EPA OKs giant coal plant on Navajo land in New Mexico 6

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   Masked Goddess Posted 9:09 am
   31 Jul 2008

   EPA - everything polluting always!"Apart from the appeals process, an environmental impact statement by the Bureau of Land Management must still be done, Maisano said."  And we know how the EPA will rule on that.
   Not only did we steal the Native Americans land from them now we're screwing them because they need the $$.  And we're doing it all in the name of helping them out.  

   Permalink

2. 

   Wolverine Posted 1:59 pm
   31 Jul 2008

   More White Man Killing Of NativesThe Dine get screwed again by the U.S. and their own lackeys in their tribal government.

   Permalink

3. 

   Jonas Posted 9:57 pm
   31 Jul 2008

   EPAs of all countries, unite!I understand that some people want to work for the government (it's well paid and you have a nice retirement and health care program). But you need a lot of "mauvaise foi" or mental petitesse to be willing to get up in the morning each day and go to work to help protect the environment by approving coal plants.
   To understand this sclerosis and this surreal hypocrisy by re-reading Max Weber's analyses of bureaucracy and classify the EPA's of this world according to his categories.
   They're one or more of the following:
   The charismatic authority, based on the sacred or outstanding characteristic of the organisation's leading individual (the EPA chief as a modern Shaman who praises coal as the stuff of life)
   The traditional authority: essentially respect for custom (probably works too in this case - coal  and its lobby has been around always, so why not welcome it today?)
   A Rational legal authority which founds its decisions on Reason, Science and a Legal process - definitely not the case of the world's current absurdist EPA's.
   Poor bureaucrats. How can they work for such an organisation.

   Permalink

4. 

   Gustavion Posted 2:49 am
   01 Aug 2008

   RationaleDoes anyone know what the EPA's rationale was behind the permit?

   Permalink

5. 

   Wolverine Posted 4:14 am
   01 Aug 2008

   RationaleBecause the proposed plant is on private land, the only ways that the government could stop it is if it were illegal per se or it needs a permit that the government refused to issue.  It's not illegal per se, which is the fundamental problem, so we're stuck with the issue of the permit, which it needs.  If, according to the EPA, the plant meets all the requirements for the clean air permit, EPA must issue it.  The issue is whether the plant meets the requirements.  An anti-environmental administration like this one would say yes, a better one would say no.
   But the root of the problem here is that people are even allowed to spew unnatural industrial pollutants into our atmosphere in the first place.  The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, despite whatever small successes they've had, are laws that allow pollution, but attempt to keep that pollution at levels below which we'd all be killed or seriously injured.
   This is one of my main complaints that I've been blogging about.  So long as society as a whole prioritizes business, money, material goods, and unnecessary human comforts & conveniences over the natural environment, results like this are the logical conclusions of those priorities.  Even the more sane countries of western Europe do this, but not at the level of the U.S., so their results are not as bad.  But the only way to really fix these problems is to live in a far more natural manner with far fewer people.  All else is just rearranging deck chairs, an activity in which I have no interest.

   Permalink

6. 

   KT82 Posted 5:29 am
   05 Aug 2008

   The CAA WorksI agree with Wolverine's explanation as to why the regulating body must issue permits.  However, I would like to disagree with his assessment of the Clean Air Act.  The premise behind the permitting process is that industry pollutes and that pollution must be regulated.  Wolverine asserts that we can transform society into something in which human beings no longer pollutant.  However, this is simply impossible.  We can transform society into one in which we are substantially less toxic and live within the means of the earth, but we cannot eliminate pollution.  Without pollution we cannot have metal, concrete, or glass.  We cannot eat, walk on dry ground, or use fire.
   The CAA has successfully set up a number of programs which limit industrial pollutants.  For instance, industry, especially the most polluting, have been required to install many types of control.  Most control devices decrease pollution by 80 - 99.9%. And the CAA is designed to reduce pollution over time.  National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are routinely reviewed and reduced.  Granted, the process is painfully slow and at times controversial, but once a NAAQS is set, states must work hard to meet these limits, and implement many new regulations if they are in nonattainment.
   Additionally, individuals may influence environmental regulations.  EPA and state agencies have public notices and public hearings for new regulations that arise out of the existing framework.  Additionally, environmental groups have been successful in enforcing the laws (in their most conservative interpretation) through lawsuits.  And entirely new requirements can be created through the federal, state, and local legislative processes, including laws that outlaw specific industrial processes or fund new technologies.  Representatives may be lobbied to increase enforcement funding.
   Of course the system is not perfect.  It is slow, it requires consensus, it does not question the underlying structure of our industrial system, it can be undermined by politicians who do not respect the environment, and, of course, greenhouse gases are currently left out of the picture.  However, we have made significant strides over time, and I believe will continue to do so.

   Permalink