Breaking – EPA’s “crucifier” resigns

EPA regional administrator Al Armendariz tours...

EPA regional administrator Al Armendariz tours the Mobile Classroom (Photo credit: americaspower)

Junkscience.com reports that:

EPA official Al Armendariz who rocketed to infamy last week because of 2010 comments about “crucifying” industry, has resigned from the agency.

Click for his resignation letter. (PDF)

Here’s the source of the uproar, this video:

Inhofe wasted no time going after this public servant turned crucifier.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Senator James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, announces that he has launched an investigation into the Obama-EPA’s apparent “crucify them” strategy targeted at American energy producers. This investigation will look into EPA’s actions towards domestic energy production specifically in light of the agency’s recent efforts relating to hydraulic fracturing.

Inhofe’s announcement today follows several questionable statements from top EPA officials, including comments released in a little-watched video from 2010, which reveals EPA Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies.

Unfortunately, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds more just like him at the EPA, an organization that seems to be at war with the industry of the United States of America, and the people too. See:

The EPA and undisclosed human experimentation

About these ads
This entry was posted in EPA and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

96 Responses to Breaking – EPA’s “crucifier” resigns

  1. Is the bus he was thrown under powered by Big Oil?

  2. Gary Hladik says:

    One down, several hundred to go. The term “sysiphean” comes to mind.

  3. Gary Hladik says:

    Oops, that’s “sisyphean”, as in “learning how to spell is a sisyphean task.” :-)

  4. 10 more fanatics are ready to take his place and work tirelessly to de-industrialize the USA>

  5. earwig42 says:

    Another Obama sycophant discovers that letting the little people know what you really think will result being thrown under the bus. He was useful but Obama cannot let people find out what his real goals are. Remember that if he should be re-elected he will be more flexible (dangerous) with the likes of Putin.
    Obviously he believes that the Constitution does not apply to him.

  6. Curfew says:

    There needs to be a purge of “nutters” at the EPA. A shedding of extremists from the top downwards. A large dose of realism!
    To try to establish some kind of common sense to their thinking.
    You know, make examples of them……..

  7. E.M.Smith says:

    Now if the guy who hired him and continues to do the hiring will just resign…

  8. beesaman says:

    I bet there’s a few companies that have been the victim of ‘EPA cruxifiction” lawyering up right now…

  9. R Barker says:

    EPA is the first place I would look to make some serious funding cuts with an eye to bringing the Federal budget into balance with projected revenue. A 40 percent real reduction would be a good start.

  10. Doug Proctor says:

    Is there a “Hall of Climate Science Infamy”?

    Gore, Hansen, Mann, Jones, Gleick, Romm, McKibben, Armendariz … the list grows, but not surprisingly: CO2 is a fertilizer.

    Josh, you there?

  11. Urederra says:

    Did he resign or they made him resign?

    His surname is basque, oh the shame!

  12. Paul Westhaver says:

    Trouble is…. Al Armendariz at the EPA is a true believer… for real…. he’d be one of the guys holding the gun to the heads of the people forced to drink the blue Kool-Aid. Remember Jonestown Mass “Suicide” of 914 people?

  13. Titan 28 says:

    I’m no fan of the EPA these days, which, apparently, is run by a group of know-nothing anti-science Nimrods. But I don’t object to what Armendariz said here in terms of his right to say it (there was a little context twisting here too). I might disagree with him. But I would rather a person in his position stated clearly where he was coming from, felt comfortable saying what he truly believed, instead of feeling compelled to hide the truth. Let Mr. Armendariz say what he wants without fear of the thought police coming after him. First Amendment and all that (big fan).

  14. Louis Hooffsteter says:

    Reminds me of a time we assiduously prepared for an OSHA inspection to make sure we would do well. When the inspector finally showed up, the poor guy couldn’t find any infractions. He fretted almost to the point of agony. When I tried to cheer him up by remarking that a perfect inspection must be an exceptionally good thing, he replied, “No, you don’t understand. I have to find something wrong. That’s my job. If I can’t find anything to write you up for, my bosses will think I’m not doing my job properly.”

  15. Mindbuilder says:

    I’m dissapointed in the above summary of this issue. Nowhere does it mention that what this guy was saying was that he was crucifying violators to make an example and get other violators to comply with regulations because he didn’t have the manpower to go after every violator. This is a standard and legitimate tactic of prosecutors and regulators. It’s not anti industry. There is nothing wrong with it.

  16. agfosterjr says:

    Now, now, taken in context his comment was to the effect that the EPA should make examples of law breaking industries. Of course if this were extended to mean fossil fuel burning industries that would change things just a little–but that would be better described as bombing us back to the stone age. –AGF

  17. Mac the Knife says:

    Was he simultaneously appointed to be the Ambassador to Barbados?

    Michelle O. says her fantasy is to walk out of the White House….. and just keep on going. Please help us make that a reality for both Michele and Barry O. this November!

  18. Joseph Bastardi says:

    He is doing the job he is ordered to do. This was a man carrying out his mission, and his mission wasnt personal but set from the top down. There is where resignations ( the correct way, vote the person setting this agenda out of office) should start. Sen Inhofe would do well to stress that point

  19. Eric Simpson says:

    My hotair comment on this story:
    When the EPA attacks American energy production they, circumventing congress, are supposedly doing this to protect us from the climate changing.

    Bull-hockey. There is a deeper goal. It is the (fanciful and unrealistic) leftist dream of de-industrialized simple idyllic life. The leftist politicians and their media & “scientific” allies (climatologists are actually just a pawn in a bigger drama) start with the premise that cutting back on industrial civilization would be good. CO2 cuts (thus cutting energy production) pave the way. Global Warming is the handy bogeyman to use to push for these co2 cuts. They’ll take whatever they can get. If they get it all, we’re back to the stone age. Two quotes from the leftist nuts:

    “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that.. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill… the real enemy is humanity itself….humanity requires .. a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one, or one invented for the purpose.” — Club of Rome
    “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” –Daniel Botkin, ex Chairman of Environmental Studies at UCSB

  20. Louis says:

    I wonder which George Soros organization Al Armendariz will turn up at next. My guess is “Green For All.” It was started by Van Jones and funded by George Soros’s Open Society Institute. I’m sure they would welcome anyone who wants to crucify the oil industry.

