RE: Superfund Pollution Locator

RE: Superfund Pollution Locator (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Archer -> RE: Superfund Pollution Locator (9/21/2006 8:01:20 AM)
The burden was always on the Average person since the tax was mearly added into the cost of doing business and passed on n the prices of their goods to the consumers. The companies are going to make X% profit margin reguardless of any taxes.

juliaoceania -> RE: Superfund Pollution Locator (9/21/2006 8:06:28 AM)
So basically it is a shifted burden (like I stated in the OP) from corporations to us. I think it is fair to tax polluting industry for the wrong doing of others, it makes sense to me. Perhaps taxing nonpolluting industry is wrong, but industries that pollutes should be responsible for each other. I also notice that you did not address the second link, which reduced all monies for superfund clean up in the budget and slowed down the cleanup WASHINGTON, DC, August 7, 2003 (ENS) - The federal government is failing to fully fund the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund program and 42 percent of Superfund clean up efforts could be slowed down or stopped as a result, environmentalists say. A new report released today by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) blames the Bush administration for cuts to the Superfund budget and Congress for shifting the burden of clean up from polluters to the American taxpayer.

Archer -> RE: Superfund Pollution Locator (9/21/2006 8:18:10 AM)
Because the second link didn't address the issue at hand it addressed a second issue one of Government budgeting a different entirely than taxing non responsible parties for someone elses misdeeed. That can be discussed as well but the reduction in money for the cleanups is a much harder thing to defend beyond saying it is being used to force the reform of how the Superfund is paid for. But see here were talking two seperate issues. Did corporation A ever polute beyond he legal limits? NO should they because they are in the same industry be forced to pay for Corporation D's past pollution since D is bankrupt? That is the Republican Question in this case. Bush feels that Dow should be responsible for Dow's pollution, and that Exxon should be responsible for Exxon's but that Niether of them is responible for Acme Chemical Company who is out of business and has been for 10 years. Uless you can show a link that makes them legally responsible for how Acme did business.

KenDckey -> RE: Superfund Pollution Locator (9/21/2006 8:22:28 AM)
Hey Archer Personal couriosity question. You a CIH, CSP, CE or something? I am CUSA Ken

KenDckey -> RE: Superfund Pollution Locator (9/21/2006 8:26:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Because the second link didn't address the issue at hand it addressed a second issue one of Government budgeting a different entirely than taxing non responsible parties for someone elses misdeeed. That can be discussed as well but the reduction in money for the cleanups is a much harder thing to defend beyond saying it is being used to force the reform of how the Superfund is paid for. But see here were talking two seperate issues. Did corporation A ever polute beyond he legal limits? NO should they because they are in the same industry be forced to pay for Corporation D's past pollution since D is bankrupt? That is the Republican Question in this case. Bush feels that Dow should be responsible for Dow's pollution, and that Exxon should be responsible for Exxon's but that Niether of them is responible for Acme Chemical Company who is out of business and has been for 10 years. Uless you can show a link that makes them legally responsible for how Acme did business. That is what the lawyers were fighting so hard about that I spoke of. That and the respoonsibility of who is responsible when what they were doing was legal then and not now.

Archer -> RE: Superfund Pollution Locator (9/21/2006 8:30:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Hey Archer Personal couriosity question. You a CIH, CSP, CE or something? I am CUSA Ken Working on a OSHT cert ( Same board that does the CSP One class and a Test from that) and the CET cert (One Class, a test and then teaching hours from that) , But right now I'm an Authorized OSHA Outreach Trainer forGeneral Industry and work as an Environmental Scientist for a Consulting frm working mostly for UST clients ( basicly do a Geologists job). BS in Emergency Management and 10 years working various jobs requireing the 40 hr Hazwoper.

KenDckey -> RE: Superfund Pollution Locator (9/21/2006 8:38:39 AM)
I love those OSHA courses I became certified to train both the construction and general industries. I failed the risk courses I took. Just couldn't keep up with their dictioinary which seems to me to be more important than an understanding of the context of the question. I was president of the local ASSE chapter for a while. Had to resign mid term because of personal reasons - going through divorce, work, stress, all kinds of such fun. I was also on the state safety committee for the Cali Water Environmental Association. That was a blast. I opened my own consulting business here, but they don't want to hear it. I did a freebe for one municipality as an introduction and a freebe for the chamber of commerce which got me my only paying job for 4 days. Even the Risk Managers for the Cities and the county won't talk to me. I wanted to trade 40 hrs of work for them for 40 hrs of continuing educaitons. And I have my own training aids.

