Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

EPA finalizes stricter air pollution rules for Wisconsin, other states
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal ^ | 7/7/11 | Lee Bergquist and Thomas Content

Posted on 07/07/2011 6:36:17 PM PDT by Jean S

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-94 last
To: Jean S

Scott Walker ought to tell the EPA to book a trip in a Prius to Hades.


51 posted on 07/08/2011 3:46:54 AM PDT by Shady (Capitalism works for men who do. Socialism works for men who don’t The numbers do not lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jean S
Mess with the unions and Obama will regulate you into bankruptcy—LIKE IN WISCONSIN.
52 posted on 07/08/2011 3:48:10 AM PDT by Happy Rain ("Sans Sarah-Bachmann's The One.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jean S

They’re making it as formal as possible...We the People vs the Feds.....


53 posted on 07/08/2011 3:50:57 AM PDT by mo ("If you understand, no explanation is needed; if you do not, no explanation is possible")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jean S; Desdemona; Nipfan; carolinablonde; marvlus; DollyCali; markomalley; Bockscar; Thunder90; ...
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

54 posted on 07/08/2011 4:20:35 AM PDT by steelyourfaith (If it's "green" ... it's crap !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

“Today’s EPA should be renamed the ‘Employment Prevention Agency” - Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN)


55 posted on 07/08/2011 4:31:04 AM PDT by newzjunkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luke21; Obadiah; Red Badger

Perhaps you could have someone read over your comments prior to submission? I’ve had a rather good success rate at getting changes made to proposed rules.

Obviously, this doesn’t mean that they can ignore the law they’re implementing, nor that they will totally fold, but remember that even if the comment suggestion isn’t incorporated, they’re forced to address it and it’s on the record.


56 posted on 07/08/2011 5:55:48 AM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Like I said, you get tagged as a trouble maker on somebodies list in DC. You become a ‘activist’ or an ‘subversive’ and it never goes away..............


57 posted on 07/08/2011 5:59:33 AM PDT by Red Badger (Casey Anthony: "Surprise, surprise."...............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Jean S

*


58 posted on 07/08/2011 11:35:39 AM PDT by PMAS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

LoL, NONE.


59 posted on 07/08/2011 12:33:57 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Why do They hate her so much?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

You need to stop screeching irrational crap and look at reality. CONGRESS passes these laws not the EPA. CONGRESS is elected by the American people. The American people WANTED the EPA and it is probably the most popular government agency. It is not going to be disbanded unless the American people begin to deal with realities and it almost never has.

Until these FACTS are faced nothing will be done about the environmentalists NOTHING.


60 posted on 07/08/2011 12:37:36 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Why do They hate her so much?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham

History happens over the heads of rural people. They rarely do anything but react. Cities are what creates civilizations as the name implies.


61 posted on 07/08/2011 12:43:43 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Why do They hate her so much?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: saltus
Note Apostle Paul’s words in Romans 13: “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

Well, then shame on the Founding Fathers. Good grief saltus.

62 posted on 07/08/2011 1:29:42 PM PDT by houeto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
America’s air quality is fantastic.

And China is a Most Favored Nation. Are they not on the same planet as we are?

BEIJING!

63 posted on 07/08/2011 1:37:52 PM PDT by houeto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

“CONGRESS passes these laws not the EPA. The American people WANTED the EPA and it is probably the most popular government agency.”

You write like an eco-fascist moonbat.

Tell everyone about the EPA’s migratory molecule rule and how the EPA’s fascists tried to apply it.

When did Congress pass the migratory molecule rule?

Who sponsored the legislation?

How is the rule applied to tile drainage ditches? And at what distance is it applicable to navigable waters? And who in Congress determined that?

How does the migratory molecule rule fair when it butts up against SWANCC v. US Army?


64 posted on 07/08/2011 1:39:10 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Jean S
Isn't this nice, having huge savings from the robo signer ~ why would we need the left side of the aisle....

Just imagine all the permit fees (fee raises every month, at lease) for a retro tent city....just hose it down and delouse it once a week...get peelousee to shave her pits if she can fit that in...