  21. EW-3 says:

    Why does that picture of him in a mobile “classroom” send a shiver down my spine ?

    Suspect it’s a mobile indoctrination center meant to brainwash our youngest citizens.

  22. Ray says:

    He might be just repeating the “philosophy” he was told to follow. Go to the head of the agency to know where this is coming from, really.

  23. Roger says:

    This graph on CT so its all stopped at 2010 so you cant see that its back to normal
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2010.png

  24. Smokey says:

    As I see it the EPA is in it for the loot that can be extracted by “crucifying” any company that violates one of its myriad rules.

    The same result could be effected by sending a warning letter to the company in question, telling them to cease and desist violating the rule, or fines would follow. Give them a reasonable time period to comply.

    99.9% of all companies would promptly change their methods to comply with the EPA, since they know the EPA could make good on its threat. But the fact that the EPA goes directly into crucifixion mode makes it clear that they are doing it strictly to extort money.

    So I’m with those who say: Declare environmental victory, and eliminate the EPA. They are no longer needed. At this point, States can do the job better, cheaper, and far more ethically.

    Finally, it will be very interesting to see where Mr. Crucifier ends up. No doubt he’s already got a cushy job he can slide into, just like the despicable Van Jones. The EPA can’t have a disgruntled insider out there writing a tell-all book now, can they?

  25. Ray says:

    I just listened to Senator James M. Inhofe video… wow, no wonder Ron Paul wants to shut the EPA down if he gets elected.

  26. Louis says:

    “… This is a standard and legitimate tactic of prosecutors and regulators. It’s not anti industry. There is nothing wrong with it.” – Mindbuilder

    Unless you’re the one who has been singled out to be made an example of. These guys are anti-industry and want to shutdown the oil and coal industries. It’s not just a matter of reducing violations. They are creating new regulations that make it impossible to comply with and stay in business. There IS something wrong with that!

    “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” — Barack Obama

  27. MarkW says:

    Curfew says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:02 am

    There needs to be a purge of “nutters” at the EPA.

    If we did that, would there be anyone left?

  28. DirkH says:

    Mindbuilder says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:20 am
    “I’m dissapointed in the above summary of this issue. Nowhere does it mention that what this guy was saying was that he was crucifying violators to make an example and get other violators to comply with regulations because he didn’t have the manpower to go after every violator. This is a standard and legitimate tactic of prosecutors and regulators. It’s not anti industry. There is nothing wrong with it.”

    He compared his approach to that of the Romans, who, when conquering a village, would crucify, as in kill, the first 5 guys they came across. Simply the first five, not the first five criminals. That is his idea of how to do his job. I find a lot of things wrong with that.

  29. Skeptic says:

    The EPA is a mixed bag in that they have done a lot of good in cleaning up/preventing of most pollution (although not always efficiently because of congressional interference/many super fund sites are still going to be a long time cleaning up because of this). I remember LA in the 70’s when descending through the smog layer into LAX, quite stinky/smelly. The smog would sometimes form a curtain to the east at the mountains from wind shear which was like driving from clear air into a smelly fog. Unfortunately they get carried away by trying to eliminate every last scrap of hazardous material sometimes to the parts per billion. And then there is the CO2 thing which is just insane.
    I agree that this is the common way to handle the “10 per centers” to set an example, just not bright to say it. Sad that Inhofe and the like probably actually think that the 70’s air/ground water/water table pollution was OK.
    Unfortunately this pollution is still winked at by the right which doesn’t help discourage cheaters. And people wonder why so much oversight/regulation is often actually necessary. Also sad that this winking attitude set up 2008 in the financial industry which because of the Congressional shutdown of the CFTC investigation into derivatives and the like is still an axe hanging over the global economy.

  30. Any wagers on whether Lisa Jackson resigns before the November elections?

  31. frozenohio says:

    Senator Inhoff – just use the word – LIE. Don’t go all P.C. on us. ;)

  32. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” — Barack Obama

    +++++++++

    Charged by whom, for the benefit of whom?
    Please be specific.

    I want to know how Goldman Sachs makes money out of this. They have not invested in this sector for no reason at all.

  33. John F. Hultquist says:

    Urederra says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:12 am
    . . .
    “His surname is basque, oh the shame!

    One rotten Armendariz does not tarnish the Basque!

  34. @ E.M. You sure you want him to resign? ;)

  35. George Daddis says:

    Notice how a true believer can’t even write a resignation letter without bringing social justice into the discussion; he was working especially for the “disadvantaged”.

  36. Michael Putnam says:

    Wasn’t it Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged where the government made so many rules you couldn’t follow all of them and they didn’t expect you to? They always knew if they ever needed it, you were guilty of something.

  37. Eric Simpson says:

    Some more quotes from the econuts that are giving impetus to the EPA’s crazy persecutions of energy production:

    “Every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.” – George Monbiot, Activist & Journalist

    “[to save us from climate change, we must]… rid the world of Industrial Civilization…this means the removal of grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine.” — Keith Faranith, UK Eco-Activist

    Just for fun: “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” –Noel Brown (1989), ex Director of the UN Environment Program [it's now 2012]

  38. SPreserv says:

    “… video from 1910 …” at approx 1:53

  39. Howling Winds says:

    I like the part where he said “…there are limits to what we can do…”. Really? Wow. What a *totally* unnecessary obstacle for a government official to contend with..

