Lame Duck Watch - Chicken Farmers Exempt From Pollution Rules

@anniepa (27955)
United States
December 12, 2008 10:36pm CST
"In its final days, the Bush administration is poised to exempt poultry farms from reporting how much ammonia and other noxious pollutants they are releasing into the air from the millions of tons of manure their flocks generate..." Read more here: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bay_environment/bal-te.md.poultry12dec12,0,7884252.story The National Chicken Council claims ammonia emissions from farms are "extremely low and pose no risk to human health," but environmentalists counter that reporting is warranted because far more ammonia is getting into the air from poultry farms than from sewage treatment plants and other industrial sources - which do have to report their emissions. This is but one of quite a few environmental regulations Bush has reversed or is planning to reverse in his final days in the White House. Here's more from the above article: Activists contend that the Bush administration is rushing through several "midnight regulations" affecting the environment before President-elect Barack Obama takes office. If the rules take effect before Obama's inauguration Jan. 20, they can't be blocked by the incoming Democratic administration, and changing or repealing them could take years. (End of excerpt) What do you think? Do you agree with our soon to be former President's actions? Annie
2 people like this
9 responses
@Bd200789 (2994)
• United States
13 Dec 08
I don't agree. They shouldn't be exempt from telling how much pollutants they put out.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
13 Dec 08
Double Amen! Annie
@iriscot (1289)
• United States
13 Dec 08
Amen!
1 person likes this
• United States
13 Dec 08
your right, but hey, why not take our right to breathe clean air away too? All of our other rights are gone. Are we really going to miss this one? Yes, I am being facetious.
1 person likes this
• United States
13 Dec 08
I figure bush knows he's a lame duck so what does he have to lose. He's already taken most of our rights as Americans away anyway. He sent our children off to die in a war justified by lies and deceit. What difference does it make what he signs today? The damage is done and my guess is he would rather be remembered for allowing chickens to poo than the poo he bestowed on the American people not to mention the rest of the world. But thank you I do care what he does in his final days because I'm not so sure he's finished dishing out the poo.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
13 Dec 08
He's handed out so much poo they're naming a sewage treatment plant after him in San Francisco...lol! Annie
• United States
13 Dec 08
Perhaps we can get the EPA to tax him for all the gas he has emitted during the past 8 years.
1 person likes this
• United States
13 Dec 08
I live in San Francisco as well, And if possible I would love to be at the dedication of that plant!
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
13 Dec 08
I think, considering the rediculous number and nature of environmental laws we have, allowing chickens to poo is not really going to hurt anything. This is just one of the rediclous laws the epa has managed to wedge in, now I even hear their consideing a methane tax on cattle farms? CRIPE! Come ON! I can't believe the world is still buying in to Al Gore's scam job. I'm not worried so much about Bush, though he's done a lot of damage already. I am more worried right now about more pressing issues, like Ohio's push for a new constitutional convention. I am worried about patriot act III, I am more worried about being labled a domestic terrorist, I am more worried about being able to travel freely with in my own country. Honestly I could care less about chicken shytte.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
13 Dec 08
"I'm not worried so much about Bush, though he's done a lot of damage already." That's exactly what he's counting on and why he's getting away with this shytte, chicken and other types! Annie
@iriscot (1289)
• United States
13 Dec 08
I think the "lame duck" in the White House should limp back to Texas and leave this country alone. He has made enough of a mess with everything. He is probably spending every minute left screwing up everything he can get his hands on just to rake revenge on the liberals and moderates of this country. Why doesn't he and Sarah take a long vacation in Alaska and take Cheney along with them. They could just "shoot up" everything that moves. I think the sooner Bush gets out of town the better for our country! Lame duck presidents shouldn't be allowed to sign such bills that would hamper the new President from making wise choices. It's just another dirty trick by the republicans to screw things up.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
13 Dec 08
At least he is not pardoning terrorist to win favor from minority groups that might support his wife's run for the US Senate. Maybe we will be better off with the new Change and Hope coming out of Chicago and Illinois. They have waited a long time to get pay back for electing people.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
13 Dec 08
Iriscot, do you mean the one who said if the President does it it isn't illegal? I think that's the one thing Bush has ever heard or read and actually retained. Annie
@iriscot (1289)
• United States
13 Dec 08
I believe I recall a president named Gerald Ford who pardoned a lying, cheating ex-pres who said "I am not a crook" maybe you can recall that?
1 person likes this
@iriscot (1289)
• United States
13 Dec 08
As a former city commisssioner in charge of the water and sewer department of our city, I had a few runins with the EPA. Some were stupid and some of their rules were needed. Maybe you know what a "fish kill" is? When contaminates get in the water and shut off the oxygen in the water it causes a fish kill. The rules of water testing is very important for the health of citizens to make sure that cholera epidemics won't wipe out the populace. Rules that farmer's hog, and cattle lots are a certain distance away from water wells. That water coming from sewer treatment plants is clean enough not to contaminate the streams where it ends up. So, the EPA is there for YOUR protection!
