Yeah. Despite what the left says about the farming community, I dont know any farmers who wont acknowledge Their environmental impact. What most of us are saying is yep we understand, what we need is time and investment too fix these issues. The dishonesty is largely coming from those who ignore that and focus everyones attention on the delay.
Yet heres some of this tuff that will become common over the next decade.... As long as we are allowed to implement it in a manor that allows farms too do so in an economically sustainable manor.

https://www.aoteaelectriccante...y-methane-emissions/

https://www.stuff.co.nz/enviro...cut-costs-and-carbon

However for the left its not about finding solutions that allow us to keep farming. Its all about reducing cows.

So, you bunch SAY you care. Prove it.

Meanwhile:

You vote for budget cuts on the agency dedicated to environmental protection.

You vote for gutting the clean water act.

You vote against clean renewable energy.

You vote against cleaning up forever chemicals, despite the science.

You vote for climate science deniers.

Etc.

Talk is cheap.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
So, you bunch SAY you care. Prove it.

Meanwhile:

You vote for budget cuts on the agency dedicated to environmental protection.
And you ignore all of the reasons why I find it not wholly unreasonable.
You vote for gutting the clean water act.

You vote against clean renewable energy.
What clean renewable practical energy source have I stood against? Our best bet is nuclear.

You vote against cleaning up forever chemicals, despite the science.
What science? The most pointed thing is that they are finding them in more places. I haven’t heard anything about cleaning them up… just some proposals to reduce new production.

You vote for climate science deniers.
As defined by you and your fellow travelers.

Etc.

Talk is cheap.

Which seems to be all your side is offering. You yourself have refused to embrace what you are telling the rest of us to do.

This EPA?


https://www.wlf.org/2020/08/06...ng-mine-waste-spill/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/p...sk-august-5-disaster

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
So, you bunch SAY you care. Prove it.

Meanwhile:

You vote for budget cuts on the agency dedicated to environmental protection.

You vote for gutting the clean water act.

You vote against clean renewable energy.

You vote against cleaning up forever chemicals, despite the science.

You vote for climate science deniers.

Etc.

Talk is cheap.

Talk is cheap. As you were asked earlier, what have you done?

I have told Kabob over and over what I have helped accomplish.
He refuses to see benefits to any of it.
I think thats called, "head up your ass"

Well, Jeffe, you slam dunked it again.

When PBS reports it like it is, that is good with me. I'll take it as fact.

So, it looks to me like an engineering mistake.

I'm sure their intentions were good.

So, are you saying that a 40% budget cut is appropriate because of this mistake?

Could that possibly lead to more mistakes, errors, for lack of staff and budget to hire engineers? You know - the cascade.

After all, the necessity for the cleanup was not the EPA's fault, unless the regs were in place and they didn't enforce in the first place. Probably, if not for the EPA mandating a cleanup, the toxins would have leached out into the watershed anyway over time. With nobody watching or testing, who would know and who would be accountable?

I've been to some of the high towns in Colorado and Utah, where mining took place in years past. Some of the sites have yellow drainage, heavy metal, all the time. The area between Minturn and Leadville is a toxic superfund cleanup site.

Jeffe,
If I give up on the silly idea of stream bed restoration, and lobby for toxic brine pools for lithium, like Biden. Will I get to be a lefty environmentalist too?

quote:

toxic brine pools for lithium

https://www.bing.com/search?q=...hemeovr=1&showconv=0

(Scroll down)

https://www.umass.edu/news/art...epends-how-old-water

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-022-00387-5

Read the "Key Points". One thing it says is: Environmental monitoring should be permanent and precede the start of the exploitation as environmental impacts might only be observable in the long term. Water monitoring requires gathering precipitation data, river flows and a sufficient number of observation wells to follow water tables at different locations.
.

==================================================================================

To really be a lefty environmentalist, in addition to the brine pools, or proper alternative - scientifically based, you would need to lobby for a budget adequate for an agency to oversee and do their best to ensure our safety especially water quality.

Otherwise, it would be something like the toxic runoff from the various mining operations from years ago in Colorado, Utah, etc. The EPA comes along and builds the sediment pools long after the fact. Too little too late. If they had made the mining operation pay for the cleanup, this can wouldn't have been kicked down the road, at our expense, money and health.

