Documerica: the 1970's

alfadriver wrote:

Gearheadotaku wrote: It's the EPA that made cars hard to work on, energy expensive, and nearly impossible to build anything industrial. Yes, they have done some good, but have run out of positive things to do and are now screwing things up for everyone. The series of photos are interesting, though some have nothing to do with the environment.

The cars are also emit about 0.01% of what they did before 1960, making driving a lot better, and run better. And they keep trying to push the levels even lower. Driving up cost and complexity even more. By the late 80's emission levels were very small, downright tiny by 2000. Oh, and I'm not sure if you've ever noticed, but we actually refine steel and aluminum in the US. And that gets made into a lot of stuff here, including cars. Yes, we do have steel mills and oil refinery's here. How many new one have been built in the last 25 years? Very few if any. Cheaper to build overseas with less regulation. My brother inlaw worked for a semi-conductor manufacturer in CA and wanted to build a new, larger facility. EPA wanted a 5 year environmental impact study that ran into the millions of dollars. New plant was built overseas. Not sure how they are to blame for expensive energy, yet. Still pretty darned cheap here. So coal plants can be lived near now, is that so bad? Look at what you pay per Kw today, compare to 5, 10, 20 years ago. Yes, prices do go up, but they are accelerating. Much like the auto industry, how clean is clean enough?

DILYSI Dave wrote: Alfa - Nobody wants dirty air / water. But to say that the EPA has not overstepped is to put blinders on. One of the best examples I've seen is Hoover Dam. The Dam itself was completed in 4 years at a cost of $744M in today's dollars. The Visitor Center that was completed in 1995 took 12 years to build at a cost of $646M in today's dollars. The Visitor Center took 3 times as long and cost nearly as much as the Dam itself. A large part of that was endless EIS bullE36 M3. THAT is the over-reaching that is being discussed. A bunch of activists, lawyers, and bureaucrats got rich on the backs of the people. We could never do great projects like those done in our past, because litigious environmental BS inevitably gets in the way.

Ten seconds of Google-fu shows that 112 lives were lost while constructing the Hoover dam. How much cost in litigation would that add to a modern construction project? How much would it cost to make construction safe enough so that only a few lives, or even zero lives were lost? Should we go back to saying, "Oh gee, dad's dead. Guess it's just the cost of doing business." When some stranger dies, it's no big deal, but losing a friend or family member in the name of cost cutting would be a bit of a downer.

Gearheadotaku wrote: Much like the auto industry, how clean is clean enough?

We either pay more now to keep our water clean, or we pay a lot more later to clean it up.

Hooray for Richard Nixon!

DILYSI Dave wrote: Alfa - Nobody wants dirty air / water. But to say that the EPA has not overstepped is to put blinders on. One of the best examples I've seen is Hoover Dam. The Dam itself was completed in 4 years at a cost of $744M in today's dollars. The Visitor Center that was completed in 1995 took 12 years to build at a cost of $646M in today's dollars. The Visitor Center took 3 times as long and cost nearly as much as the Dam itself. A large part of that was endless EIS bullE36 M3. THAT is the over-reaching that is being discussed. A bunch of activists, lawyers, and bureaucrats got rich on the backs of the people. We could never do great projects like those done in our past, because litigious environmental BS inevitably gets in the way.

Bear in mind, 99% of the environmetal litigation you see has nothing to do with the EPA, but an environmental group who are opposed to something. Or somebody who is against something and using envionmental things to stop them.

The EPA takes 100% of their direction from congress, they make nothing up. Rules they write are a direct result of what congress does and what they pay to have done.

On that note- go look at modern gold mining- they use some rather scary chemicals to remove <1% gold from ore. All legaly. Mainly in the middle of nowhere Nevada. Compare that with a simple mining group here in northern Michigan- got full approvals from all aspects of the government, but some locals are scared even if they follow all of the rules, and are holdind up the process in court themselves.

Like the IIHS, who some here think is the government, the core problems is some other private group who know how to manipulate the system.

Are the rules that the EPA and CARB come up with too hard? Hard to say- since there are still air quality health related issues out there. And that both organizations do actually take economic concerns into new rules (it's in both of their core rules to do that) and both also talk directly with industry to come up with new rules.