65 posted on 07/08/2011 2:12:06 PM PDT by 4woodenboats (Obama.....a perfect example of why you can't trust someone that won't look you in the eye)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jean S

I guess this is the punishment for WI getting rid of the unions.


66 posted on 07/08/2011 3:21:21 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

S’OK. Soon they’ll be freezing in the dark.


67 posted on 07/08/2011 3:27:37 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

Congress sets up the laws and allows the agencies to develop the means of implementing those laws. That is the FACT you seem to want to ignore.

If the agency subsequently exceeds its authority or Congressional wishes Congress can easily rule it in. The fact that it does not seems to indicate that Congress supports the EPA. And there is no real opposition to most of its actions in the people at large either. Only a fool would conclude otherwise. Do you think 40 years of propagandizing has had no effect of how people think, especially younger people, about the environment and man’s role within it?

Insulting those who tell you the truth won’t help you get to the bottom of things either. But I am sure vomiting out inflammatory (and completely useless) rhetoric is more to your liking.


68 posted on 07/08/2011 4:19:40 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Why do They hate her so much?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
LoL, NONE.

I'm guessing none attended the public hearings that were held, either.

69 posted on 07/08/2011 4:44:23 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, eco-fascist.

You ignored every question I asked, which is typical of leftists like you. You come on here humping the skunk, telling everyone how much you know about the EPA and congress passing laws. Yet you can’t answer a single question posed to you. Well, go rub obuma’s back, DU troll.

And you’re the bed-wetter who started hurling insults, goosestepper, so expect return fire.

You’re on the wrong website, little SOB. Head back to DU before the kitties are called and you’re zapped.


70 posted on 07/08/2011 4:53:31 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: RC2; gorush; sergeantdave; SueRae; Realman30; barmag25; nascarnation; PENANCE; cranked; henkster; ..
RC2> At the direction of the President I assume.

Yes. President George H.W. Bush signed the law requiring this.

Though actually, it was the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that ordered it be implemented by the EPA after the EPA tried to exempt the power plants (note also the interstate aspects of the broader topic [CSAPR], as familyop has pointed out, where downwind states want implementation that upwind states don't want). The SCOTUS also denied appeals regarding the decision.

If we want the law overturned, then Congress is the place to do it. What kind of conservatives call for laws to be blatantly ignored, suggesting elimination of an implementing agency rather than getting the law amended? [I had composed this comment earlier today but didn't hit "Post"...now I see that arrogantsob has made this point, too. :-) ]

Logical me> Wisconsin should ignore the EPA and warn any attempt at force closing their plants will be the end of the EPA in this State.

Note that this headline focuses on Wisconsin only because that's the location of the source of the article.

In any case, though, Wisconsin's CAMR proposal was even stricter than the EPA's! I'm no fan of the Feds, but it's not like Wisconsin is some innocent victim here.


Also, what part of the EPA's technical basis do people think is flawed, if they do? Is it the studies from the from the medical literature that the EPA referenced? Is it the air/deposition model? Is it some component of the economic analysis? Complaints about the MACTs? Or is the technical basis valid and we're just saying a few birth defects are fine, and it should be legal for power companies to deposit teratogens onto neighbors' property to ensure their product doesn't cost us consumers too much?

I personally don't know all of the details and haven't read all the TSDs, but if people are so sure it's a bad rule, I'd like to hear the basis for that claim.

71 posted on 07/08/2011 5:35:12 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

There are so many flaws in your “logic,” that’s it’s tough to know where to begin.

I won’t go thru your post point by point, because there’s an easier way to destroy your post.

Let’s start with DQA. The Data Quality Act, passed by Congress and signed by George Bush, DEMANDS that any bureaucrat agency bases its rules on SCIENCE.

What DQA means is that ANY rule ginned up by eco-fascist bureaucrats MUST pass the DQA test that it is, indeed, the BEST science available.

But it goes beyond that. Any American, poor, dumb, interested, can challenge any bureaucratic rule in court. And the bureaucracy must present its best scientific facts to support its position.

If they fail, the rule is squashed. In addition, the courts MUST use only the best science when finding for or against a decision. If they don’t, they can be impeached and thrown in prison.