Otherwise we can get our lithium from China.

The problem with your stream bed restoration is that it's local, which is fine (commendable) as far as you can go with it - your own money, time, or that of whatever govt you can bully. Outcome varies. What if the stream bed was full of toxic runoff, miles and miles of it? The best way is to avoid that in the first place. Are you keen about that? Or do you think after-the-fact, perpetually, is just fine?

And you dont pay attention to what I have said do you.
These stream beds got that way from poor road practices from times past. The banks have washed out to immense flats, that increase water temps.
My proposal is to restore them to what they were.
The engineer at the state meeting liked it so much he is putting together a map of problem areas.
You Kabob cannot think in terms of everywhere is different. You want a one size fits all. The country and terrain does not fit that, and you cant seem to get it through your head. If each state takes on problems in relation to where, what and how, much could get done.
Get your head out of your ass and read what I said. I am looking for STATE wide solutions, not local. I dont live in other states, If I did, I expect I could work towards solutions to help there too.

You also didnt address the fact Biden is letting the lithium mines bypass most of the tests you talk about as being key.
Read the article "Biden guts environmental law for green projects".

Even a blind hog finds an acorn sometimes.

Who is more likely to listen to the scientists, such as described in the Nature article above, the Biden admin or any Repug admin, especially Trump's?

quote:

Biden guts environmental law for green projects

https://dailycaller.com/2023/0...een-energy-projects/

(excerpt)

The categorical exclusions for green energy projects will “help accelerate American manufacturing and build a clean energy future,” the White House said. The changes to the permitting process will also facilitate work related to semiconductor chip projects funded by the 2022 CHIPS And Science Act.

Both parties have advocated for the use of categorical exclusions to hasten projects they favor. However, when the Trump administration altered NEPA to reduce red tape, some environmentalist groups slammed the administration for seeking to create a backdoor route to expedite large projects without adequately considering their impacts on human and ecological health.

Biden administration officials are now touting their similar moves as key to facilitating their own energy agenda.

“Positioning the United States as a global leader in the transition to electric vehicles is creating good paying jobs in communities across the country and helping more Americans make the switch,” DOT’s Federal Highway Administrator Shailen Bhatt said Tuesday, according to the White House. “That’s why DOT is accelerating progress on President Biden’s clean energy goals by speeding up the installation of EV charging stations in communities across the country.”

More:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=...531&lightschemeovr=1

Any excuse for a Dem, right Kabob.

You are projecting.

What if it's not an excuse, which is what you are familiar with?

Do you see me praising either party when it comes to the environment?
I dont praise either over much of anything, but when it comes to environmental issues, they both fall flat.
Show me where if I have, otherwise you are just running your trap.

Granted, I don't think it's a matter of party with you. I think you overestimate your own contribution, and by extension, others like you, no matter how good intending.

When you say that the big picture problem is beyond your control and remedy, and that govt. is the real solution, well funded and supported rather than attacked, then I'll believe you.

The govt is not the problem with this overall situation.

"I'm from the govt. and I'm here to help" never meant more than in this context.

Remember Kabob, you are the gov supporter of all things.
So when a trump type person makes the rules, they are right.
No one should ever question the gov.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Granted, I don't think it's a matter of party with you. I think you overestimate your own contribution, and by extension, others like you, no matter how good intending.

When you say that the big picture problem is beyond your control and remedy, and that govt. is the real solution, well funded and supported rather than attacked, then I'll believe you.

The govt is not the problem with this overall situation.

"I'm from the govt. and I'm here to help" never meant more than in this context.

I have quite some trouble with that attitude. Its a damned if we do, damned if we dont one
When it comes too soil and water quality it is the individual landowner who is required to fix or prevent these issues. All big govt can do is facilitate or get in the way.
Getting in the way can be caused by creating a feeling of helplessness or placing to much bureaucratic burden on individuals.

over here we are learning that and have now shifted too a landowner led solution that promotes landowners combining their resources and supporting each other as well as pathways to apply for funding which removes the individuals need to try work though the daunting bureaucratic process.

heres one example of a farmer led river care group based around my previous district.

https://www.kingcountryrivercare.co.nz/about/

Kabob is just being Kabob.
He is nutless. He needs gov to run things, as he lacks any guts to stand up to anyone to say, WHY?
Why are we not fixing everything we can, no matter the scale.
I am happy to see farmers ( or anyone) everywhere take the lead, and make improvements.