But that recent set of articles on NPR do show that industry still does a great job at skirting the rules. And harming the health of a lot of people. That's bad. Air quality in the large cities I've been to in Europe in the last few years has a lot to be desired for. And I just got back from Mexico, where I was firmly told not to drink the water. All in all, I'm quite pleased with the EPA.

alfadriver wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: Alfa - Nobody wants dirty air / water. But to say that the EPA has not overstepped is to put blinders on. One of the best examples I've seen is Hoover Dam. The Dam itself was completed in 4 years at a cost of $744M in today's dollars. The Visitor Center that was completed in 1995 took 12 years to build at a cost of $646M in today's dollars. The Visitor Center took 3 times as long and cost nearly as much as the Dam itself. A large part of that was endless EIS bullE36 M3. THAT is the over-reaching that is being discussed. A bunch of activists, lawyers, and bureaucrats got rich on the backs of the people. We could never do great projects like those done in our past, because litigious environmental BS inevitably gets in the way.

Bear in mind, 99% of the environmetal litigation you see has nothing to do with the EPA, but an environmental group who are opposed to something. Or somebody who is against something and using envionmental things to stop them. The EPA takes 100% of their direction from congress, they make nothing up. Rules they write are a direct result of what congress does and what they pay to have done. On that note- go look at modern gold mining- they use some rather scary chemicals to remove <1% gold from ore. All legaly. Mainly in the middle of nowhere Nevada. Compare that with a simple mining group here in northern Michigan- got full approvals from all aspects of the government, but some locals are scared even if they follow all of the rules, and are holdind up the process in court themselves. Like the IIHS, who some here think is the government, the core problems is some other private group who know how to manipulate the system. Are the rules that the EPA and CARB come up with too hard? Hard to say- since there are still air quality health related issues out there. And that both organizations do actually take economic concerns into new rules (it's in both of their core rules to do that) and both also talk directly with industry to come up with new rules. But that recent set of articles on NPR do show that industry still does a great job at skirting the rules. And harming the health of a lot of people. That's bad. Air quality in the large cities I've been to in Europe in the last few years has a lot to be desired for. And I just got back from Mexico, where I was firmly told not to drink the water. All in all, I'm quite pleased with the EPA.

That is fair. A LOT of the holdups / annoyances seem to be with advocacy groups using the environmental laws as a hedge, rather than the EPA itself.

Just got to witness the best off road trails in the southeast closed due to this. Trout Unlimited threatened to sue the Forestry Service for violation of the Clean Water Act if they didn't shut down Tellico ORV park. Never mind that the Clean Water Act does not apply to the Tellico river, nor that even if it did that turbidity data was flawed. TU threatened, and bam - the park was closed.

DILYSI Dave wrote: That is fair. A LOT of the holdups / annoyances seem to be with advocacy groups using the environmental laws as a hedge, rather than the EPA itself. Just got to witness the best off road trails in the southeast closed due to this. Trout Unlimited threatened to sue the Forestry Service for violation of the Clean Water Act if they didn't shut down Tellico ORV park. Never mind that the Clean Water Act does not apply to the Tellico river, nor that even if it did that turbidity data was flawed. TU threatened, and bam - the park was closed.

And I fully agree that it happens more often than it should.

IMHO, the mining industry is one of the most often target. Not that they did themselves any favors in the past- with some nasty, nasty run-off's, and whatnot. But, for the most part, they follow the strict rules to the letter, and still have major issues with minor groups.

Ironically, the major cuts to the government has made it hard for them to fight stupid suits, so instead of doing things that meet the letter of the law, the easiest/cheapest thing to do is to close access.... Smaller government = smaller public lands that are available for use.

An EPA canoe!

^Canoe? The link popped a security warning.

I have been close to teh spot where picture 36 was shot and my Father lived fairly close to picture 44.

I'm going to avoid the EPA related flounder landmine

I did look through the photos and found myself thinking " I guess it really WAS that different when I grew up....."

Two youths in Uptown, Chicago, Illinois, a neighborhood of poor white southerners, in August of 1974.

Why was there a neighborhood of poor white southerners in Chicago in 1974?

I thought the same thing. Was there a refugee program of which I'm unaware? Even if they're FROM the south, they now live in the North. Doesn't that make them Poor White Northerners?

The EPA is as heavy handed as the rest of the federal thugs.

Sept. 5, 1996 was a day of chaos for employees at the Canal Refinery in Church Point when armed federal agents barged into the facility, threw files onto the floor — and prohibited female employees from using the restroom or making arrangements for their children to be picked up from daycare.

