AP Interview: Gingrich calls for replacing EPA

[Larry]

Ah, this is just like saying Obama can't be pro-business because he's a democrat. It doesn't help at all.

No, it's like saying Newt wants to eliminate environmental enforcement and replace it with industry consultants, because Newt says he wants to eliminate environmental enforcement and replace it with industry consultants.

And all of the "but that's not what he said, 10 years ago" doesn't change the fact that that is what he's saying, today.

[mardi gras skin]

I'm really not surprised that nobody takes Gingrich seriously on the issue.

If people are interested in seeing the Republican party make strides towards an environmental agenda, they better take Gingrich seriously. You know as well as I do that groups of people get so hung up on language that they are unable to see solutions. Gingrich is giving a huge chunk of Americans the language they need to see past old dividing lines. The particulars of his plan are secondary. The gift here is a philosophical perspective that respects the environment while promoting economic growth and a vocabulary that sidesteps old dividing lines.

Gingrich isn't appealing to the scientific community. He's appealing to my parents. They'll go with him on this even if it really is just new language for the same old "tax increase or deficit increase" solutions. He's using pro-business language that they can support.

If the left really cares about the environment, they'll see this as a major opportunity and work with republicans like Gingrich in refining the particular initiatives put in place and give on whatever language he couches it in so that the right can get behind it.

edit: replacing EPA or not replacing the EPA is secondary. Fundamentally, Gingrich is thinking the government needs to move more toward the carrot than the stick. That's how he sees the government providing the greatest environmental impact regarding business practices.

[Jeeb]

No, it's like saying Newt wants to eliminate environmental enforcement and replace it with industry consultants, because Newt says he wants to eliminate environmental enforcement and replace it with industry consultants.

And all of the "but that's not what he said, 10 years ago" doesn't change the fact that that is what he's saying, today.

It's also like Newt Gingrich, the man with a PHD in history calling Obama, "The most radical president in history."

[Destino]

Ahh, the ole we are against clean air and for dirty water accusation, from the bash capitalism playbook 30th anniversary edition.

If the shoe fits!

Now I'm happy to come off this position if you'll just do me the favor of stating the GOP's position on the environment. What I always get is "now we value the environment but" and then we get the standard government hurts business lecture. They never actually quantify their position on the environment.

Now tell me how worried you are about Caribou and polar Bears if we are eventually drilling in Anwar to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

Are you arguing for the nationalization of Alaskan oil reserves? As far as I'm concerned the problem with oil isn't where it's from but how much it costs and who controls those prices. American oil companies sell American's oil for the same prices as the Saudi's do. The entire "reduce our dependence" argument is bogus.

If we want to impact the energy markets we have to focus on next generation solutions not the same tired short term band aids that make no difference.

Since when did calls for replacing the EPA means eliminating sound environmental policies? Yeah the left would be upset if the Cap and Tax mandates the EPA are pushing, without going thru Congress, end up defeated I guess.

Since when? Since it was a republican that proposed it. Republicans are bankrupt on the environment and can't even state a position consistently. Your post is a perfect example of this. "Cap and trade" is a GOP environmental idea. Bush's team came up with it and called it a free market solution to the pollution problem. Now the GOP has run from that idea as well.

The GOP shouldn't even speak on the subject and expect to be taken seriously.

[PeterMP]

If people are interested in seeing the Republican party make strides towards an environmental agenda, they better take Gingrich seriously. You know as well as I do that groups of people get so hung up on language that they are unable to see solutions. Gingrich is giving a huge chunk of Americans the language they need to see past old dividing lines. The particulars of his plan are secondary. The gift here is a philosophical perspective that respects the environment while promoting economic growth and a vocabulary that sidesteps old dividing lines.

Gingrich isn't appealing to the scientific community. He's appealing to my parents. They'll go with him on this even if it really is just new language for the same old "tax increase or deficit increase" solutions. He's using pro-business language that they can support.

