Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!
EPA: What, Us Regulate Pollution?
treehugger.com — Here are the grim statistics: the number of enforcement actions dropped by 25% under the current administration compared with actions taken under President Clinton from 1996 to 2000, civil penalties meted out to companies in violation of the law have fallen by 24%, criminal fines are down 38% and the number of criminal investigations tumbled 23%.
piccolo2385- 666 diggs
- digg it
- DiggeralToolz, on 10/11/2007, -18/+42This couldn't be due to more companies following EPA guidelines, right?
- keyboardduder, on 10/11/2007, -6/+19Just for example, the EPA will give a car an "estimate" on MPG and its usually 5 (ish) higher than is really is! Now THATS not doing your job.
- Slovenian6474, on 10/11/2007, -7/+18Statistics do NOT show cause and effect, but simply that there is or is not a correlation.
- TheCash, on 10/11/2007, -11/+20This from the agency that over-regulates the construction of newer, cleaner refineries, forcing oil producers to keep older, less efficient refineries on life support while driving up the cost of oil at the same time.
With this kind of logic, I should just keep my '72 oldsmobile instead of buying a new 35+ mpg sedan. Makes total sense, especially if you're a government agency.
Now are you starting to see why I'm so worried about government healthcare for all? - doktorrocket, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9@DiggeralToolz
"This couldn't be due to more companies following EPA guidelines, right?"
The presumption is no, but you raise an important point: The difficulty in measuring behavior indirectly through enforcement action. If you want to reduce the incidence of arson, and your new approach results in a doubling in the number of arson arrests, is that progress or no? Maybe you've caught twice as many, but maybe the arrest rate is the same and the number of arsonists has doubled. - gotamd, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10That's exactly what I was thinking. This doesn't show that we're any worse off. You could just as easily say that this shows that we're doing better than we were.
- TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6Thats funny that even the description compares the current administration to years 1996-2000........who had majority of congress during Clinton's last term? Oh yeah...Republicans.
- Pfhreak, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5"Now are you starting to see why I'm so worried about government healthcare for all?"
Very few advocates of Universal Healthcare are in favor of the government taking over all health insurance, just providing service for those who can't afford health insurance now. Also, there's a big difference between a government program, with all it's inherent bureaucratic inefficiency, and a government program that's being intentionally mis-managed, which is the case with the Bush-43 EPA.
"Thats funny that even the description compares the current administration to years 1996-2000........who had majority of congress during Clinton's last term? Oh yeah...Republicans."
Your point being? Congress has nothing to do with enforcing the laws, the Administration does. - spartan777, on 10/11/2007, -7/+9this is a GOOD thing! the EPA did a lot of BS.
For example, I know someone who was plant manager for a Borden Chemical plant in WI. He has a degree in chemical engineering, and has spent his career working in the business. So along came the EPA, in the 90's, demanding that Borden purchase a filter that would cost 100's of THOUSANDS of dollars for a smokestack. They had no knowledge of the chemical processes going on, but they felt it was important to do something. This plant manager knew that the filter wouldn't have any effect, and that there were cheaper ways to accomplish what the EPA wanted. In response, the EPA pulled a Gestapo, and demanded that they implement the filter otherwise the chemical plant would be shut down. No second opinion, no appeals, no nothing. The EPA went around making demands, costing private business, and in turn all of us, millions of dollars. That the EPA is letting off is a GOOD thing. The EPA Gestapo days are (mostly) over. - JaYBrooks, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3a lot of things were made official during 1989 so President Clinton was just in time... http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/caa90/02.htm. I remember having to get a EPA License to handle CFC R-12 for Air Conditioners and Refrigerators. I know that the company I work for is very very anal about making sure to report any spills (I am glad this is how it is too). They pay 6000$ a month to have a company (3E) that is able to take care of any waste, even if we don't have anything to give them. So when you see a price that is way higher on the shelf than it was 15 years ago, you know why.
Jay - SocialPoison, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1@doktorrocket
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm - gothsquirrel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Well there is the whole ...."and the number of criminal investigations tumbled 23%" so no i don't think you comment is very valid.