Semper fi, FRiend


72 posted on 07/08/2011 6:34:37 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Nevermore
Both figures are BS.

Note that the cost given was just for next year. IIANM, most of the implementation costs come in the second phase, about 5 years down the line.

73 posted on 07/08/2011 6:40:53 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave; arrogantsob
When did Congress pass the migratory molecule rule?

Congress doesn't pass "rules"...they pass laws that are implemented via rules.

In the case of the "Migratory Molecule Rule," it's the Clean Water Act. Without the CWA, there could be no "Migratory Molecule Rule." (Note that I'm interpreting your term "Migratory Molecule Rule" broadly.)

Who sponsored the legislation?

Edmund Muskie, I believe, was the primary sponsor...but you should be able to look up all the sponsors.

How is the rule applied to tile drainage ditches? And at what distance is it applicable to navigable waters? And who in Congress determined that?

Soon after the Clean Water Act was passed, it was determined in federal court that Congress intended it to apply to more than strictly navigable waters. IIRC, in one of the first portions of the law, it notes that the intent is to protect navigable waters--and that, of course, requires control of the inputs to navigable waters. There have been dozens of court cases confirming the CWA jurisdiction over these "Migratory Molecule" inputs. To get specific answers on how the rule (which was shot down in its original sense by a complex SCOTUS decision, but supported in a narrower sense) is applied in a modified way, you should contact an environmental attorney--I'm not qualified to answer those questions, despite having a couple of binders of MDEQ documents in my back seat at the moment. :-) But as stated above, Congress determined, and the SCOTUS agreed, that many inputs are regulated under the CWA.

And the important point: Congress has not amended the CWA to avoid including "significant nexus" or "permanent flow" inputs. Congress has left intact the interpretations of dozens of court cases, including the decision of the SCOTUS.

How does the migratory molecule rule fair when it butts up against SWANCC v. US Army?

The "Migratory Moleule Rule" came in response to SWANCC v. USACOE, so there's not an issue of "butting up against" it. See a case known as Rapanos v. United States (dealing with a case in your state) for more relevant and recent info.

As you highlight, the EPA and COE rules are subject to court decisions and may be overturned by Congressional amendments. I believe this is exactly what arrogantsob is pointing out: the laws are passed by Congress, and the agencies are Executive branch--i.e., implementing the laws, and subject to checks and balances of the Legislative and and Judicial branches.

So Congress is the appropriate root-cause target for reform.* Without the Clean Water Act being written the way it is, allowing these EPA/COE rules, the rules couldn't exist.



*unless we act like little anti-American lefties and push for ignoring the law.

74 posted on 07/08/2011 6:41:47 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Jean S

Who needs clean air! SAY NO TO CLEAN AIR!!!


75 posted on 07/08/2011 6:43:10 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

Don’t be an idiot, this has nothing to do with clean air.


76 posted on 07/08/2011 6:51:54 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
And I am asking you, what part of the rule doesn't meet the DQA? The EPA has provided all of their technical basis and it seems to be the best science available. I haven't found any flaws (though I haven't looked at much of it, nor am I qualified to evaluate many sections), so I've asked for input on what is supposedly not the best science.

They held public hearings that allowed "Any American, poor, dumb, interested," to attend (you can even download the recordings), and they've provided updates right into this week. For example, there's a TSD from July 1, 2011.

In fact, the public comment period for the proposed mercury and air toxic standards has been extended until August 4.

77 posted on 07/08/2011 7:19:31 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Jean S

Sounds like punishment for Wisconsin’s electing a GOP governnor...

Naw, I’, probably just being paranoid.


78 posted on 07/08/2011 7:23:04 PM PDT by Redbob (W.W.J.B.D.: "What Would Jack Bauer Do?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jean S
The last line in the article: "It's a piece of the administration's broader move to say, 'Let's get busy and enforce the Clean Air Act,' " said Jennifer Feyerherm of Wisconsin's Sierra Club. "It's long overdue and much needed to reduce pollution."

Reading between the lines, it's pretty clear that this is part of the global warming nonsense that they are trying to pull off. Instead of saying, hey, we're raising your rates (in Wisconsin) because we don't think your winters are cold enough, they are yapping about sulfur dioxide or whatnot.