If the left really cares about the environment, they'll see this as a major opportunity and work with republicans like Gingrich in refining the particular initiatives put in place and give on whatever language he couches it in so that the right can get behind it.

The other possibility is that people could explain to your parents why Gingrich is spewing garbage that at BEST MIGHT help the problem, but will certainly benefit big businesses and potentially even foreign companies at the expense of the ordinary American tax payer and future generations.

[mardi gras skin]

The other possibility is that people could explain to your parents why Gingrich is spewing garbage that at BEST MIGHT help the problem, but will certainly benefit big businesses and potentially even foreign companies at the expense of the ordinary American tax payer and future generations.

Good luck

[twa]

What if by using a different model you have achieved good results?...aren't results the thing that matters

If flexible permitting achieves good results is that not a good thing?

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/08/10/10greenwire-by-messing-with-texas-air-pollution-permits-ep-43859.html?pagewanted=all

[PeterMP]

You are the one that brought up prevention,and police presence can do so if done correctly.

As somebody that deals with the EPA and sees some of their oddities (If a poor a can of soda down my lab drain, we likely will get in trouble. If I pour a beer down my lab drain, we absolutely will get in trouble. I have to keep paper documents in my lab for things that are on-line for free. I can't create an electronic database that includes multiple things actually related to the chemical in my lab (the actual name on the bottle (different chemicals can be named differently) and the catalog number) with a link a site with the MSDS sheet. I have to have a physical copy of the MSDS sheet in may lab.), you are absolutely dillusional if you don't think EPA regulations help prevent pollution.

[PeterMP]

What if by using a different model you have achieved good results?...aren't results the thing that matters

If flexible permitting achieves good results is that not a good thing?

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/08/10/10greenwire-by-messing-with-texas-air-pollution-permits-ep-43859.html?pagewanted=all

I didn't even read the whole thing honestly, but where in there did anybody claim the worked?

I read thing like this:

"But upon closer inspection, EPA has told TCEQ, the Texas program has not achieved the same emissions reductions the federal program would. During a meeting last year, federal officials presented TCEQ with data (pdf) showing that under its flexible permit, the Shell Deer Park refinery in Houston was being allowed to release more than twice as much sulfur dioxide (SO2) as it would be under the PALs permit."

"Public health groups and environmentalists argue that EPA rules, not state programs, are the reason. Texas still ranks last nationwide in many air quality categories, they say, and in some industrialized parts of the state, TCEQ air programs have not achieved compliance even with outdated federal air quality standards.

Just yesterday, EPA proposed to determine that the Dallas-Fort Worth region has missed its deadline to comply with 1997 eight-hour ozone standards. The area's nonattainment status under the decade-old rules would be upgraded from "moderate" to "serious," and still tougher standards are expected to be finalized by the end of the month.

During an interview last week in his Dallas office, on a day when the TCEQ had issued an air quality warning for the area, Armendariz said he is optimistic that the agencies will reach an agreement and allow Texas to continue running its own permitting programs."

As near as I can tell, Texas has been allowed to essentially circumvent the law for 15 years or so as nobody bothered to actually apply it to TX, and now that the Obama administration is actually going to try, they are throwing a fit.

But no claims at all that their approach actually worked better or even as good as the law that should have been being applied worked.

[Destino]

If people are interested in seeing the Republican party make strides towards an environmental agenda, they better take Gingrich seriously. You know as well as I do that groups of people get so hung up on language that they are unable to see solutions. Gingrich is giving a huge chunk of Americans the language they need to see past old dividing lines. The particulars of his plan are secondary. The gift here is a philosophical perspective that respects the environment while promoting economic growth and a vocabulary that sidesteps old dividing lines.

This is a nice way of saying he's suckering idiots.

Gingrich isn't appealing to the scientific community. He's appealing to my parents. They'll go with him on this even if it really is just new language for the same old "tax increase or deficit increase" solutions. He's using pro-business language that they can support.