Is Kabob his real name?

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Remember Kabob, you are the gov supporter of all things.
So when a trump type person makes the rules, they are right.
No one should ever question the gov.

That's BS and you ought to know it. Obviously I don't default to "trust the Govt".

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I have quite some trouble with that attitude. Its a damned if we do, damned if we dont one
When it comes too soil and water quality it is the individual landowner who is required to fix or prevent these issues. All big govt can do is facilitate or get in the way.

Well, I'm glad you have some semblance of a solution that makes folks happy in NZ.

It is "damned if we do and damned if we don't". In this country our relationship with govt is especially dysfunctional. It's really bad when it comes to environmental protection. As you can see, you and others think govt. should stay the heck out of the way. Well, we can easily see how that's working.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Kabob is just being Kabob.
He is nutless. He needs gov to run things, as he lacks any guts to stand up to anyone to say, WHY?
Why are we not fixing everything we can, no matter the scale.
I am happy to see farmers ( or anyone) everywhere take the lead, and make improvements.

"WHY" -- I am asking the question relating to environmental protection - "Why are we not fixing everything we can, no matter the scale." I too am happy when farmers and others are activists.

The central problem is NOT the govt. The problem is coming from those who don't want to be told by others what's the right thing to do, and they sure as heck don't want the govt. getting in their way. This is not conscientiousness, or a reflection of care - it's greed and attitude and self-interest and desire to dominate, and never will be more than that. It makes no difference in the long run or big picture how much individuals do - stream restoration for example. Why does it need restoration in the first place?

I ask the question "WHY" and I see the answer. It will always be this way, dysfunctional, as long as the attitude of the Rightist rules.

All I see from you Rightists here are rationalizations. You say you value environment and its protection. Somehow you seem to be saying it's up to individuals. I simply don't get that.

==========================================================

Let's say that we ID a problem. Re water quality that's easy. Then we reach consensus that the problem is urgent and needs to be fixed. Then we decide that in fixing the problem in part that entails stopping the cause of the problem and fix the effect. How is that goal most likely to be achieved?

Then we reach a consensus that we as individuals are busy, with family, jobs, etc., and collectively we don't have the time, money or skills, and most importantly the AUTHORITY for resolving this problem.

So we decide we need some hired help. What hired help - a contractor, a bunch of scientists, the good will of do-gooders, or bullies like TB40? So then the bright idea pops up that we need legislation for a source of authority, and targeting the problem and solution. So we get it, then what? We need someone or some org to skillfully and fairly admin the legislation, rules, and so-forth. So, the legislature, as usual in practice, delegates the job and grants the authority to an agency, who thus hires qualified staff, etc., and writes the regs.

After all that, while the problem continues, they finally get out there in the world and start the cleanup and protection remedies.

That's when the Rightists crawl out from under their rocks and start shouting individual rights are being violated. Damn the govt.

So, you see, it's damn the govt which is the most important thing, and damn fellow citizens, superseding the need for environmental protection.

So the whole thing flips.

That's dysfunctional. It's obvious but Rightists have higher priorities in their little ideological minds.

You make me laugh Kabob.
You have come on here with support of a foul mouth do-nothing Greta Thunberg.
I go to the legislature with proof and a plan, that they get on board with. And I am a bully.
It is why you will always be Kabob. Anytime you feel you cannot dominate a topic, you revert to being a prick and a hypocrite. You just cant stand it if you cant be front and center, yet you as an individual have never accomplished anything.
If the government could actually do a good job, wonderful. But when they pass shit that stands in the way of some states clean up measures, because they want a one size fits all, I oppose it. I have been through all of this with you before, and why states need latitude to work out different solutions. You just dont want to hear about it.

And why do we need stream restoration?
I have told you what has happened and why in my state. You just cannot read, cannot digest what you read, or just forget.
It is impossible to have conversation when the data does not get through to you. Over and over again, you pull the same ignorant shit, asking about things all ready discussed.

