Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

"Green New Deal" - needs it's own thread


Muda69

Recommended Posts

http://www.globalwarming.org/2011/12/19/gingrich-v-murray-how-government-caused-the-cuyahoga-river-pollution-fire/

Quote

On June 22, 1969, the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland “caught fire.” This fact is indispensible to central-planners and the enemies of industry. The “burning river” is one of the founding myths of big-government-environmentalism—particularly on the federal stage….

The real story is more complex, and a good portion of the blame lies on the shoulders of big government—specifically on the “progressive” abolition of property rights in favor of “common” ownership. In short, one key problem was that nobody had property rights over the river. It was nobody’s “doorstep,” and so everybody was spitting on it.

In early American history, this principle of private ownership supported by common law was the model for waterways. As settlers moved into the drier areas of the country this principle changed, with the “progressive” notion of common ownership replacing it. With water belonging not to individuals, but to the state, the way was opened for pollution. The principle of common ownership contributed to environmental degradation in a way that the tradition of private property did not.

This meant that industrial areas tended to treat their commonly owned rivers as common dumping grounds, hence the mayor’s description of the Cuyahoga as “an open sewer through the center of the city.” The industrialization of the city was viewed by city managers and residents alike as a desirable thing, and the side effects exhibited as the Cuyahoga changed color and odor were viewed as signs of progress. The city moved to take its domestic water from Lake Erie rather than clean up the river.

With oil, debris, and other effluent accepted as part of the river, fires were inevitable, and common. The river is believed to have caught fire in 1868, 1883, and 1887. A river fire in 1912 killed five men. The same spot ignited in 1922, and there was yet another fire in 1930. By 1936, concern was growing, but it concentrated on lack of appropriate fire control services rather than on the state of the river. Fires burst out again in 1936, 1941, and 1948. The 1952 fire was caused after a Standard Oil facility had spread a two-inch thick oil slick across the river, and the resultant blaze caused as much as $1.5 million worth of damage, destroying a shipyard and a bridge. There was no loss of life, if only because the fire started on a Saturday.

Other rivers caught fire in this period: the Buffalo River in New York State in the 1960s, the Rouge River in Dearborn, Michigan (repeatedly), the Schuykill River, and a river leading into Baltimore Harbor. The Cuyahoga was probably the worst offender, but it was by no means alone.

To hear the environmentalist myth, one would believe that the river’s plight was caused by selfish local companies and that the river was saved only by federal intervention in the shape of the Clean Water Act of 1972. Yet cleanup of the Cuyahoga had started after the terrible fire of 1952. In 1959, fish reappeared, testimony to some remarkable progress. The leading businesses of the area formed the Cuyahoga River Basin Water Quality Committee in 1963. In 1968, voters approved by a two-to-one margin a bond issue totaling $100 million for the purposes of cleaning up and protecting the river.

The actions undertaken by the city reflected actions take around the same time by the state of Ohio, and other cities and states around the nation, to control water pollution since the 1950s. When the Environmental Protection Agency undertook its first National Water Quality Inventory in 1973, it found that there had been “significant improvements” in water quality over the preceding decade. What appears to have happened is that the American people in industrial areas had gone through the environmental transition in and around the 1950s and 1960s. They were starting to value clean water for its own sake, rather than viewing the river as a common resource for industrial benefit. Things appeared to have been slowed by a conflict between state and city officials in the 1960s, but there was clear political will for an aggressive approach to cleaning up the river before the Federal action of 1972.

More importantly, however, the capacity for enforcing cleanup of the Cuyahoga was already in place in the shape of the Common Law. It is part of the mythology of the Cuyahoga fire that it demonstrated the failings of the Common Law in protecting against pollution, yet as Jonathan Adler says, the law “may have gotten something of a bum rap.” Indeed, anyone looking for the culprit in the river’s pollution would have to first turn to the government, which relied on “progressive” anti-traditional, anti-property-rights arguments to justify its actions.

By the 1960s, the state of Ohio had basically taken “ownership” of the river. That put the Cuyahoga’s fate in the hands of bureaucrats in Columbus, the state capital, 120 miles from Cleveland, and nowhere near the Cuyahoga. They officially declared the river to be for “industrial use.” Nominally to reduce pollution, the state government issued pollution permits, allowing certain businesses to dump their waste into the river. These state-issued permits completely smashed the recourse the people of Cleveland would traditionally have: common law tort. Adler suggests that one cause was the “state water pollution permitting system which insulated permitted facilities from public nuisance actions and generally inhibited local efforts to combat pollution.”