I don't know what your parents do but this statement says he's playing off ignorance.

If the left really cares about the environment, they'll see this as a major opportunity and work with republicans like Gingrich in refining the particular initiatives put in place and give on whatever language he couches it in so that the right can get behind it.

This is absurd. Anyone that actually cares about the environment would oppose this to the bitter end. This is like demanding doctors work with witch doctors if they really care about patients. You even said it yourself with "isn't appealing to the scientific community" and we both know why.

edit: replacing EPA or not replacing the EPA is secondary. Fundamentally, Gingrich is thinking the government needs to move more toward the carrot than the stick. That's how he sees the government providing the greatest environmental impact regarding business practices.

This goes beyond sugar coating and into just plain nonsense. What he wants to do is remove the enforcement arm from the EPA and have them turn into a suggestion organization with no power.

I can't stop dbags like Gingrich that have already been thrown out of Washinton from selling bad idea to people too ignorant or stupid on the subject to know better. I can oppose them though.

[mardi gras skin]

As somebody that deals with the EPA and sees some of their oddities (If a poor a can of soda down my lab drain, we likely will get in trouble. If I pour a beer down my lab drain, we absolutely will get in trouble. I have to keep paper documents in my lab for things that are on-line for free. I can't create an electronic database that includes multiple things actually related to the chemical in my lab (the actual name on the bottle (different chemicals can be named differently) and the catalog number) with a link a site with the MSDS sheet. I have to have a physical copy of the MSDS sheet in may lab.), your are absolutely dillusional if you don't think EPA regulations help prevent pollution.

How much money does the EPA spend making sure you don't pour beer down your lab drain (or some similar "stick" initiative) ? Could that same money be applied to a prize for a hydrogen engine that can be produced at a commercially available price (or some similar "carrot" initiative)?

That's the choice Gingrich is talking about. Taking the money being spent right now on environmental concerns and moving it away from odd regulations and toward environmentally friendly innovations. What's so ridiculous about that?

[PeterMP]

Good luck

You don't talk to your parents?

[PeterMP]

How much money does the EPA spend making sure you don't pour beer down your lab drain (or some similar "stick" initiative) ? Could that same money be applied to a prize for a hydrogen engine that can be produced at a commercially available price (or some similar "carrot" initiative)?

That's the choice Gingrich is talking about. Taking the money being spent right now on environmental concerns and moving it away from odd regulations and toward environmentally friendly innovations. What's so ridiculous about that?

All of the waste from the labs goes into a holding tank. The university self-tests the tank and self-reports any issues. The EPA does periodic surprise inspections.

They aren't testing if we are pouring a beer down the drain. They are testing if we are putting all sorts of things down the drain. A beer has enough alcohol in it that we'd get in trouble (realistically it would depend on the time frame. There are certainly things living in are holding tank some of which would likely degrade the alcohol in the beer.)

If the didn't run the tests, then we could pour ANYTHING down the drain, including large amounts of organic solvents or solutions containing heavy metals, which would be VERY BAD.

**EDIT**

That's NOT what the specific piece you actually posted on climate change was talking about anyway.

[twa]

How much money does the EPA spend making sure you don't pour beer down your lab drain (or some similar "stick" initiative) ? Could that same money be applied to a prize for a hydrogen engine that can be produced at a commercially available price (or some similar "carrot" initiative)?

That's the choice Gingrich is talking about. Taking the money being spent right now on environmental concerns and moving it away from odd regulations and toward environmentally friendly innovations. What's so ridiculous about that?

