Environment and Property Rights

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 437 (Ban environmental cleanup standards more stringent than federal )

gypsy — Fri, 01 May 2009 03:36:08 GMT

cartmellauneas:
Every dark night is followed by a bright sunny day.

Except when the day is partly cloudy.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 437 (Ban environmental cleanup standards more stringent than federal )

cartmellauneas — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 03:42:56 GMT

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4  /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} Every dark night is followed by a bright sunny day. So, patience and attention is required and things will be fruitful in near future

cartmellauneas

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4  <a href=http://drugstrategies.org/Treatment/michigan>Michigan Drug Treatment Centers</a>

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 437 (Ban environmental cleanup standards more stringent than federal )

FreeSpeaker — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:13:50 GMT

In the interest of informed discussion …

Consider what the Michigan Constitution says about our natural resources (today lumped under the term, “environment”).

Michigan Constitution

Article IV

§ 52 Natural resources; conservation, pollution, impairment, destruction.

Sec. 52.

The conservation and development of the natural resources of the state are hereby declared to be of paramount public concern in the interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the people. The legislature shall provide for the protection of the air, water and other natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment and destruction.

The wording in Sec 52 is unambiguous as to what the legislature’s obligation is in the realm of “environmental” protection.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 437 (Ban environmental cleanup standards more stringent than federal )

gypsy — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:28:19 GMT

Agreed, as long as benefits aren't required to have a $ sign.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 437 (Ban environmental cleanup standards more stringent than federal )

changeagent — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:19:38 GMT

Perhaps, and that is what cost vs. benefit should consider.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 437 (Ban environmental cleanup standards more stringent than federal )

gypsy — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:02:34 GMT

There might be some things more important than "cost/benefit", Mr. Businessman. And there might be benefits in the long term by stricter environmental regulations. Something we should look at.

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 437 (Ban environmental cleanup standards more stringent than federal )

changeagent — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:05:34 GMT

No consideration for cost vs. benefit huh? If all humans were dead the environment would be in much better shape. Where should we start?

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 437 (Ban environmental cleanup standards more stringent than federal )

zeroemissions — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:03:45 GMT

God forbid too clean of an environment. Lost my vote pilgrim.

2009 Senate Bill 437 (Ban environmental cleanup standards more stringent than federal )

admin — Mon, 01 Jan 2001 05:00:00 GMT

Introduced in the Senate on April 2, 2009

Click here to view bill details.