79 posted on 07/08/2011 7:28:22 PM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring; sergeantdave

Nope very few do attend these things except those with an axe to grind over something particular, an enviro group, a consultant, a project manager and state officials.

Most of the others prefer bitching and moaning after the horse is out of the barn.


80 posted on 07/08/2011 7:33:41 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Why do They hate her so much?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

The last thing I am going to do is take direction from a dumbass.

My “insult” was to your flaming rhetoric.

Call any “kitties” you wish if you can’t handle facts.


81 posted on 07/08/2011 7:36:02 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Why do They hate her so much?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: houeto

“BEIJING!”

Thats the kind of air we need! People have to walk around wearing masks over their mouths and noses, and just think of the lung disease they will suffer from down the road, if they don`t have it already. But what the hey,,,think of the profit industries in China are making! Profit should always come before health. sarc/


82 posted on 07/08/2011 7:38:03 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

One of the huge problems with these cases is that you practically have to devote your life to it. Tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of pages of documents have to be read and understood involving several complex disciplines. Who has time for this?

However, I must say that much, if not most, of EPA’s scientific work is extremely questionable if not fraudulent. It has never impressed me. Generally what is done is a position is taken then studies are undertaken or referenced which support that conclusion.

Nor is any consideration given of what the threat the technology replaces would have done. Protesting coal fired plants is one thing but is there anyone who seriously maintains that using wood for energy would have caused fewer deaths.

I think if EPA safety standards were used for approval of new drugs we would see almost none approved.


83 posted on 07/08/2011 7:44:57 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Why do They hate her so much?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer
Who needs clean air! SAY NO TO CLEAN AIR!!!

I'm copying a quoted comment from that link:

"Our air and water are far cleaner than it was 100 years ago. We no longer heat and cook on coal or wood. Our cars are far cleaner than they were 20 years ago. Our water is cleaner then it's been in over a century. So please tell me why we're forcing increases in energy now when the Obam Depression is showing no signs of improvement. Unless your goal is to move the last of the jobs to China, India, South America and Africa. One small problem. Not everyone can be government workers or on entitlements. Someone has to work and pay taxes."
So stop being a liberal buffoon.
84 posted on 07/08/2011 7:47:27 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Until Obama, has there ever been, in history, a Traitorous Ruler?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Gondring; arrogantsob

You got so much wrong, I don’t know where to start.

The migratory molecule rule has nothing to do with the clean water act. It has everything to do with the fascist EPA persecuting a farmer.

The migratory molecule rule doesn’t exist. It was never passed by congress and nobody, including the Congress or the US Supreme Court, knows what it means.

It was an invention by the fascists in the EPA to destroy a farmer in Michigan.

I set this out as an example to expose that know-nothing leftist arrogantsob as the fraudster that he is. As I mentioned, arrogantsob couldn’t answer a single question I posed.

“Ed Muskie sponsored the “migratory molecule rule?”

Really? Give me a cite. You can’t. Muskie was dead many years before the fascist EPA tried to destroy the farmer with the pretend “molecule rule.”

Congress never passed a “migratory molecule rule.” It was an invention by the Nazi EPA to destroy a farmer.

“Soon after the Clean Water Act was passed, it was determined in federal court that Congress intended it to apply to more than strictly navigable waters.”

That’s bullshit. In SWANCC v US Army, the Supreme court very clearly stated that the CWA is very restrictive.

“There have been dozens of court cases confirming the CWA jurisdiction over these “Migratory Molecule” inputs.”

You’re really fishing off the deep end and don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

There was ONE US Supreme Court decision addressing the stupid and insane “migratory molecule rule.”

“I’m not qualified to answer those questions...”

Ah, the first reasonable thing you’ve said.

“But as stated above, Congress determined, and the SCOTUS agreed, that many inputs are regulated under the CWA.”

What in blazes does that mean?

“The “Migratory Moleule Rule” came in response to SWANCC v. USACOE, so there’s not an issue of “butting up against” it.”

No, the migratory molecule rule was shot down by the Supreme Court based on SWANCC v US ARMY.