  40. Dave Wendt says:

    One wonders if the EPA will have a spare “crucifier” around to go after these guys

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/30/video-green-tech-bust-solyndra-busted-for-abandoning-toxic-waste/

  41. John F. Hultquist says:

    Gibson Guitar Corp. has been treated in this “crucifier” mode by the US Government. What’s not to wonder about when armed agents rush into a guitar factory? Perhaps guitar cases were concealing machine guns?!

    http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/News/en-us/gibson-0825-2011.aspx

  42. Dr. John M. Ware says:

    I do not believe this was a true resignation letter. It does not follow the form, has no formal address to the recipient, gives no leave-by date, and misspells “publicly” as “publically”, which doesn’t exist. Sorry, I don’t buy it. He may resign, and may in fact already have left for his cushy new job; but that is a poor excuse for a letter.

    As for the question of his attitude and expression, it is reprehensible and totally ignores the primary rule in American jurisprudence: innocent until proven guilty. I join the chorus: Drop the EPA, devolve its functions back to the states where they belong, and leave us alone!

  43. RockyRoad says:

    Mindbuilder says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:20 am

    I’m dissapointed in the above summary of this issue. Nowhere does it mention that what this guy was saying was that he was crucifying violators to make an example and get other violators to comply with regulations because he didn’t have the manpower to go after every violator. This is a standard and legitimate tactic of prosecutors and regulators. It’s not anti industry. There is nothing wrong with it.

    Wow, that’s the most disgusting response I’ve ever read on WUWT. And least informed.

    If you’d delve into the issue just a bit more, you’d find his statement “the first five guys they’d run into, and they’d crucify them” wasn’t talking about five “violators” at all–unless you consider someone dealing in carbon-based fuels to be a “violator” just for dealing–in that case, do you burn gas in your car?

    So what “institution of higher education” did you graduate from, Mindbuilder (amazingly disparate “handle”, by the way)? Were you in the same graduating class as Armendariz? It sounds like it.

    Appalling!

  44. DirkH says:

    Skeptic says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:59 am
    “I agree that this is the common way to handle the “10 per centers” to set an example, just not bright to say it. Sad that Inhofe and the like probably actually think that the 70′s air/ground water/water table pollution was OK.”

    Sad that you have no source for this allegation; and sad that you are not capable of fair debate.

  45. timg56 says:

    Had I been in charge, I’d have fired him for his lack of knowledge in basic history. The Romans would have been hard pressed to go into a Turkish village to do anything, as they pre-dated the Turks by several centuries.

  46. TheAverageJoe says:

    Reblogged this on TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg.

  47. Robert Doyle says:

    Although the following can only be categorized as anecdotal, on the surface it appears
    That Mr. Armendariz acted on his strategy in the case of “Range Resources” in Texas.

    Also, Range Resources reported, what was termed a large suprising loss to Wall Street
    for the first quarter.

    http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/03/30/3848079/epa-drops-action-against-range.html

    Star Telegram
    EPA drops action against Range Resources over Parker County wells
    Posted Friday, Mar. 30, 2012
    By Barry Shlachter
    In an about-face, the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday withdrew its 15-month-old emergency order against Range Resources that had blamed the Fort Worth-based drilling company for methane contamination in water wells and demanded that the company supply safe drinking water to two Parker County homes.
    “Range is very pleased to see that the EPA’s order in Parker County has been withdrawn,” said Range spokesman Matt Pitzarella. “It’s important for people to know that their environment, health and safety is protected and hopefully this provides them with that comfort.”
    The company said the withdrawal could help its $4.2 million defamation suit that it’s pursuing against Steve and Shyla Lipsky, residents of Parker County’s Lake Country Acres subdivision.
    Range lodged a counter-claim against the Lipskys after the couple filed a $6.5 million lawsuit, alleging Range’s gas drilling activity contaminated their drinking water. But a state district judge dismissed the Lipskys’ suit in January, and later said Steve Lipsky together with his environmental consultant had created a “deceptive video” of a methane-spewing water well.
    The EPA did not make clear if its technical staff had reversed its views on the cause of methane contamination, which prompted the Dec. 7, 2010, emergency order.
    “Resolving the lawsuits with Range allows EPA to shift the agency’s focus in this particular case away from litigation and toward a joint effort on the science and safety of energy extraction,” said Jennah Durant, a Dallas-based EPA spokeswoman, via e-mail. “EPA and Range will share scientific data and conduct further well monitoring in the area, and Range will also provide useful information and access to EPA in support of EPA’s scientific inquiry into the potential impacts of energy extraction on drinking water.”
    Durant declined to say if the federal agency had dropped concerns that Range may have been responsible for any methane contamination of ground water in Parker County.

  48. Gunga Din says:

    Mindbuilder says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:20 am

    I’m dissapointed in the above summary of this issue. Nowhere does it mention that what this guy was saying was that he was crucifying violators to make an example and get other violators to comply with regulations because he didn’t have the manpower to go after every violator. This is a standard and legitimate tactic of prosecutors and regulators. It’s not anti industry. There is nothing wrong with it.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    What you are missing is that the ObamaEPA looks at anybody that drills for oil or gas or mines coal as a “violator” regardless of whether or not they broke a law or a regulation.
    BTW, Just what IS the ObamaEPA basing their regulations on these days? Science or policy?

  49. Peter in MD says:

    Skeptic says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:59 am
    “Unfortunately this pollution is still winked at by the right which doesn’t help discourage cheaters. And people wonder why so much oversight/regulation is often actually necessary. Also sad that this winking attitude set up 2008 in the financial industry which because of the Congressional shutdown of the CFTC investigation into derivatives and the like is still an axe hanging over the global economy.”

    Skeptic, The Democrats were in charge of congress starting in 2007, so who was doing the winking? Barney Frank and his lot!

    http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

  50. Chris B says:

    I’m surprised to hear that environmental issues are class struggle issues.

  51. Smokey says:

    Pseudo-Skeptic says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:59 am

    “Unfortunately this pollution is still winked at by the right which doesn’t help discourage cheaters.”

    If it were not for his psychological projection, PS wouldn’t have anything to say.