Cleveland’s utilities director Ben S. Stefanski II explained after the fire that Columbus’s permit system had made the city impotent. “We have no jurisdiction over what is dumped” in the river, he told the Plain Dealer.The state licenses the industries and gives them legal authority to dump in the river. Actually, the state gives them a license to pollute.

Far from the government standing by while business polluted the river, sometimes, the government stood in the way while business tried to clean up the river. In 1965, for example, a real estate company sued the city to stop allowing use of the river as an industrial dump. It won, but the verdict was overturned by the state supreme court, which found that state law trumped common law rights. In 1968, Arnold Reitze noted that “common law actions for water pollution abatement are not common and perhaps the protection afforded by the permit system is the reason.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Thanks for reinforcing my point. That Capitalism failed to prevent pollution of the river. The private sector chose to continue polluting the river because no one had the authority to stop them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Thanks for reinforcing my point. That Capitalism failed to prevent pollution of the river. The private sector chose to continue polluting the river because no one had the authority to stop them.

And actually your precious, all-powerful state enabled them:

FTA: 

Yet cleanup of the Cuyahoga had started after the terrible fire of 1952. In 1959, fish reappeared, testimony to some remarkable progress. The leading businesses of the area formed the Cuyahoga River Basin Water Quality Committee in 1963. In 1968, voters approved by a two-to-one margin a bond issue totaling $100 million for the purposes of cleaning up and protecting the river.

By the 1960s, the state of Ohio had basically taken “ownership” of the river. That put the Cuyahoga’s fate in the hands of bureaucrats in Columbus, the state capital, 120 miles from Cleveland, and nowhere near the Cuyahoga. They officially declared the river to be for “industrial use.”

These state-issued permits completely smashed the recourse the people of Cleveland would traditionally have: common law tort. 

The state licenses the industries and gives them legal authority to dump in the river. Actually, the state gives them a license to pollute.

Far from the government standing by while business polluted the river, sometimes, the government stood in the way while business tried to clean up the river. In 1965, for example, a real estate company sued the city to stop allowing use of the river as an industrial dump. It won, but the verdict was overturned by the state supreme court, which found that state law trumped common law rights. 

 

 

 

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Muda69 said:

The leading businesses of the area formed the Cuyahoga River Basin Water Quality Committee in 1963.

This must have failed miserably because

2 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

In 1968, voters approved by a two-to-one margin a bond issue totaling $100 million for the purposes of cleaning up and protecting the river

government still had to step in.

 

3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

the government stood in the way while business tried to clean up the river.

Citation needed that business tried to clean up the river.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

This must have failed miserably because

government still had to step in.

 

Citation needed that business tried to clean up the river.

Interesting you completely ignored the fact that the Ohio state government basically issued permits allowing industries to dump wasted into the river.

Here is one citation:  https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5815201066567819423&q=Bar+Realty+Corp.+v.+Locher,+Ohio,+1972.+30+Ohio&hl=en&as_sdt=800006&as_vis=1

 

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Gingrich, in the article, claimed to be in Congress, when the Cuyahoga caught on fire in the summer of '69.  He was only off by a decade...

1 minute ago, Muda69 said:

Interesting you completely ignored the fact that the Ohio state government basically issued permits allowing industries to dump wasted into the river.

Here is one citation:  https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5815201066567819423&q=Bar+Realty+Corp.+v.+Locher,+Ohio,+1972.+30+Ohio&hl=en&as_sdt=800006&as_vis=1

 

 

So the local government was ineffective....hmmm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

Gingrich, in the article, claimed to be in Congress, when the Cuyahoga caught on fire in the summer of '69.  He was only off by a decade...

So exactly how does that invalidate the research and writing of Mr. Iain Murray?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Interesting you completely ignored the fact that the Ohio state government basically issued permits allowing industries to dump wasted into the river.