Here are some facts:

Federal Register:
The Environmental Protection Agency was established in the executive branch as an independent agency pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 (5 U.S.C. app.), effective December 2, 1970. It was created to permit coordinated and effective governmental action on behalf of the environment.

What law created the EPA?
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was one of the first laws ever written that establishes the broad national framework for protecting our environment. Sep 6, 2023

What type of independent agency is the EPA?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an independent agency of the United States government tasked with environmental protection matters. President Richard Nixon proposed the establishment of EPA on July 9, 1970; it began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order.

epa.gov
Is the EPA a regulatory agency?
EPA is called a regulatory agency because Congress authorizes us to write regulations that explain the critical details necessary to implement environmental laws. Jul 3, 2023

Does the EPA work with other agencies?
EPA collaborates with a wide variety of multilateral organizations to protect human health and the environment. Many pollutants released abroad directly affect the populations and ecosystems within our borders.

Who funds the EPA?
The EPA accomplishes much of its mission through services provided by non-federal entities using a variety of funding instruments, including contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements. Each instrument has a specific purpose, and thus creates different relationships between the federal and non-federal parties. Sep 1, 2023

What type of agency is the EPA and what is its purpose?
The Environmental Protection Agency protects people and the environment from significant health risks, sponsors and conducts research, and develops and enforces environmental regulations.

What does the EPA have the authority to do?
EPA has explicit authority to enforce the law and assess fines at federal facilities violating environmental statutes including the: Clean Air Act. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

Do states have to follow EPA regulations?
Most federal statutes allow states to set standards that are at least as stringent as federal requirements. When the EPA approves a program for the state, the state has primary responsibility and authority for that particular program. Some state governments have additional environmental laws. Jan 4, 2023

How much authority does the EPA have?
EPA has explicit authority to enforce the law and assess fines at federal facilities violating environmental statutes including the: Clean Air Act. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

Can the EPA write laws?
In order to make the laws work on a day-to-day level, Congress authorizes certain government agencies - including EPA - to create regulations. Regulations set specific requirements about what is legal and what isn't. Sep 6, 2023

Can Congress control the EPA?
EPA is called a regulatory agency because Congress authorizes us to write regulations that explain the critical details necessary to implement environmental laws. In addition, a number of Presidential Executive Orders (EOs) play a central role in our activities. Jul 3, 2023

What is the difference between a law and a regulation?
Regulations are not laws themselves, but are legal directives written to explain how to implement statutes or laws. Local regulations must not be less stringent than the state regulations and state regulations must not be less stringent than the federal regulations.

Is the EPA really an "independent" agency?
https://youtu.be/LBE5ALM9PKY?si=HlWkCMh9Ra3S9fJU

https://youtu.be/1We859WXZIY?si=oDPg1QbYOf5vdCts

https://guides.library.georget...751#s-lg-box-1473936

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:


Well, I'm glad you have some semblance of a solution that makes folks happy in NZ.

It is "damned if we do and damned if we don't". In this country our relationship with govt is especially dysfunctional. It's really bad when it comes to environmental protection. As you can see, you and others think govt. should stay the heck out of the way. Well, we can easily see how that's working.

There is a guy farming in the US, Derick Josie,

https://www.facebook.com/tdfhonestfarming

He allows an incredible look into the day to day issues of American farming.
To be honest I see little difference between here and there as far as compliance and bureaucracy and the willingness to improve go's.

What's all that got to do with the GOP wanting to cut the EPA's budget?

Follow him, you might learn something new. He talks about environmental concerns, the frustrations of his family farm being designated a C.A.F.O, and the bureaucracy of it all quite a bit.

What you might well learn is that some, not all, but some of the dysfunction is caused by Depts such as the EPA and how unnecessarily hard they can make compliance.
He also talks about the differences in environment in where he farms too other areas and why uninformed public input might not suit his area.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Jeffe,
If I give up on the silly idea of stream bed restoration, and lobby for toxic brine pools for lithium, like Biden. Will I get to be a lefty environmentalist too?

Man! That's different!

Biden gets "liberal privilege"..... and probably some payolla.....



.

Everybody has an opinion.

Too bad that opinions rule, and science is crippled.