- 35chililights, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3or the fact that states have been given more authority, taking the power out of the federal government.
you know the whole Republican/democrat thing - NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1all I know is that the trucks around here in IL... are practically un-regulated.... and they polute the most... problem is the trucking industry pays off the leaders in this state, to keep them un-regulated... -_-
- theholycow, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@keyboardduder:
The estimates are probably as accurate as your adherence to the speed limit and your vehicle's maintenance schedule.
In fact, I just looked it up, and I consistently get the EPA estimate or better. 2002 GMC Sierra 1500 4WD. According to http://www.epa.gov/emissweb/E-GMC-Sierra1500-02.htm I should get 14 mpg city / 17 mpg highway. On country roads, which for economy purposes are probably halfway between city and highway, I get 15 to 16 mpg, and when I used to drive on long highway trips I consistently got slightly over 18mpg. The highway speed limits around here are usually 55, sometimes 65 mph,.and I rarely exceeded 75 at that time.
Things that were good for my economy: Slow speed, tires inflated far beyond GMC's posted numbers (but no more than the tire's max) (for handling, durability, wear, and load carrying purposes; hey, it works well for _my_ purposes but may be bad for others).
Things that were bad for my economy: Lots of stuff spoiling the aerodynamics of the truck (ladder racks, CB antenna, etc), heavy-duty tires (LT-series load range E instead of the OEM P-series) with high rolling resistance, heavy and/or bulky loads.
Prompt, expeditious but not overzealous acceleration: Good or bad for economy? Don't know. I don't think moseying up to 50 mph in two minutes can be all that great, seems like you'd go too much distance in lower gears. Either way, it worked for me. - InferiorWang, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What, me worry?
- bemenaker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Is anyone really surprised by this? Really?
Who is in power in congress is irrelevant to this discussion, the EPA is part of the executive branch.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -14/+37The EPA has basically been destroyed by the Bush administration. Taming the EPA was one of their primary goals, and almost 8 years of intentional mismanagement has "paid off".
Hopefully the next administration will reverse the damage wrought by the neocon troglodytes.- mlarsen, on 10/11/2007, -9/+8What is your definition of "neocon"?
- jonnyboy1544, on 10/11/2007, -5/+10I think Junkyarddawg was drawing a correlation between neocons and pollution. They really don't have anything to do with each other.
Remember, San Francisco is probably one of the dirtiest cities in the US. And yes, neocons suck. - firebird84, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4@johnnyboy
That's because of San Francisco's unique geography, actually. I did a research project on this while I was still in school. It's interesting, as well, because apparently turing El Nino years, San Francisco will have clean air because of the way the air layers itself. I really can't remember all the results. I'm not saying that your statement is incorrect, but SanFrancisco is probably a poor example. - raada, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The question is why Bush or the administration can influence the EPA at all. Shouldn't EPA be a standalone entity that try to enforce the environment laws to protect the US people, no matter who is president?
- BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -7/+28The Bush way to show how 'inefficient' government programs are -
* Stack programs you don't like with people who will purposely sabotage those efforts
* When efforts don't work, point at that program as the fault, not your sabotaging of it.- heartcoldfusion, on 10/11/2007, -18/+12I hope the EPA gains more power in the future - it's the only way we can ever progress as humans. I for one will sleep better knowing that it's out of my hands to make decisions which affect me and the people around me. I'd rather have the government do it - they're trustworthy and don't have their own agenda, right? I hope in the future that what kind of light bulbs I'm allowed to buy isn't a decision I have to make.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -9/+9@heartcoldfusion
Sorry, I dugg you down but then re-read your post and recognized that sarcasm. You are actually right on target... the EPA robs people of their individual freedoms. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4...such as the individual freedom to kill Fido by buying chinese tainted pet food, or the individual freedom of pregnant women to cure morning sickness with Thalidomide. How dare they! Bloody communists!
- WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6@Junkyarddawg,
Okay... how about a comment that has something to do with the EPA?
- zyl0x, on 10/11/2007, -5/+12This is the same agency whose spokesperson said ground zero was safe after the 911 attacks.
- skyscape, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2Bush programs are Liberal Dream come true programs. You should be all thanking Bush for doing what he did.
- Ibox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Please explain??
