NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/talk/environm/3313

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-20 | 3.6 KB

Xref: sparky talk.environment:3313 talk.politics.misc:40978 alt.politics.clinton:2423
Newsgroups: talk.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!news.hawaii.edu!milo!blais
From: [e-mail] (Kristin Blais)
Subject: Re: Gore Calls for a Real Environmental President
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Service)
Nntp-Posting-Host: milo.ifa.hawaii.edu
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
References: <w06ma=[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 03:54:33 GMT
Lines: 67

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Sims) writes:
>[e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>In article <w06ma=[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan F. Perry) writes:
>>>OK, let me explain a little bit about how things work in this country.
>>>
>>>Al Gore is a U.S. Senator representing the state of Tennessee.  As such,
>>>he has NO control over what goes on in Tennesee.  A U.S. Senator can only
>>>pass laws for the Federal government.
>
>>Perhaps you are not aware that TVA is a *Federal* project.
>
>>Gary
>
>Oh, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!!!!!!  I wasn't aware of such facts.
>Now, let me get this straight.  As a Senator representing his state,
>Prince Albert has absolutely NO influence on matters in his home state.
>Did I get that right?  Jeepers, why do most people rely on their
>senators and representatives to get things done in their home state?
>
>Now, so "A U.S. Senator can only pass laws for the Federal Government",
>and as you so aptly pointed out, TVA is a *Federal* project.  So Al is
>then equally unable to do anything there, either?  Gosh, I didn't
>realize the Senate was such an impotent organization.  So Al can't
>affect things back in his "home" state, and he can't work at the
>*Federal* level, that's the rationale for why we should elect him to be
>"a heartbeat away from the presidency?"
>
>In the meantime, the forests in my home area continue to die.....
>
>John
>--

Essentially correct in matters of the environment- the EPA
rules. The *state* legislature decides *where* to put proposed
projects and then the EPA and the other administrations
dealing with the various aspects of energy regulate that
side of it. Once the state legislature decides upon the
site the EPA can only comment on the appropriateness,
they cannot ask it to be moved etc. But evaluation
of environmental impact *is* the EPA's job, so if the
TVA is a problem it is the fault of the state legislature
and the EPA. (and possibly the administration for the
idiots they appoint to run it.) A perfect example of
this is the incinerator on the Ohio River
that will pollute water with lead that (allegedly)
cities down stream use for drinking water (a scary thought
I've seen that river already) The state legislature
was responsible for the placement of the plant -
Federal government can't do anything about it.
This is part of the bonus from Reagan's idea
that the states should have more power than the federal
government. The only thing that a state senator could
do was propose a bill to outlaw power plants etc, and
without a source of energy to replace that -it's not going to
happen. Ohio is a perfect example- most of the
pollution problems they have are the fault of the state
itself- which is why NY state is constantly suing
Ohio and not the federal government for acid rain.
If you want to solve problems like the TVA, give the EPA
stricter regulations and more power to enfource them.
Opps sorry forgot according to the Republicans
that costs jobs.
:-)
Kristin