Good plan, along with cutting queer Buttigig salary to $1, which still makes him over paid.

The GOP House are good at proposing stuff that makes political statements but not worth a shit at governance or passing real legislation.

https://thehill.com/policy/ene...in%20three%20decades.

House GOP approves cutting EPA budget by nearly 40 percent
BY RACHEL FRAZIN AND ARIS FOLLEY - 11/03/23 11:08 AM ET

The massive funding cut proposed by the GOP has virtually no chance of becoming law in this year’s budget but marks a starting point in negotiations for Republicans as they look to negotiate with Democrats in the Senate on funding the government.

In addition to the top-line EPA cuts, the GOP bill would also rescind provisions from the climate, tax and health care bill that Democrats passed last year. It targets funding aimed at helping underserved communities combat climate change and pollution.

It additionally seeks to defund the EPA’s efforts to curtail toxic pollution and planet-warming emissions, preventing the agency from using funding to enforce its rules on power plants.

The bill would also deliver cuts, albeit less dramatic ones, to the Interior Department, reducing its funding by about 4.5 percent. It delivers a steeper cut of 13 percent to the National Park Service.

The legislation would also require the Biden administration pursue drilling off the coast of Alaska, where the administration does not currently plan to offer new oil lease sales. It would require the administration to auction off the right to drill for oil there at least twice a year and would also require twice-a-year-oil lease sales in regions of the Gulf of Mexico.

The bill looks drastically different from its counterpart in the Senate, which calls for $7 billion more in total funding than the legislation passed in the House and was approved with overwhelming bipartisan support in committee earlier this year.

Seems to me that farmers in the USA could tolerate a little EPA.

=================================================================

"Any farmer today will tell you they want to leave their farm to the next generation better than they've received it." Some of these practices are already becoming popular with farmers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has programs to support them, funded in part by $18 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act. 13 hours ago

https://www.usatoday.com/story...-change/71421826007/

Farmers get billions in government aid. Some of that money could also fight climate change

How much does the US government subsidize farmers?
The federal government spends more than $30 billion a year on subsidies for farm businesses and agriculture. Congress is scheduled to reauthorize farm programs in 2023, which provides an opportunity to reassess farm policies and reduce taxpayer costs. The government supports nearly all aspects of farming. Aug 31, 2023

https://www.cato.org/briefing-...pects%20of%20farming.

https://www.ewg.org/news-insig...37-consecutive-years

Nearly 20,000 farmers received farm subsidies for 37 consecutive years

https://www.usda.gov/media/pre...rt-rural-communities

President Biden Announces Over $5 Billion to Support Rural Communities During Investing in Rural America Event Series

======================================================================

Funny thing, around here the desire to leave the land better for the next generation always involves a half-million investment, at least, in an excavator and bulldozer. "Better" is subjective.

Yep. just not a big EPA.

If what I say next sounds insulting, its not intended too be.

As A NZ farmer i can say we would love the states to do away with its agricultural subsidies. Because for a decade or so we would wipe the floor, competition wise with US Agricultural products. We have had no subsidies at all since the 1980s and also have had to compete with no tariff imports. Ill stick with dairy here because i know it best. We are the second largest exporter of dairy product in the world behind EU, and ahead Of the US. We are first on an individual nation basis.

Thats because we are in the goldilocks zone climate wise for agriculture. We dont have the summer-winter temperature fluctuations of big landmasses and we get high rainfall.

We provide 21% of total world dairy exports. The US provides 9%.

But.... Without checking, Im pretty sure that the us dairy industry production is going to be massively bigger than NZs. Thats because the vast proportion of US production of dairy, and all most every other agricultural product, is for your domestic market. Now because much of your agricultural land does not abide in the goldilocks zone. ( I suspect California would), It costs your farmer much more to produce food for your people under harder farming conditions.
So your subsidies do a couple of things. They help keep the price of domestic food on your shelves reasonable and they keep farming sustainable, which is a food and national security issue. They also stop countries like us from being able to undercut your production costs and flood your market with cheaper high quality food.
If you removed your subsidies you would see a crash in Ag, and if you think that is going to be an environmental panacea, then I have news for you. Because we have been there.

quote:

if you think that is going to be an environmental panacea

I do not think that.