  52. D. J. Hawkins says:

    Louis Hooffsteter says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:20 am
    Reminds me of a time we assiduously prepared for an OSHA inspection to make sure we would do well. When the inspector finally showed up, the poor guy couldn’t find any infractions. He fretted almost to the point of agony. When I tried to cheer him up by remarking that a perfect inspection must be an exceptionally good thing, he replied, “No, you don’t understand. I have to find something wrong. That’s my job. If I can’t find anything to write you up for, my bosses will think I’m not doing my job properly.”

    In an earlier part of my life, I had customers who could expect an annual visit from the fire marshall. So as to deflect deeper scrutiny, they would loosen a bulb in some emergency lights, place cardboard boxes in front of an electrical panel, and otherwise “salt” the facility with minor fire code infractions that were easily corrected. The FM would write up the violations, come back in 2 weeks to see that all was corrected, and everyone was happy.

    With OSHA you might not want to try this at home. They like to fine first and ask questions later.

  53. anotherfred says:

    I can safely say the Roman Empire never crucified any Turkish villagers in Turkey as the Turks weren’t there yet.

  54. Gunga Din says:

    anotherfred says:
    April 30, 2012 at 1:56 pm
    I can safely say the Roman Empire never crucified any Turkish villagers in Turkey as the Turks weren’t there yet.

    ++++++++++++
    You must be mistaken. An EPA administrator said they were.

  55. DaveG says:

    A big thanks to Senator James M. Inhofe, he really is the real thing an honest /smart man who knows what he is talking about – That’s a rare thing in Washington today.

  56. benfrommo says:

    “Sad that Inhofe and the like probably actually think that the 70′s air/ground water/water table pollution was OK.”

    Yes, because anyone like Inhofe likes pollution. I love pollution too!! I sprinkle some of it on my cereal and then drive my SUV an extra 5 miles just to give the poor people some extra pollution just because I like pollution and I like to spread it around. Do you really think people are like that? Really? By the way, that was all a joke because obviously you have no sense of humor…..

    But this is not a joke: Inhofe also eats pollution for breakfast and kills puppies for fun while he bbq’s them. /Sarc off You know, everytime I hear a fake sceptic post here I sometimes wonder what are you guys thinking trying to pretend to be a sceptic? Do you really think our minds are going to be changed by some remark that makes no sense? Of course…its just like me saying Dr Hansen eats puppies and expecting people to hate him for it.

    That is what this is, an un-substantiated remark meant to make people hate someone with no basis in fact. Stick to facts….they are the bread and butter of what sceptics use. For all I know the above quote which I have no proof of is true, but don’t use that to judge Dr. Hansen, use his actual actions and what he actually says to judge him, not what I say about him.

    I will admit one thing though: Everytime some person claims some sceptic loves pollution I just burst out laughing and imagine that this person must really believe that the sceptic really love pollution and really is so hateful that they kill kittens and puppies.

  57. Richard M says:

    In all likelihood this EPA dude is just another “useful idiot” who has been brainwashed. There’s little doubt he thinks he’s doing the right thing. The real problem is the brainwashers continue to create more and more useful idiots. There’s no limit to the number of young, idealistic folks to take his place.

  58. hunter says:

    This schmuck was the one leading OPbama’s attack against Texas. He exactly stated Obama’s attitude towards states taht are actually productive and helping Americans. His resignation is a two-dimensional classless gesture: He is simply taking the dive for his boss, even as he precisely carried out Obama’s wishes and relfected his perspective.

  59. old engineer says:

    Al Armendariz is (was?) the Administrator (the head guy) of EPA’s Region 6. This region includes the states of New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Three of those states, Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana produce a lot of oil. Texas, in particular, has been at odds with the EPA. Do you suppose it was just a coincidence that they sent their “crucifier” to head up Region 6?

  60. hagendl says:

    Excellent perspective by a former senior regulator:
    Regulatory Lessons from Obama EPA Appointee’s Resignation

  61. johanna says:

    While this guy is clearly a menace who should resign, in a sense he has just been thrown off the EPA sled to feed the following wolves. Guys like this don’t just act in isolation – they reflect the culture of their organisation, which comes from the top.

    ‘Crucifying’ a few subordinates is a time honoured tactic for those at the top who are ultimately responsible for the strategy that made the excesses a norm.

  62. Skeptic says:

    I
    Moderator, had a typo in E-mail address & resending
    In response to numerous comments to previous post:

    “Since it came to be in 1980 Ronald Reagan, George Bush I used OIRA, to slow, weaken or stop the implementation of EPA’s regulations.”

    http://getenergysmartnow.com/2011/11/30/oira-white-houses-open-door-to-lobbyists-to-gut-epa-regs/

    Is NOT general knowledge that the Republicans (of which Inhof is one & I said “probably”) “hate” the EPA and their regulations. Does any one have any record of any Republican support for the EPA?

    An attitude of “all EPA regulations are bad” just shows a lack of historical knowledge:
    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa089.html
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPMWQAopLSo (LA smog)
    http://www.aqmd.gov/news1/archives/history/marchcov.html

    “When the Clean Water Act were first introduced in the 1970s, it was in response to the way in which industrial water users were using the nation’s rivers for toxic waste disposal. The event that spurred politicians into action was the June 1969 Cuyahoga River fire. It was not the first time that the river, oozing black with petrochemicals and other combustible toxins, had caught fire, but it caught the public’s imagination to the extent that the politicians became involved. The Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 followed.”

    Easy to find many other pollution abuses which were NOT accidents.

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/space/aliens-ufos/area-5111.htm (area 51 pollution lawsuit)
    http://www.tftptf.com/ ( at camp Lejeune)
    NOTE: The EPA doesn’t cover the military.

    Those so completely cavalier about pollutants can find cheap housing & land near any of the super fund sites and I’m sure would be happy to volunteer to help in the Area 51 burn pits.