It's been almost 15 years since that Swat Team — commissioned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — spent hours rummaging the Church Point refinery in search of hazardous waste. And though no hazardous waste was ever found, Hubert Vidrine of Opelousas, Canal's former manager, was still facing the issue in federal court as recently as June

See the rest here: http://www.theind.com/news/8700-when-the-epa-swat-team-comes-a-knockin-

DILYSI Dave wrote:

alfadriver wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: Alfa - Nobody wants dirty air / water. But to say that the EPA has not overstepped is to put blinders on. One of the best examples I've seen is Hoover Dam. The Dam itself was completed in 4 years at a cost of $744M in today's dollars. The Visitor Center that was completed in 1995 took 12 years to build at a cost of $646M in today's dollars. The Visitor Center took 3 times as long and cost nearly as much as the Dam itself. A large part of that was endless EIS bullE36 M3. THAT is the over-reaching that is being discussed. A bunch of activists, lawyers, and bureaucrats got rich on the backs of the people. We could never do great projects like those done in our past, because litigious environmental BS inevitably gets in the way.

Bear in mind, 99% of the environmetal litigation you see has nothing to do with the EPA, but an environmental group who are opposed to something. Or somebody who is against something and using envionmental things to stop them. The EPA takes 100% of their direction from congress, they make nothing up. Rules they write are a direct result of what congress does and what they pay to have done. On that note- go look at modern gold mining- they use some rather scary chemicals to remove <1% gold from ore. All legaly. Mainly in the middle of nowhere Nevada. Compare that with a simple mining group here in northern Michigan- got full approvals from all aspects of the government, but some locals are scared even if they follow all of the rules, and are holdind up the process in court themselves. Like the IIHS, who some here think is the government, the core problems is some other private group who know how to manipulate the system. Are the rules that the EPA and CARB come up with too hard? Hard to say- since there are still air quality health related issues out there. And that both organizations do actually take economic concerns into new rules (it's in both of their core rules to do that) and both also talk directly with industry to come up with new rules. But that recent set of articles on NPR do show that industry still does a great job at skirting the rules. And harming the health of a lot of people. That's bad. Air quality in the large cities I've been to in Europe in the last few years has a lot to be desired for. And I just got back from Mexico, where I was firmly told not to drink the water. All in all, I'm quite pleased with the EPA.

That is fair. A LOT of the holdups / annoyances seem to be with advocacy groups using the environmental laws as a hedge, rather than the EPA itself. Just got to witness the best off road trails in the southeast closed due to this. Trout Unlimited threatened to sue the Forestry Service for violation of the Clean Water Act if they didn't shut down Tellico ORV park. Never mind that the Clean Water Act does not apply to the Tellico river, nor that even if it did that turbidity data was flawed. TU threatened, and bam - the park was closed.

Ever heard of a 'sweetheart deal?' That's where the ecoweenies and FS personnel get together for a beer, say 'OK we both want this closed, here's how we go about it: we complain, you say you have to study, we threaten to sue, you collapse.' Bam. Done.

The Tellico shutdown was a sweetheart deal if I ever saw one.

Also, the Forest Service and BLM have both said that if they were approached to build Mount Rushmore today it would never happen. The only reason that Crazy Horse? statue is being built is that it's on private land.

Some of the things you guys come up with are funny.

first someone points out that EPA is to draconian for business, and run above the law.

then someone points out that big busniness is running the government.

so, which is it? If the governemnt/EPA is being run by big business, then why would the rules be so slanted against big business? Can't really be both.

BTW, i would not be surprised to see some of the annomous backing of 'ecoweenies' for various lawsuits coming from competetive companies. How else can they afford the big $$ lawyers?

DING DING DING Alfa wins a prize! Your employer contributes big $$$ to the Sierra Club through the Ford Foundation. Don't take my word for it, look it up. The SC has had some shadowy accounting which seems to indicate that they funnel a fair amount of money to a guy named Dave Foreman who started Earth First!, then sat on the SC's board for a while, then left to start the Rewilding Institute. The story goes that the SC felt they weren't doing enough to preserve the environment, they needed to get more radical but had to maintain their image. (FWIW, back in the late 90's a girl I knew who worked for the Forest Service quit the Sierra Club because they were getting too radical.)

So Foreman was encouraged to go off on his own, much like the Mission: Impossible team: 'The secretary will disavow all knowledge of your actions'.

