One of the EPA's success stories has been Cleveland. No longer does the Cuyahoga River burn but the fish taken there have been fit for human consumption for decades. The air is cleaner than it was during the Polk administration. But... Cleveland is an industrial ghost town. None of the Fortune 500 companies are located there anymore. Cleveland has lost population and unemployment is well above national average as has been higher since 1994. Cleveland is a poor, dying city. Clean environment but poverty and decline. Was it worth it?
They spent trillions trying o change poor neighborhoods into middle class ones and can't name a single one turned around and still they want more. "Worth" does t measure on for the left. They for care about results, just feelings.
Got a source that shows the EPA was directly responsible and the primary catalyst for the industrial industry flight in Cleveland? ........or was that temporal cause/effect relationship simply made up by conservative halfwits?
You have a point. They do have union favoriting politicians that drive companies out of state, and lefty love of ineffective crime control as well as high taxes relatively. Seems there are many leftist policies that directly harm business and the competiveness of Cleveland.
Whoopsies, I know it's difficult for you, but try staying on target. This thread makes the ridiculous insinuating that the EPA was solely responsible. Do you have a source that illustrates the EPA was directly responsible for the industrial industry leaving Cleveland? They weren't forced out by competition, went out due to mismanagement, or any other reasons? It's solely because of the EPA? Sources please.
I think it is was a variety of leftism that killed that city and every other one. But why do you think regulations don't hurt industry? Do you think you can pile costs on business without there being a trade off?
You can find a few hundred examples of the costs imposed on businesses here: https://www.google.com/search?q=epa+manufacturing+cleveland&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari Would you like me to copy and paste all the google links for you, or will you be able to click them yourself?
So is your argument that we should let companies rape the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of the environment and harm us with their pollution (which violates the free market by being an unregulated negative externality)? - - - Updated - - - Negative externalities. Those companies have no right to pollute the environment without paying for the cost they inflict upon the commons.
that is seems to be the dilemma when trying to balance economic development and environmental protections, i presonally think that we should focus more on cutting poverty nationally and globally then embarking on environmentalist actions
Is there a limit to regulatory harm and costs that should be imposed? Or should it continue indefinitely?
...and I think the city (and every other one) has been targeted and set up for failure at the behest of republican governors who have controlled Ohio for 25 of the past 30 years. A typical conservative oversimplification. Let's dig further: Regulations do not come in the same shape and size, some are minimal costs and others have great costs. Meanwhile others have minimal scope and depth, while others have much more. Some exist for variable lengths of time (short or extended periods), and others are also self-imposed by the industry itself to protect itself from liability. Please elaborate on the depth, scope, and costs of the EPA regulations and elaborate as to how they killed or were directly involved with the death of the industrial industry in Cleveland.
What about the democrats that cut actually run the place? So regulations can hurt business? If so, wouldn't an effluent tax be the most efficient to way to balance resources? Sorry if I don't sign up for balancing an weighing varying Lefter systems. I don't think government can efficiently perform the task by mandating the use of certain products and practices. All failing cities are run by the left without exception, whether or not the governor is republican. You don't see any trend there?
As compared to widespread federal program that doesn't care about costs because they don't bear them like the local citizens employed do? Like the EPA?
You provided a generic search for "epa manufacturing cleveland" which consists of an array of articles that show: Incidents of violation(s); Incidents of nonviolation(s); legal assessments, agreements, and addendums; and local news stories regarding regulatory changes. These are completely irrelevant to the claim the OP is making. Example: If I were to make the claim that vaccines cause brain cancer, then I should be able to provide a source that directly substantiates that claim. But instead however, I merely provide links that discuss: new vaccines in development, vaccine treatment on different diseases, and the history of vaccines in Asia. My original claim still hasn't been substantiated. The examples you provided do not discuss the cause/effect relationship that the OP suggests. The claim is that the EPA is responsible for the industrial industry leaving Cleveland. Either you can, or you cannot substantiate that claim. Do you have a source that illustrates the EPA was directly (or even partly) responsible for the industrial industry leaving Cleveland?
Anecdotal, and off topic. This thread makes the claims that the EPA is to blame, not elected officials. Stay on topic. Every business that we see in existence operates among self-imposed and external regulations--some at the local, state, and federal level. Some turn huge profits, and others turn small profits. Some businesses live, and others die. The industrial industry is enormous in the united states, and the EPA is a federal agency (national jurisdiction) that imposes static and uniform regulation across the spectrum. To single out one city where the industry wasn't successful and say "EPA is to blame" is the height of stupidity because it ignores all the other areas where the industry IS successful despite also being under EPA regulation. ... Conservative arguments when thoroughly analyzed can always be synthesized to this sort of asinine and ridiculous format, because little to no thought went into making the original argument in the first place. They're never based on facts or reality, but made-up BS and ignorant assumptions.
thats america sea to shining sea when its pocket picking time. Whos next? China I think? Sound about rihgt?
What ? Please see the BS post I was responding. Too. I expect no more moaning then about the loss of manufacturing jobs? Because that would be great. That is a rant. Not an argument. Why would t an effluent tax be more efficient?
I am fine with local regulation. If it is state land the state should regulate its commons. When states dump on each other they should sue each other. No reason for the Feds to step in unless the resource is squarely in the federal commons. I prefer an effluent tax to mandates of products and practices. Why do you think I want the river on fire? Have I said that?
There are four Fortune 500 companies in Cleveland proper and four more in suburban Cleveland!! Four in Cleveland: Parker Hannifin ($10 billion) Sherwin-Williams ($7.8 billion) KeyCorp ($5.5 billion) Cliffs Natural Resources ($4.7 billion). Suburban Cleveland Progressive ($15 billion) Eaton ( $13.7 billion) TravelCenters of America ($6 billion) Lubrizol ($5.4 billion) You should apologize for lying and for encouraging a toxic environment. You would be very foolish to keep using your current sources!! http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2011/06/fortune_500_list_includes_10_c.html
That flammable river used to be lined with steel mills. In 1969, steel mills paid very well. Now the steel mills are gone. If we posed the question to all those laid-off steelworkers, how do you suppose they would respond?