    The problem is a near hysterical attitude of being unable to sort the wheat from the chaff (commenters and EPA included).
    The same attitude occurs with other goverment regulating organizations. The FDA (mostly) assures a safe food supply (before they existed it was strictly buyer beware, ahh but that’s a history lesson again). However one of the problems now is too little oversight as with pharma where drug companies are permitted to “hide” negative results and seek approval on positive results only.

    And yes, the Democrats went along with Greenspan and his gang concerning derivatives and I believe I said “Congress” even though Republicans have the hands off everything philosophy. Nowadays, apparently both sides are pro-corporate and that’s where everyone misses by assuming that their politician is on their side (NOT).

  63. It looks like ‘Hope and Change’ has become ‘Forward’…Obama’s new campaign slogan.

    Why not “To Infinity and Beyond”…full of hope and an accurate description of our deficit…

  64. Myrrh says:

    Isn’t the EPA a private company? If so, does this mean that any fines collected are profit? If so, then of course its brief is to regulate to the nth degree because the more regulations the more chance of violations and the more profit.

  65. Dan Evens says:

    What happened to due process? What happened to presumed innocent?

  66. ferd berple says:

    Louis says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:46 am
    “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” — Barack Obama

    Says it all really. Or does it?

  67. Tim Clark says:

    [Dan Evens says:
    April 30, 2012 at 6:08 pm
    What happened to due process? What happened to presumed innocent?]

    I will give you the benefit of doubt and presume you didn’t watch the video?

  68. freezeframe says:

    epa was spawned with good intentions much like unions were. similar results

  69. F. Ross says:


    Skeptic says:
    April 30, 2012 at 4:54 pm
    Does any one have any record of any Republican support for the EPA?

    [+emphasis]

    Does the name Richard Milhous Nixon ring a bell?

  70. markx says:

    Feel a bit sorry for him, this sort of attitude is surely ‘top down’. Just a young fellow programmed by ‘the cause’.

    Having said that, several years ago I thought that those gunning for the EPA were out of order, but having done a lot of reading on the matter recently, I can see that the EPA and similar ‘armies’ manned by faceless bureaucrats are hugely powerful and difficult to curb organisations, which can be used to control every aspect of a society.

    Joe public does not look that far, and thinks they are only about the environment, and are saving us.

  71. jtom says:

    Skeptic, in glorious ignorance said, “Does any one have any record of any Republican support for the EPA?”

    The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon submitted a reorganization plan to Congress and it was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate. (Wikipedia)

    The Republicans created the EPA. We happen to like clean air, water, and land. What we don’t like is what EPA has become: a mechanism to further a political agenda through the control of industry.

  72. old engineer says:

    Mindbuilder says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:20 am

    “Nowhere does it mention that what this guy was saying was that he was crucifying violators to make an example and get other violators to comply with regulations because he didn’t have the manpower to go after every violator. This is a standard and legitimate tactic of prosecutors and regulators. It’s not anti industry. There is nothing wrong with it.”
    ===========================================================================
    I keep waiting for a WUWT denizen who is a lawyer to comment on this. My recollection from serving on Courts Martial while in the Navy was that the legal principle was that it not permissible to punish to “make an example.” Each case is to be decided on the facts of the case alone. I doubt if civilian law is that different from military law. From a legal standpoint, I don’t think it is a standard and legitimate tactic. Any lawyer care to comment?

  73. Dave Wendt says:

    Dan Evens says:
    April 30, 2012 at 6:08 pm
    What happened to due process? What happened to presumed innocent?

    With the EPA it hasn’t really existed, although the people won a small victory recently

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/supreme-court-halts-epa-bullying/2012/03/22/gIQAjxVSTS_blog.html

    The facts of the Sackett’s case clearly establish that the Nazis at the EPA didn’t limit their intimidation tactics to Big Oil

    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sackett-et-vir-v-environmental-protection-agency-et-al/

  74. Letter of resignation looks like that of an executioner. Washing his masters hands.

  75. jorgekafkazar says:

    All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The EPA has been given too much power.

  76. johanna says:

    old engineer says:
    April 30, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    Mindbuilder says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:20 am

    “Nowhere does it mention that what this guy was saying was that he was crucifying violators to make an example and get other violators to comply with regulations because he didn’t have the manpower to go after every violator. This is a standard and legitimate tactic of prosecutors and regulators. It’s not anti industry. There is nothing wrong with it.”
    ===========================================================================
    I keep waiting for a WUWT denizen who is a lawyer to comment on this. My recollection from serving on Courts Martial while in the Navy was that the legal principle was that it not permissible to punish to “make an example.” Each case is to be decided on the facts of the case alone. I doubt if civilian law is that different from military law. From a legal standpoint, I don’t think it is a standard and legitimate tactic. Any lawyer care to comment?
    —————————————————————————-
    old engineer, firstly as I understand it this guy actually said that he would make examples of companies irrespective of the merits, by using the ‘shoot the first five men you see’ analogy. That is clearly illegal under any circumstances.

    It is both impossible and undesirable to constantly monitor every participant in a regulatory regime for compliance. So, targeting of limited resources to high risk areas is perfectly legitimate, although best practice is to combine it with random checks so that lower risk areas do not feel that they are immune from scrutiny. As not all breaches (like all crimes) are detected, in a sense every prosecution is ‘making an example’ of the consequences of breaking the rules. But you are right that it is inappropriate and illegal to penalise any person or entity, whether in a criminal or civil matter, on any basis except the merits of the individual case.

  77. Myrrh says:
    April 30, 2012 at 6:05 pm
    Isn’t the EPA a private company? If so, does this mean that any fines collected are profit? If so, then of course its brief is to regulate to the nth degree because the more regulations the more chance of violations and the more profit.

    Nixon proposed the idea, as was mentioned before, Congress authorized the creation in 1970. Good idea…maybe…I mean everyone loves clean air and water…but it needs to be eliminated. It is redundant and not needed.

    17,000 government Nanny’s looking after us…gee thanks!

