Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

kottke.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 174 posts

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#151

Post by LyndsySimon »

clipperton wrote: post #125
fiblye wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As I understand it, the conservative attitude is that environmental concerns are either overplayed As someone who left a part of the country that votes Republican to Dem 9:1, this is the mindset of most rural voters (where I'm from at least). They think pollution and grime are "city problems" because city people are just "dirty sons of bitches". These are people who, once their car breaks down, they just put it into…

You seem to be painting a nice over-the-top caricature of all people who live in a rural area much in the same way you're claiming that they're making bad stereotypes about those who live in the city. As someone who still lives in a rural area I can say that I've never participated/been familiar with those that participate in mass garbage burning, dumping cars/tires into the woods, etc.

I'm definitely on the libertarian/conservative side of this issue, but I generally agree with the GP. Every farm here has a few old cars in a field somewhere, and every house with a bit of land has a "junk pile" somewhere off in a corner.

To be frank, I just don't think it's as big a problem as GP. It doesn't hurt me if my neighbor has a pile of broken down pallets and yard waste in the corner of his yard - his property is not my problem. If I don't like the way it looks I'll build a fence.

I recently bought a house, and there's a concrete pad in one corner of the property that was once a basketball court. It's mostly buried in a thin layer of dirt now and there's everything from old plumping to odd pieces of granite from the previous owner's construction business piled on it. I'm looking forward to cleaning all of that up this spring and building a shop building on the pad.

Part of the reason for this is that it's quite expensive to deal with it. Even doing the work myself - collecting, hauling it to the dump, and unloading it there - it will still likely cost me a few hundred dollars to deal with it. People here don't have a few hundred dollars to spare for things that aren't necessities, so you end up with what are effectively personal/family dumps on every small piece of property.

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#152

Post by [deleted] »

burfog wrote: post #28
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #8

I've never really understood why conservatives are so reluctant to look after their environment, after all they get to live in it as well.

They aren't reluctant, but you have to speak their language. You may be eager to see a government agency placing limits on businesses, but that won't go over well at all. A better approach is to speak in terms of paying for what you damage. The economy matters, and you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet... but you pay for anything you break. So you end up charging a price, preferably to be paid to those who a…

[deleted]

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#153

Post by LyndsySimon »

hagbarth wrote: post #86
rufusroflpunch wrote: post #69

I realize that HN generally skews left politically, but this is literally nothing more than a puff piece. There's nothing of value here.

Wait, what makes the EPA a left thing? It was proposed by Richard Nixon.

It has certainly been politicized, by both sides. The Democrats have used it as a tool to regulate industry to accomplish political aims, and the Republicans have used it as a symbolic scapegoat of the Democrats.

"The EPA" !== "environmental protection". It's a government agency, with all the baggage that goes along with it. One can be opposed to the very existence of the EPA while still being strongly supportive if its nominal mission.

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#154

Post by LyndsySimon »

Tepix wrote: post #19
_red wrote: post #10

This is sort of a contentless post. Certainly the EPA performs a valid role, however that is not to say that any attempts to constrain its increasing creep of scope and overreach of power is automatically bad . Is it possible to find pictures from the late 60s showing pristine beautiful nature shots? Is it possible to find pictures from late 60s showing clean and tidy small town streets? Is it possible to find pictur…

Are we on a sustainable path? Should the EPA get more money or less? Right now they are getting a 25% cut. The reduction in regulations will help big corporations, it may even create a few jobs, but it's not in the best interest of the general public, including future generations.

> Are we on a sustainable path? Should the EPA get more money or less? Right now they are getting a 25% cut.

From my perspective, everything in government should get less money. It's not so much a statement against the EPA as it is a statement that the federal government in particular is an order of magnitude too large and powerful.

> it's not in the best interest of the general public, including future generations.

I get where you're coming from, and sympathize with your position - but you've not supported this statement. How would cutting the EPA budget hurt us long-term? Can those effects be mitigated through other, less costly policies?

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#155

Post by maxxxxx »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #149
cimmanom wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what affects just one's own property vs affecting others? Can I dump toxic waste on my own land? What happens when 10 years later it starts leaching into the soil and poisoning nearby streams and farms? What about the animals who eat on my land and then run back into the forest where they get shot for someone else's dinner, and that someone else ends up consuming elevated levels of heavy metals? What about the pe…

> Can I dump toxic waste on my own land? Sure, it's your land. > What happens when 10 years later it starts leaching into the soil and poisoning nearby streams and farms? Those impacted landowners now have a tort claim against you, which they should pursue. > What about the animals who eat on my land and then run back into the forest where they get shot for someone else's dinner, and that someone else ends up consumi…

With your system the court system needs to make judgements about the validity of all these tort claims. So they need to build up pretty much the same expertise the EPA has right now.

