tL3P9Oi"]studied here[/URL]. Different government agencies (EPA, NRC, NHTSA, ect.) value human life differently, but the important thing to note is that [U]human life is assigned a monetary value by your government.[/U] On the bright side, the US values human life a lot more than China does.
Beyond human life, environmental services also have an economic value, [URL="http://docdro.id/WBVihDx"]which is also accounted for[/URL]. You account for things like recreational value, quality of water, resources like fish and fresh water, esthetics, cultural values, ect. Its very hard to [I]quantify[/I] these kinds of values because its subjective until governments assign values to them, which tends to happen only after it is lost.
If you want a [I]real[/I] answer, you have to analyze all of this. Your losses are in environmental usage, water quality, air quality, health problems, ect. Your (possible) gains are in people making money from jobs, exporting coal, cheap electricity bills, ect. If your gains are greater than your losses then people will normally go with it.
This field of study is called (Probabilistic) Risk Analysis if you are interested. Its how insurance companies and regulatory agencies make policies.
every person that thinks this is alright and wants it to continue should be required to drink a big fucking pint of dirty ass water
I am convinced that the GOP all grew up drinking lead-poisoned water and think that just because they didn't lose their motor functions that it is fine and everyone needs to toughen up
It's obvious that there is something wrong with their brains considering every decision they have ever made
Jesus Christ, these people would burn down the entire country if it meant a couple extra bucks.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;51777684]The simple answer is no because I like my natural resources.
The answer that you need to show [I] to Congress[/I] is more complicated.
As an example, something that is not accounted for in the use of nuclear energy is the amount of deaths avoided by air pollution [URL="http://docdro.id/tL3P9Oi"]studied here[/URL]. Different government agencies (EPA, NRC, NHTSA, ect.) value human life differently, but the important thing to note is that [U]human life is assigned a monetary value by your government.[/U] On the bright side, the US values human life a lot more than China does.
Beyond human life, environmental services also have an economic value, [URL="http://docdro.id/WBVihDx"]which is also accounted for[/URL]. You account for things like recreational value, quality of water, resources like fish and fresh water, esthetics, cultural values, ect. Its very hard to [I]quantify[/I] these kinds of values because its subjective until governments assign values to them, which tends to happen only after it is lost.
If you want a [I]real[/I] answer, you have to analyze all of this. Your losses are in environmental usage, water quality, air quality, health problems, ect. Your (possible) gains are in people making money from jobs, exporting coal, cheap electricity bills, ect. If your gains are greater than your losses then people will normally go with it.
This field of study is called (Probabilistic) Risk Analysis if you are interested. Its how insurance companies and regulatory agencies make policies.[/QUOTE]
The complicated answer should still be, "dumping coal into water is a really bad long term risk that messes with the environment on a scale we can't ethically test, except for all those times we already did it and we should probably stop using coal by now."
You can use probabilistic risk analysis to rationalize almost any decision as long as you frame it from the correct perspective to make the decision look like a good one.
Pretty much everything you listed in your "real" answer part is incredibly short term based decision making. You can create temporary jobs for anything, doesn't mean they won't get phased out. This is the main downfall I see in most policy creation, it's disgustingly short sighted and doesn't often think more than 5 years in the future. Just because something is good now doesn't mean we should do it and have a mess 30 years down the line again. Isn't this the garbage we're supposed to take away from secondary school history courses?
Why the fuck don't we want to progress as a society beyond burning things for electricity?
[QUOTE=-Chief-;51780506]Jesus Christ, these people would burn down the entire country if it meant a couple extra bucks.[/QUOTE]
You elect a guy that says he wants to run the country like a business that's what he'll do.
Cut corners and fuck people over, whatever it takes to make that $$$
Sure, this will add jobs. Because apparently everyone can afford powerful water filters and imported bottled drinking water now.
Oh wait, a majority of us can't.
I cant believe we're still fighting over whether its a good idea to dump trash and chemicals into our drinking water or not.
i feel like the discourse is slowly going from [URL="https://i.imgur.com/VNHIV1M.jpg"]this[/URL] to a picture of similar nature, except replace "her emails" with "the jobs."
How soon can we get rid of these bastards?
[QUOTE=artDecor;51783494]How soon can we get rid of these bastards?[/QUOTE]
As soon as people start giving more of a shit about midterm and local elections and less of a shit about partisan bullshit
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.