    We the People…at the rate things are going, there are more people dependent on the Government than there are people paying to keep it running…NOT GOOD.

  78. Jeef says:

    He’s just the fall guy whose career has been ruined while His bosses carry on their agenda regardless. A foot soldier, not a general.

  79. Ryan says:

    I just love the way these guys like to try and appear reasonable and reasoned at all times when underneath they reveal themselves to be the extremists.

  80. Glad to be voting for Senator James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.).

  81. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    Obama says in the video if they cap and trade the CO2 with a limited ceiling, that will require retrofits and the cost of that will be passed along to consumers, inevitably. That is clear enough. He did not invent the idea and lots of others plan to do exactly the same thing. I don’t see why there is so much fuss just because he repeats it. A lot of his party supporters believe in that too. Why the big surprise? Obama didn’t invent Cap and Trade.

    <sarc
    Cap'n'Trade is a foreign ideology, right? Maybe some foreigners can be bombed into submission and it will go away.
    </sarc

    If smoke-chuffing coal burners (and many other industries) had not, in the past, been so silly about adopting very reasonable limits on their pollution of the local environment, it would have been a lot harder to convince a gullible public to demonise CO2. The refusal of coal burning plants to, for example, do someting as simple as inject calcium hydroxide into the flame path to dramatically reduce their SOx and NOx has had a downstream consequence: the public perception that they don't give a hoot about the environment, just making money, with a thin gruel of 'electricity should be cheap' served to the public hungering for more effective environmental management. The power companies falsely inflated the cost of reducing their emissions (into the billions, they claimed) to bolster the argument that doing nothing was the only viable, economic alternative. Had it been an American patent perhaps the result would have been different. We won't know.

    The 'crucifixion experts' have walked into the breach to render court-upheld 'exemplary punishments' not because they are fair or reasonable, but because industries respond to fears of successful lawsuits. How many Love Canals or burning rivers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jxV6BbREfY&feature=player_detailpage would it take for private incentive to give way to concern for community? Note the phrase in the video about industry not responding 'to anything less than absolute pressure'. Well, they got it. In a society driven and managed by fear, why is it a surprise that 'both sides' are using demonisation and fear instead of rational argument? The real demon lies within. Does anyone think that changing Barak or Lisa will change the Climate of Fear?

    In fact that would be a pretty good name for a book on the subject of extremism, industrial and environmental.

  82. Gail Combs says:

    Curfew says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:02 am

    There needs to be a purge of “nutters” at the EPA. A shedding of extremists from the top downwards. A large dose of realism!
    To try to establish some kind of common sense to their thinking.
    You know, make examples of them……..
    ________________________
    How about just getting rid of the EPA all together?

    Or better yet restore the actual CONSTITUTIONAL DIRECTIVE that CONGRESS MAKES LAWS.

    Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
    Section 8 – Powers of Congress
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…..

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water…. [ another directive that has been trashed recently]

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
    http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

    What part of “To make all Laws” is so hard to understand??? Congressmen now have up to 18 permanent employees, and the Senate may hire as many as they wish based on a budget that reflects the population of their state. Isn’t that enough people to be able to write any additional laws needed? Heck Congress did not allow large staffs to exist until the 1970s. Before the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 staff was rarely more than one or two advisers.

    NO WHERE in the Constitution does it say that The Executive Branch has the POWER to make laws. NO WHERE in the Constitution does it say a bureaucracy under the President has the right to make laws. Yet the Federal Register where new bureaucratic regs are published, had 81,405 pages in 2010. The Federal Register was created in 1935 under Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR). Much of the Constitution was trashed at that time because of the real threat of Court-packing by Roosevelt.After the threat the Supreme Court just rolled over and ruled as FDR directed.

    Article II – The Executive Branch

    Section 1 – The President

    The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

    (The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.) (This clause in parentheses was superseded by the 12th Amendment.)

    The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    (In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by the 20th and 25th Amendments.)

    The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

    Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    Section 2 – Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

    He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

    Section 3 – State of the Union, Convening Congress

    He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States…..

    U.S. Constitution Online

  83. Resourceguy says:

    One down and 25,000 more to go, did he move to a job at IRS?

  84. Gail Combs says:

    R Barker says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:12 am

    EPA is the first place I would look to make some serious funding cuts with an eye to bringing the Federal budget into balance with projected revenue. A 40 percent real reduction would be a good start.
    ______________________________
    How about a 75% budget cut to ALL the alphabet soup like the EPA, USDA, FDA, DoE, DoEd, DoC, HRS, CDC, IHS, NIH, HLS, HUD, DoI, DoJ, DoL, DoT, CIA, FBI, CPSC, FCC, FEMA, GAO, OPM, NASA, NAO, NRC and SBA.

    Also how about a good hard look at the government pensions and reduce them to reflect pensions in the private sector. Not including Social Security, federal pensions are expected to reach 5.4 percent of GDP by 2015 In total, the USA spends more on pensions than it does on Education, Defense, Welfare, and Transportation. It costs tax payers a little less than government health care. ( total = State + Federal + Local)

  85. Gail Combs says:

    Mindbuilder says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:20 am

    I’m dissapointed in the above summary of this issue. Nowhere does it mention that what this guy was saying was that he was crucifying violators to make an example and get other violators to comply with regulations because he didn’t have the manpower to go after every violator. This is a standard and legitimate tactic of prosecutors and regulators. It’s not anti industry. There is nothing wrong with it.
    ________________________________
    There certainly is when those targeted are the Mom and Pop outfits and the inspectors are told hands off the big boys. (as reported by Sancho Jones) Something similar was seen with the USDA. See SHIELDING THE GIANT: USDA’s “Don’t Look, Don’t Know” Policy

  86. Gail Combs says:

    Ray says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:36 am

    He might be just repeating the “philosophy” he was told to follow. Go to the head of the agency to know where this is coming from, really.
    _____________________________________
    That is the person who appointed the head of the EPA ~ OBAMA (or rather his handlers)

  87. FYI: there is a feature article in HoustonPress on a fracking lawsuit where EPA first supported a water well owner Steve Lipsky only to back off early this year. Armendariz was in the thick of it. http://www.houstonpress.com/2012-04-26/news/texas-epa-fracking-well-water/

    On December 7, 2010, EPA regional administrator Al Armendariz sent an e-mail to anti-fracking blogger Sharon Wilson (known as Texas Sharon), Tom “Smitty” Smith of Public Citizen and others. “We’re about to make a lot of news.” (pg.2)

    After spending more than a year in a federal court battle with Range to force the company to comply with its endangerment order, on March 30 [2012], the EPA made a stunning announcement: It was dropping its order against the company.

