EPA Scotus decision and liberal spin

I read this quote and have to ask, how is this even possible? Is rain racist?

Had the decision been in favor of EPA regulations, it would have forced the industry to install high-tech scrubbers to remove mercury, arsenic and other pollutants, which disproportionately fall to earth in poorer neighborhoods.

 

Heavy-metal pollutant producing facilities don't get built in the better than poor neighborhoods. ?

 

Terrible decision by the Supreme. An idiotic line in some article doesn't change that.

 

I agree with Scalia:
"it is not appropriate to impose billions of dollars of economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits."

Yes, cost-benefit analysis is something we should require of the federal gov agencies. In this case, as in many, the cost far outweighed the benefit.

 

The EPA should start cracking down on noise pollution, especially at clubs and bars

 

Health and environmental benefits should be measured in dollars? Interesting.

 

"noise pollution" is a total misnomer. There is no measurable or lasting environmental impact.

I agree that it can compromise the property value for surrounding parcels, but that's an economic concerns, not environmental.

 

Relax, it was sarcasm

 

Yes. There should be a cost / benefit analysis done on everything. You can not run a country effectively on emotion.

 

Heartless bastage.

It's a stone cold bish when the Supremes don't see things your way .

 

It's annoying to be sure. It was in 1986.

Then we went to work to change it.

And that's pretty much how it all works.

 

My gripe was Obamacare and I'm 0 for 2. What was yours in '86?

 

Yes, otherwise the entire US would all be forced to drive around in our electric cars. Who cares if they cost $100,000, after all we are not putting a price on environmental benefits are we? You could just take this farther and force everyone to use solar, wind or human powered vehicles only. Oh - the price of pretty much everything you buy just went up 500,000% due to transportation costs. Well too bad that is the price of the environmental benefit. After all, we can't look at the price in dollars.

 

yes, that is one of the key (but not only) parameters to consider.

 

Emotion? There are costs in the world besides dollars, or any paper currency, for that matter.

It's not as simple as Scalia's quote makes it seem.


2Blue, that's why things are done in steps. Not all at once.

 

Then you pay for the upgrades out of your own pocket, after all it's just money right?

Your shortsightedness is dumbfounding.

 

This one will be hard to top, for the title of "ironic post of the day."

 

Bowers v Hardwick.

The ruling said that homosexual persons have no right to privacy in the USA, even in the sanctity of their own homes and bedrooms.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/478/186/case.html

It was overruled in 2003 after much work on the part of activists.

 

Swing and a miss...again.

 

yeah, I dont need you to tell me what is important or what is simple, but thanks.