- mlarsen, on 10/11/2007, -10/+15Any one can spout a bunch of data as fact. There was no reference to where the data came from. I would like to see thet data that the article was written from. Remember when Chernobyl happened and CNN said that there would be 5,000 dead. Well actually 50 people ended up dying. I want the data, not "Bush Sucks" spin.
- zyl0x, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8Chernobyl is not a fair example to use. Sure, 57 people had died at that point, but the radiation poisoning incurred by thousands upon thousands of victims will almost certainly result in many more deaths. More than 5000 people dying from long-term effects of the Chernobyl disaster is not an outrageous claim.
- Subiklim, on 10/11/2007, -5/+5Okay, how about during Katrina, when 10,000 were estimated dead, (and they said that they wouldn't be surprised if the numbers were MUCH higher).
- phunlee, on 10/11/2007, -7/+8Here ya jerk.. Not just anyone can spit out these figures. These guys do their research and are actually run by the former head of the EPA.
http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/
Do your own research next time.
http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pubs/Paying%20Less%20to%20Pollute.pdf
Complete with endnotes. - spartan777, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6"The Environmental Integrity Project is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization established in March of 2002 by former EPA enforcement attorneys to advocate for more effective enforcement of environmental laws."
What makes these guys especially reliable? that they have "Integrity" in their name? that they criticize Bush? - Ibox, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2the EPA is a drain on the economy and needs to go away
- doktorrocket, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Based on the file name, the leaking tanker in the article is the Exxon Valdez. I would have expected a photo of environmental damage that occurred during the period in question.
- AncientWeird, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12Didn't you guys see Ghostbusters? EPA = bad
- zyl0x, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.
- Subiklim, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11Phew! Finally ONE instance where our government is shrinking. I'll wait for others, but I'm not holding my breath.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6I'll just say one thing... having the opinion that the EPA was over-reaching and interfering unnecessarily with the liberty of the people is every bit as valid as having the opinion that assigning a bureaucracy the job of enforcing arbitrary environmental standards is a good idea. The fact that the EPA was reigned in is the logical and appropriate outcome of electing a Republican president. This is the sort of thing we have elections to DO.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3...so don't bitch when it happens, and don't bitch when people don't like the result and elect someone with the opposite agenda.
Hello mr. Gore! - phunlee, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@ WhiteRaven
If they indeed showed themselves as a government wishing to shrink and discontinue "over-reaching and interfering unnecessarily with the liberty of the people," your argument would be valid.
BUT the way these guys dictate you can fall in love with and marry, the way they tell you what you can/can't do with your own body, the way they listen to your phone calls, etc. etc.... I'm not gonna believe that's their greatest intention. - WhiteRaven, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@phunlee
Err... wasn't their position on gay marriage made clear prior to the election? "Law and order" and granting law enforcement power to surveil is also consistent with the general consultative message.
If you're curious, "for the record", my opinion is that marriage is not an issue for law to begin with. Any number of people may enter into any sort of contract they want and it then falls to the government top enforce that contract. The government should not be dictating the particulars of such agreements. However, the fact that this is my personal opinion does not blind be to the logic of BOTH the pro gay mariage people and those opposed to it. Stipulating that marriage is based on a social norm rooted in biologic reproduction is not unreasonable and barring it to gay couples because they are not following that norm is perfectly valid. OR, focusing on the love aspect of marriage and insisting that gay couples are just as deserving of recognition also makes sense. This is part of the reason I think the government should simply not be involved. It is ALSO just as valid to argue that partnerships of more than two people are just as worthy of recognition. The *smart* thing to do is to let people make their own contracts. - phunlee, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@WhiteRaven
So, it's okay to prohibit personal liberty in some instances, but some not?
In truth, that question is a little too argumentative from my actual stances on this issue. I still believe it's a solid argument. Fair is fair, unless it's in my and my big business buddies' interest i guess..
I feel strongly that water/food/air supplies should be managed. I believe it's been shown necessary throughout history.