    “Resolving the lawsuits with Range allows EPA to shift the Agency in this particular case away from litigation and towards a joint effort on the science and safety of energy extraction,” an EPA statement read. “EPA and Range will share scientific data and conduct further well monitoring in the area, and Range will also provide useful information and access to EPA in support of EPA’s inquiry into the potential impacts of energy extraction on drinking water.” (pg 5)

  88. Myrrh says:

    Gail Combs says:
    May 1, 2012 at 11:35 am

    Re:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    I’m puzzled. I’ve noticed several times that Obama is said to have studied the Constitution at Harvard – whatever that means – I wonder if they are teaching a different Constitution?

    This is from 2008:
    http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2008/10/30/101091-thomas-obama-marx-and-trashing-the-constitution/

    “A complete restructuring of society is what Obama advocated in a 2001 interview on a Chicago public radio station.

    According to Politico.com, in that interview, Obama – “reflecting on the Warren Court’s successes and failures in helping to usher-in civil rights – said, ‘I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples.’ ”

    He has it backward. The Creator already endowed African-American people with these rights, which is precisely the argument powerfully made by Martin Luther King Jr.

    Any rights that are “vested” in people by other people may be removed by the same or future people. Endowed rights are “unalienable” and what America did was to finally recognize those rights.

    The distinction is crucial..”

    “Obama thought the Warren Court should have “broken free” from the constraints placed on the Constitution and the courts by the Founding Fathers. This is remarkable hubris.

    Obama said the Constitution mostly “says what the states can’t do to you . . . what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.” That’s because the Constitution is about liberty and protecting citizens from oppressive and invasive government.”

    Ah, here:
    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/
    “Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor,” most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.”

    http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/obama-at-hls.html
    “Obama helped research a complicated article Tribe wrote making connections between physics and constitutional law as well as a book about abortion. The following year, Obama enrolled in Tribe’s constitutional law course.

    Tribe likes to say he had taught about 4,000 students before Obama and another 4,000 since, yet none has impressed him more.”

    http://scaredmonkeys.com/2012/04/04/laurence-tribe-harvard-law-professor-constitutional-law-scholar-president-barack-obama-mentor-says-that-obama-misspoke-regarding-comments-about-scotus/

    “President Barack Obama is going to rue the day when he made the ridiculous comments and vale threats to the Supreme Court Justices regarding “judicial activism” and Obamacare. Emperor Obama actually questioned how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress.”

    “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

    “How bad of a comment was this by Obama, even his former mentor, Harvard Law professor and Constitutional Law scholar Laurence Tribe was forced to say that Obama misspoke. Wow, if Tribe thinks that Obama was one of his best students, I hate to see the not-so good ones who have no concept of “judicial review” and Murbury v. Madison. Or is it just Obama that likes to mislead “We the People”?”

    Constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor and former mentor to President Barack Obama, said the president “obviously misspoke” earlier this week when he made comments about the Supreme Court possibly overturning the health-care law.

    Mr. Tribe, who calls the president was one of his best students, said in an interview: “He didn’t say what he meant…and having said that, in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.”

    Mr. Tribe said he saw no reason for the president to express his views on the matter, because everyone already knows he wants the case upheld.

    “I don’t think anything was gained by his making these comments and I don’t think any harm was done,” Mr. Tribe said, “except by public confusion.”

    “You don’t think any harm was done, really? If Tribe really thought that no harm was done to Obama and Obama’s credibility he would not be commenting on The One’s misspeak and comment that Obama made was misleading people. ”

    ====================

    Well, I think this all very odd indeed. Obama shows not the slightest grasp of the Constitution – how could he have got the very basic premise wrong in 2001?

    What was he teaching..?

  89. Alcheson says:

    I agree with Gail…”Or better yet restore the actual CONSTITUTIONAL DIRECTIVE that CONGRESS MAKES LAWS.”

    All rules and laws being enforced by the EPA should be null and void unless they have specifically been approved by a vote in congress. This idea that EPA gets to write its own rules and regulations and then enforce them as they see fit should NOT be allowed. EPA should propose a specific regulation to be enforced and them submit it to congress for a vote. If it passes, they get to enforce it but otherwise NOT. EPA should NOT be writing and enforcing laws at the direction of the president and his appointees. That is dictatorship and tyranny.

  90. DirkH says:

    Crispin in Waterloo says:
    May 1, 2012 at 8:54 am
    “How many Love Canals or burning rivers [...] would it take for private incentive to give way to concern for community? Note the phrase in the video about industry not responding ‘to anything less than absolute pressure’. Well, they got it.”

    So you are saying tyranny (arbitrary handouts of punishment) is justified. That’s quite an extreme form of environmentalist statism; more extreme than even the German watermelons. Hope you find yourself on the wrong end of your argument someday. Say, when the EPA declares your property wetland.

  91. Gail Combs says:

    Smokey says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:45 am

    As I see it the EPA is in it for the loot that can be extracted by “crucifying” any company that violates one of its myriad rules.
    ________________________________
    You are correct. One of the reasons farmers were having a hissy fit about HR875 (House version of the Food Modernization Act) was this part:

    This is cut and paste directly from HR 875 with nothing added.