Archer -> RE: Superfund Pollution Locator (9/21/2006 8:39:02 AM)
LOL and for those of you that don't know CUSA is a Certified Utilities Safety Association (If I remember correctly) CSP Certified Safety Professional OSHT Occupational Heath and Safety Technician CET Certified Environmantal Trainer UST Underground Storage Tank Hazwoper Hazardous Waste Operations Class

Archer -> RE: Superfund Pollution Locator (9/21/2006 8:42:54 AM)
Yep were having the same chanllanges marketing Safety Consulting. Which according to the research is being outsourced all the time, but we can't find them LOL. But still tryig to make a go of it with the Environmental as a core business. Just getting involved in my ASSE chapter here. You're out in CA you may know my old Boss from back in 99. He's very involved in the Bakerfield Chapter Chris Vochoska (sp)

KenDckey -> RE: Superfund Pollution Locator (9/21/2006 8:49:32 AM)
I get e-mails from him constantly job offering, meeting announcements etc. I live in AZ now and Bakersfield is like 350 miles away so I don't make the meetings there anylong. I think he is the president now of that chapter. Nice guy.

juliaoceania -> RE: Superfund Pollution Locator (9/21/2006 9:33:29 AM)
These sites exist, they need to be cleaned up, and when they were polluted there was no oversight, many of these superpolluters have no liability because there was no law against what they have done and they went out of business. We have to clean up these sites, superfund was designed to do that job. Why change it:? Why pass the tax burden to Middle America? Because corporations have lobbyists that pass their burden on to us average joes and janes every chance they get...

Archer -> RE: Superfund Pollution Locator (9/21/2006 10:31:46 AM)
YEt you don't see that they pass it on to usmbedded in their prices anyway? Reguardless of when the tax comes nto play in the end it comes out of the consummers pocket. Dow will make 5% profit (made up number) reguardless of what level you tax them at or they will hut down arts or all their business. They simply pass along the cost to us anyway. Either that or the stock price is lowered to reflect the tax and the owners of the stock take the hit, either way it's passed on to individuals. And how long will the share holders accept lower returns? not long. So it will be passed on to consumers. So at least when the Government makes us pay for it directly we know we're paying for it, it's not hidden in the cost of every product we buy.

juliaoceania -> RE: Superfund Pollution Locator (9/21/2006 10:57:27 AM)
That would be ok if they were actually cleaning it up.. Pass the burden on to the general appropriations and then cut funding. At least with superfund it was a direct funding system if I am not mistaken.. this passing the cost off makes it easier to cut the funding and not do the work. I would rather the work get done by a direct taxation of polluting companies. But that is just me.

Archer -> RE: Superfund Pollution Locator (9/21/2006 11:18:27 AM)
Currently poluting companies sites don't go to SUPERFUND they are cleaned up under direct liability. One more time with clarity SUPERFUND sites are ONLY those sites where the owner/ poluter has one into bankrupcy and cannot payfor the cleanup. Now that siad sure they need to continue the cleanups I agree and the non renewal of the fund earmarked for their cleanup is a prolem but the non renewal is not a matter of not wanting to clean them up at all. It is a matter of wanting to have a new law made where the superfund is more appropriately allocated, ie Oil companies paying to clean up bankrupt Oil company sites, PCB's sites cleand up by taxing companes with a history odf worlking with PCB's, just a more closel related tax structure so that Oil companies don't end up cleaning up all their sites and half the minning sites as well. " Trent Duffy, spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget, said the White House will consider reinstating the industry taxes if Congress agrees to "fundamentally reform" the Superfund program. " it's in the first arcticle. Also the fact that while The "Superfund" budget items have been reduced the total budget for EPA has remained fairly level although falling slightly when inflation is included. Is ited in the second article. So if the Suoperfund budget for EPA was "cut" and the total EPA budget remained roughly level what is the excess money going to?

juliaoceania -> RE: Superfund Pollution Locator (9/21/2006 11:57:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer So if the Suoperfund budget for EPA was "cut" and the total EPA budget remained roughly level what is the excess money going to? Good question, since Bush oversees the EPA I am sure it is being ran according to his philosophies. The budget for the EPA was cut when Bush first came into power if I am not mistaken here is a link that discusses your post I quoted, it was the only link I could find that gave figures.. although I do not like relying on democrats for info.. if you have a better source please share. http://www.house.gov/commerce_democrats/budget/environment_fy06.shtml

KenDckey -> RE: Superfund Pollution Locator (9/21/2006 2:53:32 PM)
Environmental Law is really strange. It encompasses much more than the SUPERFUND. It covers the Clean Air Act, The Clean Water, Act, CERCLA, and so on Then the standards change from place to place even within the same jurisdiction and for like processes. I have seen the Air Quality Board go in and shut down power generation because it was exceeding their exhhaust limits and force them to flare (burn) off the excess gases produced in the process at higher limits than were being produced making electricity and at the same facility. didn't do much except make consumer rates go up and it affected the entire electrical grid in the area and increase pollutants. I have seen the water quality board do equally strange things. Like Archer said. How do you go after a pollutant that went out of business in the 1920's. Do you go after the great great grandkids for the sins of their ancestors? And how do you set standards today for 80 or more years ago when what they were doing then was perfectly legal? And how do we, in the future, go after today what new technology and science will show we did wrong today? If we dig down into a landfill we will probably find those old love letters that were discarded long ago. The letters were written with ink that is now considered a pollutant (ink is considered a pollutant in some cases). Should we go after the person that used the ink? Should we go after the manufacturer of the ink? I say no. we won't recover the costs associated with all those court cases, and trying to track people down. I believe that we should just fix the problem, even if we have to use tax monies to do it. Actually we are all at fault for contributing to the problem. We all throw something in the trash. Even if it is only food (which creates methane in the landfill and is a greenhouse gas). So now we are paying our "fair" share. maybe not equal but fair. least that is what I think.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125