So through a roundabout path Ford Motor Co is helping fund Earth First!

http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/People/dave_foreman.html

http://www.earthfirst.org/

http://rewilding.org/rewildit/

One of Foreman's projects was a 'monkeywrenching' guide still circulating today. Here's a chapter: http://www.skeptictank.org/ecowar/mbike.htm

From that manual comes this handy little diagram of a homemade land mine designed to be planted in motorcycle trails:

Nice people Ford supports, huh?

Something I need to say: the EPA was about the only thing that got the general population to demand that America get cleaned up back in the 60's and 70's. I think they had, and still have, a vital role to play.

But that does not excuse the heavy handed tactics they now seem to employ and doesn't let people like Dave Foreman off the hook.

The Endangered Species Act allows an organization to say that something MAY or MAY NOT exist in a certain area and then use that as a reason to keep people out. In short, even if it can't be found if they think it MIGHT be found at some time or other, no access for you.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

To paraphrase Barry Goldwater: Extremism in defense of the environment is no vice!

In reply to Curmudgeon:

Other than its name, the Ford Foundation has not had any connections to the Ford Motor Company nor the Ford family for over thirty years.

Granted the EPA has it's flaws, but remember the early 70s?

** Lake Erie was nearly dead--- now it is thriving

**The Grand Calumet River in Gary IN used to CATCH FIRE-- yes the water would burn-- not so bad anymore-- not good, but not combustable.

**The air in the L.A. area was nearly unbreathable-- much better now

Industry has to go for the highest profits to appease their shareholders. They need a bit of regulation to make sure the populace is safe. Sure the EPA's rules could use refining, but folks like Michelle Bachman are nuts to think we can dissolve the EPA and be just fine.

Actually she's said lots of nutty things, but that is for another thread.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Curmudgeon: Other than its name, the Ford Foundation has not had any connections to the Ford Motor Company nor the Ford family for over thirty years.

So the fact that it was started by Henry and Edsel Ford with $ from the sale of their products has no merit, huh?

From the same Wiki:

"The Ford Foundation was chartered on January 15, 1936 in Michigan by Edsel Ford and two Ford Motor Company executives "to receive and administer funds for scientific, educational and charitable purposes, all for the public welfare".[3] During its early years, the foundation operated in Michigan under the leadership of Ford family members and their associates, and supported such organizations as the Henry Ford Hospital, Greenfield Village and Henry Ford Museum, among others.

After the deaths of Edsel Ford in 1943 and Henry Ford in 1947, the presidency of the Ford Foundation fell to Edsel's eldest son, Henry Ford II. Under Henry Ford II's leadership, the Ford Foundation board of trustees commissioned a report to determine how the foundation should continue. The committee, headed by California attorney H. Rowan Gaither, recommended that the foundation should commit to promoting peace, freedom, and education throughout the world. It provided funding for various projects, including the pre-existing network, National Educational Television, which went on the air in 1952. However, the Ford Foundation, with the help of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting shut it down and replaced it with the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in October 1970. The board of directors decided to diversify the foundation's portfolio and gradually divested itself of its substantial Ford Motor Company stock between 1956 and 1974. Through this divestiture, the Ford Motor Company became a public company in 1956.

Other than its name, the Ford Foundation has not had any connections to the Ford Motor Company nor the Ford family for over thirty years. Henry Ford II, the last family member on the board of trustees, resigned from the foundation board in 1976, encouraging foundation staff to remain open to new ideas and work to strengthen the country’s economic system."

From http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf5d5nb130/

The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (SCLDF) was established in San Francisco in 1971, [Henry Ford II was still on the board at that time] with funding from the Ford Foundation and the Sierra Club Foundation. Sierra Club Legal Committee members Phillip Berry, Donald Harris, Fred Fisher, and Michael McCloskey were instrumental in its creation. James Moorman was its first executive director. It is legally and financially separate from the Sierra Club, able to solicit tax-deductible donations and represent non-Sierra Club clients. [That would seem to cover Earth First!]

To this day, the Ford Foundation still gives money to the SC for 'educational purposes'.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

To clarify - are you implying a current connection between Ford Motor Co and the Sierra Club?

Hell, if you go back for enough you can connect Henry Ford with Hitler. Then whatcha gonna do?

In reply to Curmudgeon:

As you have posted, Ford Foundation is not related to Ford Motor Company, at least anymore. So I'm not sure what your point is.

Were they heavy handed during the one instance you post? Perhaps. Not knowing the full details, it's hard to judge. I'm pretty sure that what you post is very slanted against the EPA, so it would be nice to see what tipped them off to get the FBI involved.

I'm still trying to figure out how EPA is bad for business if our government is run by business....