Interesting that you provide proof that Capitalism failed in protecting the environment when you began earlier in the thread claiming that Capitalism was the answer to protecting it. Flipflopflipflopflipflop

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gonzoron said:

Interesting that you provide proof that Capitalism failed in protecting the environment when you began earlier in the thread claiming that Capitalism was the answer to protecting it. Flipflopflipflopflipflop

885ec65a239889043d99a49dc1c6ded203dd99a6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

So the local government was ineffective....hmmm

Cleveland had already taken steps to clean up the river but state government intervention brought about the debacle. The moral here is that the more remote a government is from the scene, the less effective it is. So why are we attempting to interject the Federal Government into everything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

So exactly how does that invalidate the research and writing of Mr. Iain Murray?

Liars are liars.  You trust em....I don't.  To be honest, most of the clap trap you post is so incredibly biased and some verges on conspiracy non sense that I have stopped giving it more than a cursory read.  Even when I did read the non sense and respond, the discussion always went into the Muda vortex of personalizing the argument.   When called out, it then went to "your" the smartest guy in the room or "I learned it from you" rhetorical technique.  So....save your breath.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

Liars are liars.  You trust em....I don't.  To be honest, most of the clap trap you post is so incredibly biased and some verges on conspiracy non sense that I have stopped giving it more than a cursory read.  Even when I did read the non sense and respond, the discussion always went into the Muda vortex of personalizing the argument.   When called out, it then went to "your" the smartest guy in the room or "I learned it from you" rhetorical technique.  So....save your breath.

So Mr. Murray is a liar?  Where is your proof?

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Cleveland had already taken steps to clean up the river but state government intervention brought about the debacle. The moral here is that the more remote a government is from the scene, the less effective it is. So why are we attempting to interject the Federal Government into everything?

Yeah Cleveland was doing a heckuva job

https://www.history.com/news/epa-earth-day-cleveland-cuyahoga-river-fire-clean-water-act

"The waste those firms did discharge turned the river muddy and filled it with oil, solvents and other industrial products. Between 1868 and 1952, it burned nine times. The 1952 fire racked up $1.5 million in damage. But by most, occasional fires and pollution were seen as the cost of industry—a price no one was willing to dispute.

When fire broke out on the river again in 1969, it seemed like business as usual. “Most Clevelanders seemed not to care a great deal,” write environmental historians David Stradling and Richard Stradling. “Far too many problems plagued the city for residents to get hung up on a little fire…The ’69 fire didn’t represent the culmination of an abusive relationship between a city and its environment. It was simply another sad chapter in the long story of a terribly polluted river.”"

 According to the National Parks Service, the river still has unhealthy amounts of sewage in some areas. But in March 2019, the Ohio EPA announced that its fish are now safe to eat."

God Bless the USA EPA!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

Yeah Cleveland was doing a heckuva job

https://www.history.com/news/epa-earth-day-cleveland-cuyahoga-river-fire-clean-water-act

"The waste those firms did discharge turned the river muddy and filled it with oil, solvents and other industrial products. Between 1868 and 1952, it burned nine times. The 1952 fire racked up $1.5 million in damage. But by most, occasional fires and pollution were seen as the cost of industry—a price no one was willing to dispute.

When fire broke out on the river again in 1969, it seemed like business as usual. “Most Clevelanders seemed not to care a great deal,” write environmental historians David Stradling and Richard Stradling. “Far too many problems plagued the city for residents to get hung up on a little fire…The ’69 fire didn’t represent the culmination of an abusive relationship between a city and its environment. It was simply another sad chapter in the long story of a terribly polluted river.”"

 According to the National Parks Service, the river still has unhealthy amounts of sewage in some areas. But in March 2019, the Ohio EPA announced that its fish are now safe to eat."

God Bless the USA EPA!

Still dodging the fact that it was government policy, in the guise of state permits, that allowed most of the pollution in the first place.

 

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BARRYOSAMA said:

The whole website denies climate change.  So in a word...Yes.

So denial is now lying.  Got it.  And how does that relate to Mr. Murray's research and writing about the Cuyahoga river?  Can you prove that it is a lie?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Muda69 said:

Still dodging the fact that it was government policy, in the guise of state permits, that allowed most of the pollution in the first place.

 

 

In the first place, it was the blatant disregard of the environment BY THE POLLUTERS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gonzoron said:

In the first place, it was the blatant disregard of the environment BY THE POLLUTERS.