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
13 Dec 08
You and I are in the minority here! It seems most who have bothered to respond to this really could care less about our water or air. Of course, when something happens to them or someone they love because of idiots like Bush then they'll care but it will be too late! Annie
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
13 Dec 08
Oh gawd these last months have been the worst of this administration and the longest. I feel as if I have gotten a year older in the past month and we still have a month to go. I can't wait until he is gone! I keep picture him leaving and the White House in flames as he walks out.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
13 Dec 08
I keep picturing some kind of nightmare scenario where he refuses to leave! Annie
@deebomb (15304)
• United States
13 Dec 08
well if he doesn't block it then the EPA will try to tax them like they are wanting to do the cattle for passing gas. Guess well have to stop eating chickens too.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
13 Dec 08
If Bush has his way and guts every environmental and safety regulation there is, I might stop eating anything I don't grow myself. Annie
1 person likes this
@deebomb (15304)
• United States
14 Dec 08
I'm for Bush's blocking the EPA on a lot of things. They just go to far like wanting to put a tax of $175 per head on dairy farm with over 25 cows, $87.50 per head of beef cattle and $20 for each hog. The fees on a modest-sized cattle ranch could run $30,000 to $40,000 a year. That would be more than they even make. It would put them out of business. As far as I'm concerned the EPA need to be over hauled and cut down. They are more of a hindrance then a help
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
15 Dec 08
Overhauled, maybe. I mean, there's no doubt there are changes that should be made but simply going through and doing away with virtually every regulation in existence to protect our health and safety is not the way to do it. Annie
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
13 Dec 08
I hope he is successful. The EPA is a government agency that is out of control. This is the agency that wants you to use CF bulbs, yet their own warnings state that if one breaks, the proper procedure is to remove the area of the carpet that is covered by the broken bulb and the dispose of it as hazardous waste, which is usually expensive. This is also the group that wants the emissions safe enough to drive a diesel truck inside a building while at the same time requiring that all vehicles operated indoors us LP Gas or be electric. Mean while as consumers we are paying higher prices for everything because of this ruling. They set an industry mpg average for the Car companies to achieve and once they reached it they changed the standard. They required the Oil Companies to develop different mixtures of Gasoline for different locations causing higher gas prices and even gas shortages with out reducing pollution. They were too dumb to realize that if you require a city to have one blend and the rest of the state to have a different blend that people would buy the gas where it was cheapest and not be concerned with the blend. Why not just have one blend for the Country instead of 46 different blends. We could reduce the cost of gasoline and make the country cleaner. I wish he would eliminate the agency before it destroys the country and has us over run with mice and rats by protecting them over man. If we follow the faulty science of the environmental groups we will kill man and return the world to the animals.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
15 Dec 08
When they first started there may have been a need for them but they are taking it to extremes. Many of the wild Fires in CA could have been prevented with controlled burns, except the EPA opposed them citing protecting endangered species and the pollution form the smoke. Which is worse burning small patches over time or having everything go up at once and destroying millions in property? A good decision or an abuse of power?
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
15 Dec 08
"Which is worse burning small patches over time or having everything go up at once and destroying millions in property? A good decision or an abuse of power?" You have a point there and I've never said the EPA hasn't made bad decisions for the wrong reasons. However, I have to come back to you with "Which is worse, farms, corporations and other groups of Bush buddies having to go to a little extra time and expense or babies and children getting sick? There has to be some happy medium. Annie
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
13 Dec 08
Has the EPA done some stupid things and gone too far in some cases? Of course, just like any other government agency or private business. Does that mean there shouldn't be regulations protecting us from harmful chemicals and toxins? NO WAY!! Annie
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
13 Dec 08
Well he could put chickens in extremely sterile cages and hired men and women to clean all the poop they make by putting them in plastic bags, but then they have to dispose of them. But of course, killing babies in the womb is not as serious as chickens doing their business as they have done for thousands of years. Oh have you noticed the odors when you drive by dairy farms and pulp mills? That is far more serious. Another case of Bush bashing. I will be waiting a few more years when the complaints about same gender couples getting more rights than traditional couples, when Christians complain that they are getting fired because they will not support gay parades, and when women will be afraid of take their children into washrooms because there might be a man dressed as a woman, but of course, you will ignore all those and think they are foolish because Obama the demigod is now president.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
13 Dec 08
Suspenseful, this discussion is not about abortion or about gays and quite frankly I wish you would refrain from turning every one of your responses into a case of gay bashing! Nothing you've "predicted" here makes any sense whatsoever. If you have no problem with toxic emissions making people ill just say so! By the way, if a child happen to see a man dressed as a woman he or she will be fine but that may not be the case if he or she breathes or drinks too much of one of the many toxic chemicals and gases Bush seems to think or acceptable to be in our air and water sources. Maybe you don't have to worry about such silly things up there in Canada. Annie