I think it's also very inefficient to allow people to do things that we know for sure will be harmful. If all that stuff is allowed and ends up in court you will need a gigantic court system to handle all these cases.

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#156

Post by cimmanom »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #149
cimmanom wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what affects just one's own property vs affecting others? Can I dump toxic waste on my own land? What happens when 10 years later it starts leaching into the soil and poisoning nearby streams and farms? What about the animals who eat on my land and then run back into the forest where they get shot for someone else's dinner, and that someone else ends up consuming elevated levels of heavy metals? What about the pe…

> Can I dump toxic waste on my own land? Sure, it's your land. > What happens when 10 years later it starts leaching into the soil and poisoning nearby streams and farms? Those impacted landowners now have a tort claim against you, which they should pursue. > What about the animals who eat on my land and then run back into the forest where they get shot for someone else's dinner, and that someone else ends up consumi…

And this was the state of affairs prior to the EPA. Somehow that didn't stop the pollution of sites that became superfund sites; it didn't prevent rivers from getting into a state where they could be set on fire. It didn't prevent air pollution that made living in a city worse than smoking a pack a day.

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#157

Post by mnm1 »

swebs wrote: post #93
zhyder wrote: post #68

It's unfortunate that the EPA is under attack by conservatives who want limited government. If you start from first principles about what the min viable government should do, a big part of its charter would be to prevent major tragedies of the commons. And the environment is a textbook example of something that'd suffer the tragedy of the commons without government oversight. I prefer a bigger government with a bigge…

On the other hand, does the EPA really require 8 billion dollars per year when the protection laws have already been passed and improvements have already been made? In a software project, you allocate $x per month during development, and only $(x/10) for maintenance after it has shipped. Is there a point where the EPA can say "mission accomplished" and downsize to maintenance/enforcement mode, or is this just a typic…

You think laws enforce themselves?

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#158

Post by awful »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #149
cimmanom wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what affects just one's own property vs affecting others? Can I dump toxic waste on my own land? What happens when 10 years later it starts leaching into the soil and poisoning nearby streams and farms? What about the animals who eat on my land and then run back into the forest where they get shot for someone else's dinner, and that someone else ends up consuming elevated levels of heavy metals? What about the pe…

> Can I dump toxic waste on my own land? Sure, it's your land. > What happens when 10 years later it starts leaching into the soil and poisoning nearby streams and farms? Those impacted landowners now have a tort claim against you, which they should pursue. > What about the animals who eat on my land and then run back into the forest where they get shot for someone else's dinner, and that someone else ends up consumi…

We already tried this (ex. gasoline stations) and it doesn't work: there is no way someone who pollutes an entire aquifer with barrels of toxin can be made to financially or mechanically remediate it. It always falls upon the government to do so.

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#159

Post by wallace_f »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #148
wallace_f wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word has been hijacked. Libertarians want to maximize liberty, which since the Age of Reason has been interpreted in government to mean to restrict as few freedoms as necessary to protect the remainder. One example: don't let people commit murder. It is perfectly reasonable this kind of reasoning apply to other types of killing or unjust aggression, such as poisoning the environment. So we have the NAP. But the w…

> or people who are anarchists (which is decidedly not libertarian). I grant you that most anarchists are not libertarians, but I fail to see how Anarcho-Capitalists are not. > Perhaps we need to run away and invent a new word. We've done that, several times. We were once "liberals", then "libertarians", and it feels like we're now fracturing into subgroups that take on various labels: "ancap", "minarchist", "classic…

Because the central premise of anarcho capitalism is not to maximize liberty. The central premise is to place private ownership above all else--even above rule of law that would forbid murder.

Re: What America looked like before the EPA, in photos

#160

Post by Strang »

zhyder wrote: post #68

It's unfortunate that the EPA is under attack by conservatives who want limited government. If you start from first principles about what the min viable government should do, a big part of its charter would be to prevent major tragedies of the commons. And the environment is a textbook example of something that'd suffer the tragedy of the commons without government oversight. I prefer a bigger government with a bigge…

Keep in mind that in the US, the Federal Government is not the only game in town. The EPA as currently constituted is not the only possible way for our society to protect our environment.

It seems to me that conservatives often make the case that "The Federal Government should not do ," but others instead hear, "we as a society don't need to do ."

Post reply on HN