Again FTA,

The leading businesses of the area formed the Cuyahoga River Basin Water Quality Committee in 1963. In 1968, voters approved by a two-to-one margin a bond issue totaling $100 million for the purposes of cleaning up and protecting the river.

Hindsight is always 20/20, is it not?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What authority does the federal government possess to issue environmental regulations - or to protect the environment at all?: http://www.tenthamendment.net/home/epa-environment-constitution.asp

Quote

Very little. The environment is, by definition, the land, air, and water flowing through each state and residing within its borders. A state's resources belong to that state because nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government any power to claim such ownership, to set standards of use, or to enforce those standards. The issue, like so many others, falls to the Tenth Amendment to resolve. 

Per the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Because the Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority over the land, air, and water of any state, such authority rests with the state.

Is the EPA constitutional?
In its current mission and charge, no. As each state is responsible for its own land, air, and water, each state has the option of creating its own environmental agency to set standards and enforce them by law.

What if one state's policies harm the environment of another state? Shouldn't the federal government get involved?
Actually yes, this is one situation in which the federal government SHOULD get involved -- but only judicially, not administratively. Where one state harms another, the harmed state is free to file suit against the other, and that suit would be heard in federal court.

Article 3, Section 2 (modified slightly by the Eleventh Amendment) of the Constitution gives the federal courts power to hear disputes between states, stating in part:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, ... to Controversies between two or more States...

Should one state be held liable for harming another, compensation would be ordered. The very threat of such an outcome would force individual states to be mindful of their neighbors.

Who should control water ways that make up the border between states?
The water ways should be managed as cooperatives between the states they touch. Any dispute within these cooperatives should be heard in federal court.

Can the federal government order a state not to drill for oil or mine for gold?
The federal government has no authority to stop drilling or mining within a state's borders. Environmental harm within a state is that state's responsibility. Should such harm spread to neighboring states, the offending state can be sued in federal court for damages.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

The leading businesses of the area formed the Cuyahoga River Basin Water Quality Committee in 1963. In 1968, voters approved by a two-to-one margin a bond issue totaling $100 million for the purposes of cleaning up and protecting the river.

So they formed a committee in 1963, and failed so miserably by 1968, that they needed government assistance to actually clean it up. Pitiful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

So they formed a committee in 1963, and failed so miserably by 1968, that they needed government assistance to actually clean it up. Pitiful.

Yes, because the Ohio state government fought private business and the local government:    Again FTA (you really need to learn how to read and comprehend):

By the 1960s, the state of Ohio had basically taken “ownership” of the river. That put the Cuyahoga’s fate in the hands of bureaucrats in Columbus, the state capital, 120 miles from Cleveland, and nowhere near the Cuyahoga. They officially declared the river to be for “industrial use.”

These state-issued permits completely smashed the recourse the people of Cleveland would traditionally have: common law tort. 

The state licenses the industries and gives them legal authority to dump in the river. Actually, the state gives them a license to pollute.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

(you really need to learn how to read and comprehend)

I comprehend just fine. I recognize that the private companies polluted the river in the first place with no regard for the damage they were doing to the environment. That's the bottom line and addresses your original claim that there is no need for government intervention because the private companies will protect the environment on their own. History has proven this to be false. Maybe since it was before you were born, you don't believe it happened, I'm not sure?

And the Cuyahoga River is just one example of negligence regarding environmental destruction by unchecked actions of the private sector. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

I comprehend just fine. I recognize that the private companies polluted the river in the first place with no regard for the damage they were doing to the environment. That's the bottom line and addresses your original claim that there is no need for government intervention because the private companies will protect the environment on their own. History has proven this to be false. Maybe since it was before you were born, you don't believe it happened, I'm not sure?

And the Cuyahoga River is just one example of negligence regarding environmental destruction by unchecked actions of the private sector. 

Your bolded statement still tells me you don't comprehend, or just refuse to comprehend, Mr. Murray's analysis.

And again hindsight, especially looking back to 1963 and prior, is 20/20.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

And again hindsight, especially looking back to 1963 and prior, is 20/20.

You're correct with this statement, because actions by the private sector before that date necessitated the creation of laws to protect the environment since the private sector was incapable of accomplishing it voluntarily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...