I do not like the idea of big polluters without regulation. Big companies prove that profiting from destruction of these supplies is okay with them. When they're done, they pick up and move and there's a town left broken and destroyed. Anniston, Alabama is a good example of that. That poor town gets screwed over not just by corporations, but by the govt. itself. - phunlee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1OH! I gotchya. You're saying, I think, that this administration has stuck w/what it promised before the elections? In fact these disparities between where they allow personal liberty to be denied or applied is partly why I didn't vote for them. I'm not saying the Dems were completely clean of disparity.
It's just...saying what can go on inside my house in instances where no one is hurt or affected by what i do inside my house is not okay with me. Especially when, in this EPA instance, they show hesitation to prosecute companies and polluters breaking the law. And then there's stories like this: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/29/america/NA-GEN-US-Mad-Cow.php
I believe these guys consistently show hypocrisy in policies and stances on almost every issue... duh. right?
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3...so don't bitch when it happens, and don't bitch when people don't like the result and elect someone with the opposite agenda.
- CanceledCzech, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4What, me worry?
- computergod, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3What is with all the articles from treehugger.com?
- morningmatters, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12The conservatives love to claim that Business can monitor their own practices better than the government. But let's be honest here, the goal of businesses is to make money, not to help out this country or please its citizens.
- Godlike, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Finally, someone said it. Funny how the 'conservatives' don't want to 'conserve' anything.
- Corrosionx, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1These conservatives only want to conserve big government and help their friends make money and go around regulations (or be grandfathered-in).
The EPA itself is the instrument by which they can avoid responsability for their actions. - mcduckov, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Do conservatives really claim that business can do a better job than the EPA? I can't believe anyone would say that. I think conservatives call for market based reforms that are still set by government but allow companies figure out how to get to compliance. That is essentially what the CAFE standards are and those types of reforms can be VERY effective.
- Corrosionx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well there's clearly a demand for earth-friendly manufacturing, so Greenpeace or something could set up a for-profit company that would certify that the companies are following Greenpeace standards. These companies would pay Greenpeace to inspect them. UL is a private company and all your products are inspected by them because of market demand.
If Greenpeace ever got corrupted, some other company could gather evidence, out them in the press or the Internet, and Greenpeace would lose their credibility.
If companies are only out to make money, then we can use that to make sure they follow guidelines that the market demands.
Also, with real property rights, companies that pollute other people's private properties should not be able to be shielded from their responsabilities and they should pay restitution.
Obviously, the government's agenda isn't environmental protection, it's competition control. The U.S. military pollutes more than the top 4 private polluters combined.
- djremix71, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3If it were up to me, I would eliminate the EPA all together. Our nation has already been awoke to the dangers of pollution. If a company is highly polluting. It should be told to the public, and the statistics should be shown. Then allow the PEOPLE to choose whether or not they want to continue to buy from the company (which many environmentalists wouldn't). When the company sees a drop in sales, they will be forced to change their ways. It's called the free market system. The moment you get the government into things, it usually hurts the little guy, and helps the big dude get even bigger.
- AbsurdParadox, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Completely agree. Infact, I came here to post something very similar.
The free market (i.e. NO goverment regulation) is self-regulating. Theres no FCC regulation of Cable TV, yet theres not porn on it constantly? The reason being that they need to sell advertising, thus they have to show what their advertisers want. So, with that being said... do you think FCC regulation of broadcast TV is neccesary?
Besides, the EPA, along with MANY of these "agencies" are a direct violation of the 10th amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."). - ephemerae, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@absurdparadox said "The free market (i.e. NO goverment regulation) is self-regulating."
You mean like Enron, right? - Lewie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I don't think allowing the common man to "choose" whether or not they buy from the company would be effective. For example, advertising can be made to distort facts. Whether you look at smoking, Fox News, 9-11, or global warming, it is very easy to throw around enough "information" to cause the public to at least split on opinions.
It is also possible that many people wouldn't care about long-term effects on our environment. People are impulsive, and usually prefer a reward now, even if it hurts them in the long run. That is why people smoke even though they know the probable complications later in life, why people get into and usually stay in debt, or would rather buy shiny new rims instead of saving for retirement. But again, this is probably due to advertising.
