Comments on: Seven Priorities for EPA’s Future http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/01/seven-priorities-for-epas-future/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=seven-priorities-for-epas-future EPA's Blog About Our World Tue, 21 May 2013 04:34:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Have Rox http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/01/seven-priorities-for-epas-future/comment-page-1/#comment-29457 Have Rox Tue, 20 Apr 2010 04:56:06 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1292#comment-29457 I just saw an ad for a vw ( can’t seem to remember the name of the actual car ) but anyways it get’s over 85 mpg and has less emissions than any American car on the road. We need to start looking more into those types of technologies. Ohh and here’s the kicker when it goes on sale next year it’ll start at under 20k so there’s no reason why you can’t go green.

Have Rox

]]> By: David Mc http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/01/seven-priorities-for-epas-future/comment-page-1/#comment-26437 David Mc Thu, 21 Jan 2010 05:15:40 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1292#comment-26437 Those are good points Wade, and it would give incentive for foreign suppliers to compete on the basis of environment as well as price. Let’s add worker rights, which have eroded in the US too.

Incentives for innovating new, greener chemistry have lessened. Excessive regulation of new molecules makes continued use of dirtier, older chemistry much more likely, even if better solutions and processes are found. Due to the excessive regulatory and customer record-keeping required for new chemistry, many avoid even pursuing or researching new alternatives. The EPA needs to take a broader look at these applications and be realistic about the markets involved.

]]> By: wade harter http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/01/seven-priorities-for-epas-future/comment-page-1/#comment-26424 wade harter Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:25:20 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1292#comment-26424 this is a most impressive list of items, many which are of importance. However, each item requires tax payer money both from industry and workers. Each also requires industry (manufacturers) to spend additional dollars to comply with the present regs and those that will come from implementing this list. It would seem as important to insure that our industry was competing on a FAIR playing field, not just a FREE field. EPA could add credits to manufacturing to equalize manufacturing cost for those imported items from countries without environmental regs, ridiculous low labor rates, child labor, etc. This would provide millions of jobs and produce multi-millions of tax revenue to provide for such services as rendered by EPA. Lest we forget that little or no manufacturing is what is common to all third world countries. As we continue to eliminate manufacturing here in the US where do you think this is leading?

]]> By: Al Bannet http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/01/seven-priorities-for-epas-future/comment-page-1/#comment-26399 Al Bannet Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:40:35 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1292#comment-26399 Disappointing indeed, but not at all surprising.

]]> By: Michael E. Bailey http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/01/seven-priorities-for-epas-future/comment-page-1/#comment-26380 Michael E. Bailey Mon, 18 Jan 2010 06:36:50 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1292#comment-26380 The seven priorities is an impressive list. Maybe greater public engagement could be had by doing community forums on the different issues in a way similar to the President’s Community Jobs Forums of December and early January in which thousands were held across the country. This is a model that could be used to bring people together on different issues of importance. We also need to incorporate into the seven priorities the idea of sustainable and liveable communities. Best wishes, Michael E. Bailey.

]]> By: Al Bannet http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/01/seven-priorities-for-epas-future/comment-page-1/#comment-26369 Al Bannet Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:06:13 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1292#comment-26369 Disappointing, but entirely predictable. The EPA’s political job is to reassure the public so the economy can “get back on track and growing again”, regardless of long term consequences.

]]> By: Todd Solomon http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/01/seven-priorities-for-epas-future/comment-page-1/#comment-26278 Todd Solomon Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:36:37 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1292#comment-26278 Hey, what happened to Sustainable Communities and the HUD-DOT-EPA partnership? 7 months later, and it’s already dropped off Jackson’s priority list? Wow. Disappointing.

]]> By: dowens http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/01/seven-priorities-for-epas-future/comment-page-1/#comment-26115 dowens Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:14:18 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1292#comment-26115 Thanks for letting us know. We welcome comments regardless of length, as you note. We’re checking with our technical staff.

This is the first time we’ve heard such a complaint.

Denise Owens
Greenversations Editor

]]> By: Al Bannet http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/01/seven-priorities-for-epas-future/comment-page-1/#comment-26111 Al Bannet Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:17:31 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1292#comment-26111 It’s too late. An enormous area of mountain forest has already been destroyed and it goes on every day. That whole geographical region was designated a “National Sacrifice Area” many years ago. Money talks and the people walk.

]]> By: Al Bannet http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/01/seven-priorities-for-epas-future/comment-page-1/#comment-26110 Al Bannet Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:09:51 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=1292#comment-26110 Whenever I edit for more than just a few minutes, when I click to submit the comment it simply disappears, which is strange because I notice other posters post quite long comments that must have taken longer to write than mine. For example, if I need to check a spelling or definition, I have to rush for fear of losing the connection. It happens too often to be a computer glitch.

]]>