Indeed

oh and Peter....don't let the letter of the law crush the spirit or results.

http://www.cleanairsys.com/airzone-blog/2009/01/flexible-air-permits-enable-increased.html

EPA is finalizing changes and clarifications to air quality permitting rules to encourage greater use of flexible air permits. EPA’s assessment of flexible air permits demonstrated that they can enable significant environmental and economic benefits, while reducing administrative workload for permitting authorities and facilities.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/07/26/26greenwire-texas-appeals-epa-veto-of-flexible-air-polluti-44641.html

In a statement today, Abbott said the program allowed large facilities to achieve reductions in the most cost-effective way. The state has reduced ozone by 22 percent and levels of nitrogen oxides by 46 percent since 2000, outpacing national figures.

"The net effect is greater regulatory efficiency, well-controlled facilities, and significant reductions in air emissions," the petition says. "In short, Texas' FPP improves air quality while helping regulators and regulated entities operate more efficiently."

[mardi gras skin]

This is a nice way of saying he's suckering idiots.

No, its not. Its just a peculiar aspect of human interaction that we are more open to ideas when we resonate with the language used to express those ideas. None of us are immune. You do the same thing whether you know it or not.

Gingrich is using language that will have the greatest impact on the people who are least receptive to the language commonly used in environmental conversations. It is very smart of Gingrich to recognize this and re-work the word game in a way that includes people like my parents who are not receptive to the conversation the way it is usually expressed.

[GibbsFactor]

TWA has a point on paperwork. The government is too obsessed with paperwork and they are dreadfully inefficient because of their ridiculous need to track EVERYTHING.

It's called bureaucracy. No pride of ownership and no competing brand. That's why the government is inefficient and always will be.

[PeterMP]

Indeed

oh and Peter....don't let the letter of the law crush the spirit or results.

http://www.cleanairsys.com/airzone-blog/2009/01/flexible-air-permits-enable-increased.html

EPA is finalizing changes and clarifications to air quality permitting rules to encourage greater use of flexible air permits. EPA’s assessment of flexible air permits demonstrated that they can enable significant environmental and economic benefits, while reducing administrative workload for permitting authorities and facilities.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/07/26/26greenwire-texas-appeals-epa-veto-of-flexible-air-polluti-44641.html

In a statement today, Abbott said the program allowed large facilities to achieve reductions in the most cost-effective way. The state has reduced ozone by 22 percent and levels of nitrogen oxides by 46 percent since 2000, outpacing national figures.

"The net effect is greater regulatory efficiency, well-controlled facilities, and significant reductions in air emissions," the petition says. "In short, Texas' FPP improves air quality while helping regulators and regulated entities operate more efficiently."

From your NYT link, the EPA never had anything against flex programs. The problem is that the TX flex program wasn't obtaining the desired (those that are mandated by law) results. The fact that back in 2009 the EPA was reviewing and clariffying the rules related to such things should be an indication that the EPA is actually doing their jobs on this front.

And what the EPA is saying is that they care less about regulated entities operational efficiencies (i.e. costs to the industries being regulated), and more about actual emissions (the companies should be less effecient (i.e. spend more money on emissions) based on the law. They also don't care (much) about percentage improvement since 2000. The fact that you lagged behind other states doesn't get you much benefit. Total emissions are too high.

Industry in TX is saying that the EPA is going to cause us to spend too much on controlling our emissions and not surprisingly the government of TX is agreeing with them.

That doesn't mean that the EPA is wrong. It means that the industries in TX don't want to have to meet federal regulations (which are the results of federal laws that have been passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court) and the state of TX is running interference for them.

[mardi gras skin]

That's NOT what the specific piece you actually posted on climate change was talking about anyway.

Sure it was:

There was a period where we had a regulation that managed creosote in telephone poles with an estimated cost of $7 trillion per life saved. Now that verges on utter irrationality and again made perfect sense to the regulators.

There was a lot of encouraging news in the polling data. It indicated that you could have a centrist, positive, solution-oriented and incentive-led approach to the environment that would be popular. It would meet the left's concern for the environment while meeting the right's concern for smaller government and lower taxes.