Advertising as a control of the "Free Market" is probably a bad idea. Let's say Company A runs a slave-produced, sludge excreting manufacturing plant in Southeast Asia. It's products aren't that great, but they earn a lot of profit since they don't have to pay their workers, or worry about environmental issues. They wish to advertise, and offer huge sums of money to the top TV stations. Only they will not advertise on a station that covers negative stories about the company, or raises issues about the worsening of the environment. I can't say for certain, but I'd guess there's at least one station out there that would take that offer.
Besides, letting the Free Market do it's own regulating doesn't really put any more power into the common man's hands. The government is suppose to be representative of its citizens, and companies grow because of consumers. They will both do whatever they can to increase profits. Right now, the U.S. Government is funded by large companies (who've grown due to their consumers) to raise money. This is only one step away from a Free Market system. The only solution is to get rid of lobbying, and put a system into place where people are actually directly represented in government. - ochuuzu1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Relying on the Free Market to enforce public safety issues sounds like a good idea at first -- after all, a Truly Free Market would solve all social ills, as I'm sure you know -- but consider this:
How many micrograms per cubic centimeter of neodymium acetate do you have in your tap water? If it's more than 120, what do you do about it? Do you, as an Informed Consumer, boycott the multinational syndicate that owns the company that runs the factory that's dumping all that neodymium acetate into the water supply until they change their ways? Or do you just move?
Did you even know that you, as an Informed Consumer, were supposed to worry about how much neodymium acetate was in your tap water? - AbsurdParadox, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@ephemerae said "You mean like Enron, right?"
Firstly, Enron is a Corporation, which is a government-backed fiction.
Secondly, I'm willing to bet that in a true Free Market, investors would be much more suspicious, with more private auditors, and I believe any fraud would actually be caught much sooner. Without the facade of government "protecting" you, you become much less complacent about all things.
@lewie:
I think our society has changed enough, on the grand scale, where most abhor slavery, thus making it impossible to do business as such. "What about secret slaves" you might say -- that could already be happening... obviously regulations (either locality's or international) are not stopping it.
Also, I'm not claiming that advertising is the only free market regulator. There are many, MANY factors to consider.
Now, you said companies grow because of consumers. That is true, in a Capitalist society. Unfortunately, what we have is a Corporatist-Fascist blend. Not that I'm implying that companies don't certainly profit from consumers. However it seems to me, that if you're small enough, you're highly regulated (Fascism), but if you're large enough, you can control the government (Corporatism).
Your solution is to ensure people are directly represented in government. That is only possible through self-government, which can only exist in a Free Market society. - AbsurdParadox, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@ochuuzu1
First off, You don't think there would be Quality Control / Testing companies in a Free Market? They already exist today for many many industries. This Quality company would test the drinking water of the region and raise red flags. The company that sells/owns the water which you are attempting to drink should then take the offending Factory or what not to arbitration. Many people might just drink the water anyway. Perhaps a competitor would import water and setup a new system. Perhaps someone would be able to counteract neodymium acetate on a chemical level.
Secondly, I just don't think this scenario would happen. The factory workers would live near the area, and poisoning your workers isn't good for business. - mcduckov, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1All libertarians do is provide cover for corporations that want to pollute freely. Absurd, you and your ilk are useful idiots for those who will use and then discard your passion when it suits them. I wish people understood pragmatism better and quit trying to bring "isms" to life. The dynamics of human behavior are such that any "ism" introduces a structured system that allows gaming.
Imagine an "ism" as similar to google giving a full schematic to its search algorithms. Once the SEOs know exactly how it works they can design all their sites to game the system. Setting up an ism (capitalism, marxism, libertarianism, Free Market, etc) telegraphs the rules (which ism supporters insist on hewing to precisely) and allows people to begin gaming it.
I'm sorry but this is a FACT of the world you live in. - raada, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Free market is good. A free, regulated market is the best.
The problem with a completely "free"/unregulated market is that eventually some companies will become too big and rule everything and people have no possibility to choose. The companies can get there with methods who would normally be illegal. E.g. growing large as a energy company is so much easier if you can dump your nuclear waste in your backyard...
Who suffers? People like you and me. I would love a completely unregulated market, but it doesn't work. It is like communism, sounds good on the paper but never works...