    Civil Penalty
    (A) IN GENERAL- Any person that commits an act that violates the food safety law (including a regulation promulgated or order issued under the food safety law) may be assessed a civil penalty by the Administrator of not more than $1,000,000 for each such
    B) SEPARATE OFFENSE- Each act described in subparagraph (A) and each day during which that act continues shall be considered a separate offense.

    Criminal Sanctions-
    (1) OFFENSE RESULTING IN SERIOUS ILLNESS- Notwithstanding section 303(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(a)), if a violation of any provision of section 301 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 301) with respect to an adulterated or misbranded food results in serious illness, the person committing the violation shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or both.

    (2) OFFENSE RESULTING IN DEATH- Notwithstanding section 303(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(a)), if a violation of any provision of section 301 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 331) with respect to an adulterated or misbranded food results in death, the person committing the violation shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or both.
    (e) Penalties Paid Into Account- The Administrator–
    (1) shall deposit penalties collected under this section in an account in the Treasury; and
    (2) may use the funds in the account, without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation–
    (A) to carry out enforcement activities under the food safety law; or
    (B) to provide assistance to States to inspect retail commercial food establishments or other food or firms under the jurisdiction of State food safety programs.

    … each food production facility to have a written food safety plan that describes the likely hazards and preventive controls implemented to address those hazards;

    include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water

    include, with respect to animals raised for food, minimum standards related to the animal’s health, feed, and environment which bear on the safety of food for human consumption

    The Mega-Corporations have already been holding seminars on how to pass their liability for food borne illness on to the farmers. (Sorry Jim the info is not available to the general public.) THAT is what the change to HACCP in 1996 was all about and the 1995 WTO Agreement on Ag. The change was to the use of “risk assessment ” the identification of potential hazards and the critical control points (HACCP)/ review of written procedures and “traceability” instead of the pre-1995 traditional GMP, and close government inspection and testing of food. Corporations are no longer inspected except for the paperwork and thanks to the new law, the liability from resulting illnesses can via “traceability” be passed back to the farmer.

    However the really nasty part was the EMPIRE BUILDING clause.

    (e) Penalties Paid Into Account- The Administrator–
    (1) shall deposit penalties collected under this section in an account in the Treasury; and
    (2) may use the funds in the account, without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation–
    (A) to carry out enforcement activities under the food safety law….

    A civil servant is paid according to the number of people reporting to him. The more fines collected the more people can be hired WITH NO INPUT FROM CONGRESS. This takes away the Congressional leash (unfunding a bad program)

    The final law did not include many of the nastier provisions of HR 875. However once attention has been directed elsewhere these type of provisions have a way of slipping back into a law through amendments. The 1913 Federal Reserve Act had over 100 amendments and every single one of the original provisions originally removed are now in the law.

  92. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    @DirkH
    May 1, 2012 at 1:10 pm
    Crispin in Waterloo says:
    May 1, 2012 at 8:54 am
    “How many Love Canals or burning rivers [...] would it take for private incentive to give way to concern for community? Note the phrase in the video about industry not responding ‘to anything less than absolute pressure’. Well, they got it.”

    So you are saying tyranny (arbitrary handouts of punishment) is justified. That’s quite an extreme form of environmentalist statism; more extreme than even the German watermelons. Hope you find yourself on the wrong end of your argument someday. Say, when the EPA declares your property wetland.
    ++++++++++++++++

    How is being a victim of industrial tyranny any better than being a victim of government tyranny?

    Industry wants to ‘have total freedom’ and someone else wants ‘total control’. What argument am I making that I end up on the wrong end?

    In case it was not obvious from my comment let me clarify: You swim with sharks you get eaten. You live by the gun you die by the gun. You seek absolutist freedom you get absolutist controls. I am defending neither. I am pointing out the stupidity of both positions. There is no space for fundamentalism in consensual governance. Even the Puritans had to admit that. The halls of WUWT often ring with the call of the tough lone cowboy. It is fascinating to watch but not an effective substitute for ‘the gummint’.

    Love Canal, which is not too far from here, was a criminal act against the people, the State and the environment. That is excess of freedom. Banning coal fired power plants because of an imaginary future effect of CO2 is an excess of regulation. Both need to be moderated.

  93. “The New Left – the Anti-Industrial Revolution”, by Ayn Rand.
    (New edition titled “Return of the Primitives”)
    describes many activists

  94. Brian H says:

    E.M.Smith says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:04 am

    Now if the guy who hired him and continues to do the hiring will just resign…

    Better, adopt the Soviet Army response: the “Vertical Stroke”. Demote or dismiss his superiors about 4 or 5 layers deep.

  95. Brian H says:

    MarkW says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:58 am

    Curfew says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:02 am

    There needs to be a purge of “nutters” at the EPA.

    If we did that, would there be anyone left?

    No, because the “nutters” have been hard at it for decades making sure none but themselves were left standing. It long ago became a self-selection process.

  96. Brian H says:

    Titan 28 says:
    April 30, 2012 at 11:19 am

    I’m no fan of the EPA these days, which, apparently, is run by a group of know-nothing anti-science Nimrods. But I don’t object to what Armendariz said here in terms of his right to say it (there was a little context twisting here too). I might disagree with him. But I would rather a person in his position stated clearly where he was coming from, felt comfortable saying what he truly believed, instead of feeling compelled to hide the truth. Let Mr. Armendariz say what he wants without fear of the thought police coming after him. First Amendment and all that (big fan).

    That’s really dim. Armendariz wasn’t dumped for saying what he said; he was dumped for doing that kind of cr** in the first place! It’s an abuse of authority and, as Imhofe showed, extends to noisy fake prosecutions and “determinations” that fall apart in court and are quietly withdrawn, after the public damage has been done. He’s evidently also working hand in glove with enviro-pressure groups.

    BTW, the First Amendment is protection for those who dare to criticize the government. It has nothing to do with libelling private citizens or companies in order to intimidate. Get over it!

Comments are closed.