And from the article if not from Gingrich's mouth:

Gingrich and Maple contend that those on the right -- or the "mainstream" as they dub it -- must offer their own strategy for repairing the planet, which goes beyond what those tree-hugging greens have proposed. The strategy the authors outline, in short: forget the stick, embrace the carrot.

Gingrich sees waste in the EPA and he sees that carrot-type initiatives will gain the support of enough of the public that progress can be made. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear before.

ps. I'm sure Gingrich isn't particularly concerned with the beer you're pouring down your drain but you understand the point.

[PeterMP]

Sure it was:

And from the article if not from Gingrich's mouth:

Gingrich sees waste in the EPA and he sees that carrot-type initiatives will gain the support of enough of the public that progress can be made. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear before.

ps. I'm sure Gingrich isn't particularly concerned with the beer you're pouring down your drain but you understand the point.

Those aren't from your post about Gingrich and climate change.

[PeterMP]

No, its not. Its just a peculiar aspect of human interaction that we are more open to ideas when we resonate with the language used to express those ideas. None of us are immune. You do the same thing whether you know it or not.

Gingrich is using language that will have the greatest impact on the people who are least receptive to the language commonly used in environmental conversations. It is very smart of Gingrich to recognize this and re-work the word game in a way that includes people like my parents who are not receptive to the conversation the way it is usually expressed.

No, he's not. He's pushing something that will benefit large companies at the expense of ordinary Americans that MIGHT work, but there is not guarantee will work.

And you're claiming your parents will support him because they are to ignorant to understand the issue, and you appearantly don't care about your parent's ignorance, even when it will likely negatively affect future Americans to talk to them about the issue.

[twa]

From your NYT link, the EPA never had anything against flex programs.

Yes they did, as you well know with them it is the compliance with the letter,not the actual reduction or efficiency that matters.(I too have a file full of MSDS sheets gathering dust)....ever wonder how many trees died for that idiocy?

The fact they are just recently accepting flexible permitting works only illustrates that.

.

[December90]

ask yourself why it is that the U.S. is no longer in the manufacturing business. do you think that perhaps manufacturers might seek places to do business where roadblocks like the EPA don't get in the way.

If you think that having no manufacturing is a good thing because it is bad for the environment, then your EPA is just what you needed.

There is a need for common sense regulations but the EPA regulates well beyond what is common sense.

[mardi gras skin]

Those aren't from your post about Gingrich and climate change.

post #85. That's the only article I've posted and those quotes are from that article.

[PeterMP]

Yes they did, as you well know with them it is the compliance with the letter,not the actual reduction or efficiency that matters.(I too have a file full of MSDS sheets gathering dust)....ever wonder how many trees died for that idiocy?

The fact they are just recently accepting flexible permitting works only illustrates that.

.

What is your defintion of "recent"?

From your own link:

"EPA is finalizing changes and clarifications to air quality permitting rules to encourage greater use of flexible air permits. EPA’s assessment of flexible air permits demonstrated that they can enable significant environmental and economic benefits, while reducing administrative workload for permitting authorities and facilities."

Now, your link is dated 2009. It sounds like to me pre-2009, there were already flexibile permits and enough so that the EPA did a study that determined they worked well and even more of them should be encouraged.

(Oh and post-2009 the state of TX is still in trouble because their emissions are too high.)

(And as many trees as were regrown.)

[Destino]

ask yourself why it is that the U.S. is no longer in the manufacturing business. do you think that perhaps manufacturers might seek places to do business where roadblocks like the EPA don't get in the way.

OK.

Destino why is the US no longer in the manufacturing business?

A: Because foreign workers will work for far less and US tax law actually helps companies outsource jobs to other countries.

If you think that having no manufacturing is a good thing because it is bad for the environment, then your EPA is just what you needed.

There is a need for common sense regulations but the EPA regulates well beyond what is common sense.

There is also a need for enforcement of laws on the books, otherwise why have them at all?