One example of a free market is actually China. Companies can do whatever they want as long they pay the government some money to keep quiet. The result, fast growing companies run by gangs and crooks hiring slave labor and producing toxic waste that is dumped in nearest field... Sure gives you a lower price on the products but since you have to work in a sweat shop to survive, it is not so cheap anymore. If you like that, move there.
No, keep it is as open as possible and create rules of how the market should work. Wild west mentality is for the 1800's... - AbsurdParadox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@mcduckov said I wish people understood pragmatism better and quit trying to bring "isms" to life.
LOL what? This seems to be a highly contradictory statement. Also, I think you fail to realize that many "isms" are a lack of a system at all.
Anyway, I find that being logical and pragmatic leads to libertarianism. It took me 5 years to get here, but it all makes sense now. As for your claim that all libertarians want to do is create businesses that exploit people... you are completely and totally missing the point of everything that all libertarians are working for, and frankly that both offends and saddens me. Libertarians believe that only through small government and a free market can you PREVENT the exploitation of people.
@raada:
First of all, a market is either free, or its regulated. It cannot be both. Sure, it can be "lightly regulated"
Now, its important to know that a monopoly can NOT exist without it being government backed. Take your local electric company, for example. Oh, and if you're thinking of them, Microsoft and Walmart are not monopolies. A monopoly is 100% market control, and that is impossible in a free market. The company would have to have the absolutely perfect all around... and if that were the case... would you want to shop anywhere else?
"One example of a free market is actually China. Companies can do whatever they want as long they pay the government some money to keep quiet."
This is Corporatism, and absolutely NOT a free market.
"It is like communism, sounds good on the paper but never works..."
Can you give me an example of somewhere that truly has a free market? - Corrosionx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"All libertarians do is provide cover for corporations that want to pollute freely."
Actually, it's government that provides cover for corporations that want to pollute freely.
Check and mate. - djremix71, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think absurdparadox has everything exactly right. When I want to buy water for my home I have two option. 1) Use the city backed water company's water or 2) purchase bottled water and do it ol' fashion style. Can I dig a well, NO! If I don't like the price of the water, can I switch companies. No! Why? Government has regulated this. absurdparadox already mention eletricity. How many more can we count.
Anyway, our point is this. When government gets involved things tend to happen without the consumer's consent. Think Mississippi flood. They were planning on building a new dam to help stop a flood, but the EPA found some obscure insects that were thought to be extinct and stopped construction. What happened, the Mississippi flooded and killed countless hundreds of people.
I was not saying you have to use tv to get the word out, heck, look at Digg. Consumers get upset about a business and post a news story on digg. Thousands of users look at the frontpage of digg and see this company that has done wrong. Many, not all, of those thousands say, hmmmm... I ain't gonna buy from that sucky business. The sales go down. An example being the recent exploit of Circuit City by a digg user. Will I buy anything from Circuit city after reading of the deceit that takes place at that store. NO!
- AbsurdParadox, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Completely agree. Infact, I came here to post something very similar.
- WeezelDS, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I have family who work as air monitoring and modeling for heavily polluting companies (coal plants and wutnot). The coal companies/coke plants hire my family's company to model the pollution and make sure they are up to epa standards, but since bush took over, work has dropped nearly 90%, presumably due to the polluters knowing the epa won't give them any *****.
- Error601, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Because a government agency bringing a heavy hand down on private citizens is a good thing now?
- AbsurdParadox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1delete, thought I clicked reply when I hadn't :P
- letoatreides1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0If anyone is looking to find out more details about the compliance status of facilities in their area you can go to http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo .
- danq59, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You can't expect a bunch of rich, power-hungry government bureaucrats to regulate against a bunch of rich, power-hungry business owners. It just doesn't work, unless there's a threat such as union violence or Communism.
Free markets all the way! - supaklaw, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Earthlings, am I to understand that your primitive "government" is some form of "public service" and not the malformed parasitic organism that uses your peoples for financial sustenance while offering nothing in return but delusional pleasantries and rhetorical comforts?
Interesting. I shall note this in my logbook as we prepare to vaporize your puny world.
ALL HAIL GROK!
END TRANSMISSION
-----------------------------------------
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is