Okay, give it your best shot: Explain to everyone here what the “migratory molecule” rule is. I’ll bet a box of doughnuts that you can’t because you needed to be involved in the court case to understand the extreme fascist stupidity of the EPA.


85 posted on 07/08/2011 8:03:54 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
The basis for the claim, on my part, is that they're ALL bad rules. Regulations for the sake of regulating. EPA has an $11 billion budget and 18,000 employees. All those people need something to do. And what they do is destroy the free market one rule at a time.

As for flaws in the basis for the rule, it's ALL flawed -- the medical studies, the air/deposition model (whatever that is), the economic analysis, and the MACTs. And I say that with confidence, even without having seen any of it.

As for your Enviro-Com appeal to fear, it means as much to me as EPA's supporting data and analyses. After all, without the ludicrous appeals to fear there would be no EPA.

86 posted on 07/08/2011 8:05:35 PM PDT by PENANCE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

Why are you yammering on about “farmers” and “migratory molecules” when this article is about the Clean Air Act case that Wisconsin filed?

And why do you get so nasty at those pointing out the fact that this is all to be laid at Congress’ door? Congress can change laws when presented with rational argument and proof. It has amended the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act several times each. It could abolish both.

However, belligerence won’t overcome the massive environmentalist propaganda which has inundated the population.


87 posted on 07/08/2011 8:16:56 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Why do They hate her so much?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Do you pride yourself in getting off topic like a liberal?

We were talking about the migratory molecule rule, not DQA.

If you care to investigate, the migratory molecule rule was shot down by the USSC.

As I asked, explain the Migratory molecule rule. Then you ask me what part of the rule doesn’t meet the DQA?

You can’t even state what the migratory molecule rule is. You think Muskie wrote legislation to enable the migratory molecule rule. Cite it.


88 posted on 07/08/2011 8:41:23 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

“Why are you yammering on about “farmers” and “migratory molecules” when this article is about the Clean Air Act case that Wisconsin filed?”

Because my original post brought these subjects up.


89 posted on 07/08/2011 8:44:56 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

But those have nothing to do with this article or case. There are hundreds of horror stories which could be discussed and dozens of abstruse and bizarre rules created and enforced but they are outside this case.

What is really interesting about this is that Wisconsin filed suit probably at the direction of a Democrat governor and secretary of state (the drunk one likely) and it has blown up in their faces with this ruling. RATS are screwing the state even after they were kicked out.


90 posted on 07/08/2011 9:10:12 PM PDT by arrogantsob (Why do They hate her so much?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Gondring; All

Thanks for the ping back to the thread. A very lively discussion indeed. Yes, I read every post...every word. I’ll repost my original...

Great post & thread. Thanks to all.

DEFUND/(DISMANTLE/DESTROY when necessary), socialist collectives, foreign and domestic.

...and add...

With that in mind (after funding for socialist collectives has stopped) legislatures (state and federal) could be part-time with 1/10th pay, NO benefits, NO retirement, NO perks.


91 posted on 07/09/2011 6:33:27 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: saltus
God is in control.

Note Apostle Paul’s words in Romans 13:

Now harmonize that with the American Revolution. Were all of those Christian men in rebellion against God?

92 posted on 07/09/2011 9:01:51 AM PDT by The Theophilus (Obama's Key to win 2012: Ban Haloperidol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
What the hell are they going to plug all those electric cars into?

I have one suggestion, but it'd be below the belt.

93 posted on 07/09/2011 2:02:53 PM PDT by 4woodenboats (Obama.....a perfect example of why you can't trust someone that won't look you in the eye)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jean S
I don't understand all the negative comments about this. If you had a kid with asthma you might feel differently. Just because the government does lots of things very poorly does not mean that the government should not do anything.

My guess is that almost all of us are grateful that we have police to enforce traffic laws. This is one example of the proper role of government. How else could traffic laws be enforced? In the same way, the only way to ensure that some company doesn't dump huge amounts of pollution into the air because it is more profitable than removing the pollution is with laws enforced by some policing agency, such as EPA.

94 posted on 07/09/2011 10:12:06 PM PDT by RonBush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-94 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson