I don't see where anyone is proposing you not be responsible for damage you create. The point of this whole discussion is that the EPA has set itself up as the Judge , Jury and Executioner. Thats why we have 3 branches of government . Its checks and balances. This administration [ and some previous] has proven that they are not interested in checks and balances . Only what they want done . It is a elitist attitude. The congress should be making the laws not the EPA . EPA and other departments should be enforcing the laws not interpreting them along the beliefs of a administration currently in power.
Maybe I'm splitting hairs. I perceive some as thinking it's okay to create that damage, so long as they are held accountable for it, and more importantly, get to decide if said damage has in fact actually occurred. I don't agree with that philosophy, believing it's best to try and avoid the damage in the first place, whenever possible.
Totally agree on congress making the laws, not the EPA, as well as the checks and balances intended to prevent what we see happening, from happening. But I'm not debating the legality of the ruling at this time...I'm debating the need for it, irregardless of where it came from?
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.
