Do you favor or oppose efforts to greatly weaken or repeal most U.S. environmental laws? and why?

Answer 1

I oppose them, if we continue on the road we are we're going to cut down every tree or dry up lakes to get what the rich people want. If we continue clear cutting these old growth and not so old growth forests then the climate is going to change even more dramatically than it already has let alone where are all those animals going to go? if they don't die then towns near those kinds of areas are going to be inundated with wild animals coming into their town terrorizing & doing damage. Exxon Mobile needs to just stop paying multi millions of dollars towards these anti global warming groups so they can keep making 29+ billion dollars profits. and the government needs to get their pockets out of Exxon's bank account and do something good for once....

Answer 2

Could someone please inform David that there are currently more trees in the US now than there was 100 years ago. That is why the wild fires rage on, with no sign of stopping. Even the media pointed out from a picture of a cabin, today surrounded by trees were as 60 some odd years ago hardly any trees stood around it.

Anyone, to your question. I greatly oppose most all of the environmental laws, or any law that contains the phrase 'mental'. We cannot take advantage of our own natural resources, which will get us in trouble. We cannot build any new Nuclear Power Plants (that burn cleaner and more efficient than coal). We can't expand the Alaskan pipe line (which BTW draws animals near it with its warmth and increases the possibilities of breeding of some endangered animals). We can't drill off the coast of Florida, but Cuba is going to. It's totally insane..

Also, if you want to know what happened to the levees in N.O. a few years ago, you can ask the environmental cases about that one too.

Answer 3

The problem with most environmental regulations is that they are somwhat arbitrary.
If there is a particular contaminant in the ground it is acceptable at, for example, 99ppm, but at 100ppm the soil must be excavated. These criteria are based on human health criteria where exposure at a certain level will cause health issues in one out of 1000 people. These criteria are too number dependant and instead of having numerical values of acceptability they should instead have values based on practicallity. Although the acceptable limits are different depending on how the land will be developed, it is still too number oriented. If a piece of land is slightly over its acceptable limit, should tens of thousands of dollars be spent to clean it when the land will ultimately be used as a manufacturing plant?
I don't suggest that they should be stricter, or losser, just reevauated on a case by case basis.

Answer 4

Oppose.

Look at the former Soviet Union. Very few environmental laws and all kinds of problems, like Chernobyl, countless square miles of land contaminated by oil spills, great lakes dried up, life expectancy down. An environmental disaster. I much prefer our comparatively little annoyances like housing developments halted because of spotted owls or whatever. As imperfect as these laws are, they give us a much cleaner and safer environment than places like Russia.

Answer 5

I have no idea what efforts you are talking about. Would you care to provide some documentation?

Answer 6

Weaken, they cost American business too much money and takes away from our unfair advantage.