Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 1836

Should Small Scale Imports & Exports of Liquefied Natural Gas Not Require Environmental Reviews?

Argument in favor

By easing requirements for environmental reviews surrounding the import or export of small volumes of liquefied natural gas, this bill would boost energy production in the U.S. and promote economic growth.

Tricia 's Opinion
路路路
08/25/2019
Regulations on many items are just Government overreach and harms our economy. Those who oppose lifting restrictions are also those who are for open borders馃 I wonder if the recognize their hypocrisy.
Like (16)
Follow
Share
operaman's Opinion
路路路
08/25/2019
When you allow eco-terrorists to debate the answer, it will be a 10 year review followed by a NO, but let the UN Climate Commission give a shot at a review. UN commissions a 20 year study finding photo cells are still the answer and requesting a check of $20 Billion taxpayer dollars.
Like (8)
Follow
Share
JTJ's Opinion
路路路
08/25/2019
If liberals were really environmentalists, they would be pro natural gas.
Like (7)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

This bill is unnecessary and would prevent critical environmental impact reviews from occurring related to the import or export of natural gas. It will only increase our reliance on fossil fuel for short-term growth.

jimK's Opinion
路路路
08/24/2019
Once you get exceptions for legal inspections of 鈥榮mall鈥 LNG shipments, you open the door for arguments that larger and then larger shipments can bypass inspections. All the recent Republican attempts to roll back inspections or decrease taxes for this or that special case just puts a wedge in the door that invites further opening based on the argument that if it was good for 鈥榯hat鈥 special case, it ought to be good for 鈥榯his鈥 special case and so on. I remember the case of the Florida senator who argued that the vast coastal properties which were held in reserve for military defense ought be sold- but with the restriction that the military had the right to repossess the property whenever needed for defense. He and affiliated investors bought up all of this semi-worthless land. A few years later, he pushed through a bill to remove military rights to these properties and became quite wealthy as a major city grew and thrived on his purchased land (I can鈥檛 remember, but I think it was Miami). Point is, be wary of legislation that opens doors to future abuse by calling for special case exceptions to the rules that are otherwise applied generally.
Like (102)
Follow
Share
burrkitty's Opinion
路路路
08/24/2019
Taking the environmental review out of any fossil fuel process is a mistake.
Like (66)
Follow
Share
Donna 's Opinion
路路路
08/24/2019
No. All quantities of natural gas need environmental review.
Like (45)
Follow
Share
    Regulations on many items are just Government overreach and harms our economy. Those who oppose lifting restrictions are also those who are for open borders馃 I wonder if the recognize their hypocrisy.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    Once you get exceptions for legal inspections of 鈥榮mall鈥 LNG shipments, you open the door for arguments that larger and then larger shipments can bypass inspections. All the recent Republican attempts to roll back inspections or decrease taxes for this or that special case just puts a wedge in the door that invites further opening based on the argument that if it was good for 鈥榯hat鈥 special case, it ought to be good for 鈥榯his鈥 special case and so on. I remember the case of the Florida senator who argued that the vast coastal properties which were held in reserve for military defense ought be sold- but with the restriction that the military had the right to repossess the property whenever needed for defense. He and affiliated investors bought up all of this semi-worthless land. A few years later, he pushed through a bill to remove military rights to these properties and became quite wealthy as a major city grew and thrived on his purchased land (I can鈥檛 remember, but I think it was Miami). Point is, be wary of legislation that opens doors to future abuse by calling for special case exceptions to the rules that are otherwise applied generally.
    Like (102)
    Follow
    Share
    Taking the environmental review out of any fossil fuel process is a mistake.
    Like (66)
    Follow
    Share
    No. All quantities of natural gas need environmental review.
    Like (45)
    Follow
    Share
    All shipments of natural gas must OF COURSE require environmental reviews! This bill smacks of cronyism; a way to get away with dangerous practices for greed and disastrous results. Our Earth is dying due to greed and there is no planet B.
    Like (29)
    Follow
    Share
    Any environmental idea the Rape and Pillage the Earth party puts forward is just wrong.
    Like (26)
    Follow
    Share
    NO! No easing of requirements. Just another Repuglycan ploy to open the door for more relaxation of safety measures and further destruction of our planet.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    Protect the environment at all costs. Shipping products requires the manufacture to meet certain environmental requirements, these requirements are a cost of doing business that the manufacture passes on to the purchaser of these products, which the purchaser passes on to their customers. The fact companies are looking for more profit by bypassing environmental protection requirements shows how greedy these companies have become. We the rest of the human race need to live on this planet. You might need to relook at your dividend or share holder profit margins for ways to afford meeting your regulatory requirements.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    Protect the environment! The health of the Earth ISN鈥橳 worth all your f___ing money!
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    With our environment tanking around our ears, erring on the side of being too careful cannot hurt.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    It鈥檚 bullshit. Even though it鈥檚 statistically a small amount as far as impact on the environment in case of an accident it would not be a statistically small amount.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    First, this is THE most poorly worded double negative question I have seen on this app. Second, all fuels need proper regulations. You don鈥檛 鈥渆ase鈥 or 鈥渟trengthen鈥 regulations. You assess the regulatory need and enact accordingly. Sorry GOP. Your love fest with Big Oil will end in 2020.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Protect our environment!!!
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    We need to fully commit to protecting the environment!
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    LNG is highly explosive. Who determines what a small amount is- politicians? Why would we want to ship/ receive small quantities, versus the more economical large quantities, unless you are trying to scam the system? This is bad news no matter how you look at it- environmentally, economically, safety and the chance for abuse. NO
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    All exports and imports of LNG should require Environmental review.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    We need to protect our environment from the dangers of fossil fuel use, and this just opens up the door to more pollution.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    When you allow eco-terrorists to debate the answer, it will be a 10 year review followed by a NO, but let the UN Climate Commission give a shot at a review. UN commissions a 20 year study finding photo cells are still the answer and requesting a check of $20 Billion taxpayer dollars.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Strong NAY vote HR 1836 Ted Yoho bill is taking the WRONG direction! Truth is Fossil fuels need to stay in the ground. We need to instead invest in renewables and a safe clean environment for the future! Reject fossil fuel lobbyists and GREED!
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    This post is a great example of what political trust should look like. I can without doing much more than skimming the article and scanning the position of voices I have learned to TRUST, to know that I can cast my vote as 鈥渘o鈥. I have learned over the past three years how certain members will vote and what issues they will fight for. This allows me to trust that their view will also be REPRESENTATIVE of my own. I do not need to read every letter, I am free to go about my life trusting in my choice of a political representative. This model of political trust is the same model our Congressional Representatives were supposed to fulfill. Congressional Representatives were to represent the voice of the people. But instead we the people are often left without a voice.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE