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?
We've all split some hairs and probably given some extreme, unrealistic scenarios to consider. Mostly because the EPA has show a penchant to be extreme in it's enforcement and jurisdiction. Based on past EPA actions, it is not out of the realm of possibility the EPA will do anything less aggressively. I'd argue it is extremely na�ve to think the new-found power will not embolden the EPA even more.
No one has said that it is "okay to create damage", but who determines what is considered damage? Is it the so-called scientist or "expert" that cherry picks it's facts or statistics in a "study", in order to promote a personal goal? Is it group of scientists that admit the "facts" in their reports were falsified to achieve a group goal, but those reports supported other's with the same ideals and goals?
I argue it is not damage merely by not liking the looks of my "junk pile", cutting/burning trees, etc or feel that it devalues your property...you have to prove it does. "Feeling" offended means nothing, unless you can somehow prove it. One person's trash is another's treasure.
One person can hate seeing a tree cut down or a cattle feed lot. They can scream and holler all they want, claim it produces climate change, e-coli and any number of parasites and "pollutants", but, what about the fox or raccoon, or deer, or birds or every other form of animals that do the same? Perhaps those other animals actually caused whatever the offense is, and the "offended" person chose to ignore that minor detail in a study they have presented as "proof"? Hollering the longest and loudest, while promoting a lie, even garnering support and attention to help achieve goals in no way makes it truth, or right.
I'm in no way saying this scenario is true, but cherry-picked studies are common in today's society, especially in political matters of power and control, and the studies are frequently entirely false.
