EPA under Trump WH

[blackstar212]

This is the type of filth hole Trump and the Republicans want for the average American.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/03/cities-epa-clean-air-water-pollution-trash

[windwalker]

This is the type of filth hole Trump and the Republicans want for the average American.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/03/cities-epa-clean-air-water-pollution-trash

 

 

Seems like thats what happened in the last 8yrs...and before,

are you suggesting that the new administration doesn't want to make things better

for all Americans.. 

[blackstar212]

Seems like thats what happened in the last 8yrs...and before,

are you suggesting that the new administration doesn't want to make things better

for all Americans..

I am not suggesting it. I guarantee it. They want to gut the EPA and go back to the filth hole this country once was.

[Trunk]

First thing DJT did w/ the EPA was issue an executive order that the agency couldn't share any scientific results directly with the public, any results (past or present) go through political channels.  (He also did that with the National Park Service, btw, that also does scientific studies.)

 

Purely in terms of big business, the EPA is a hinderence to efficiency, progress, profits. 

 

That's the line of action this administration is taking on environment vs business.

 

 

p.s.

As far as financially "sticking up for the little guy", I don't think the revoking of the Dodd-Frank act has been discussed yet ...

Edited March 6, 2017 by Trunk

[Aetherous]

First thing DJT did w/ the EPA was issue an executive order that the agency couldn't share any scientific results...

 

Which executive order is that? I recall that this story was fake news...maybe I'm wrong. All executive orders are on the White House website.

[Brian]

Which executive order is that? I recall that this story was fake news...maybe I'm wrong. All executive orders are on the White House website.

Right after the inauguration, someone at the EPA was using the official EPA Twitter account (I think it was Twitter, might have been FB) to make unauthorized political statements. Happened at the Park Service, too, IIRC. The predictable response was an reminder to Federal employees that only authorized personnel were to make statements on behalf of the agencies for which they work.

[Aetherous]

Right after the inauguration, someone at the EPA was using the official EPA Twitter account (I think it was Twitter, might have been FB) to make unauthorized political statements. Happened at the Park Service, too, IIRC. The predictable response was an reminder to Federal employees that only authorized personnel were to make statements on behalf of the agencies for which they work.

 

Did the White House actually remind these agencies, or was that by their own leadership? Was it actually in an executive order...and if not, what proof do we have of the White House instructing them as such?

[Brian]

Did the White House actually remind these agencies, or was that by their own leadership? Was it actually in an executive order...and if not, what proof do we have of the White House instructing them as such?

As I remember it, it was e-mails sent down through the agency's chain of command which amounted to a moratorium against unauthorized "official" social media communications as well as a temporary suspension of the initiation of new business (awarding contracts and such).

[dawei]

This seems a fair topic as they want to change stuff and there are implications.

 

My take is they want to push responsibility back to states to clean up their mess.

 

I would personally like to see something like Federal directive that states need to abide by with some leeway that they need to also just do what they want...    Like we do in the auto industry in the past.   The Feds direct and the manufacturers need to comply.   In some cases, states created strong regulations.

 

Color me naive but I think a good topic. 

[Taomeow]

I would be up in arms against anyone who touches the EPA if the EPA was really something living up to its name.

 

Well, here's a Forbes assessment from a year ago:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2016/02/10/last-chance-to-stop-epas-latest-biggest-worst-power-grab/#3db44baca344

[dawei]

To answer to those who fight against some assignments, like Pruitt to oversee the EPA...    He claims to have sued the EPA many times and won... so why assign him to oversee the EPA ?

 

In my common sense world...  if an agency has problems... those that agree with the agency don't understand the problem.  Those that oppose the agency problems do.    So, give it to someone who understands the problems and clean house. Drain that EPA swamp.]

 

I'm not talking authoritative but just from my common sense view.  I understand the appointment.

 

If he goes too far, then that is a discussion point for sure.

 

I think he wants to push EPA responsibility to states...  I'm not sure it is useful to discuss if he is right or not but rather, what is the direction he is going and what implications that has.   JMO.

[Taomeow]

Anyone who wants to understand what goal the EPA was really redesigned to work toward needs to research the UN Agenda 21 and the role the agency was set up to play in its implementation.  Research in depth folks.  Well worth it.  

[Brian]

Anyone who wants to understand what goal the EPA was really redesigned to work toward needs to research the UN Agenda 21 and the role the agency was set up to play in its implementation. Research in depth folks. Well worth it.

Yes, researching Agenda 21 is eye-opening. There are so many design elements which surround us but are unrecognized without an understanding of the architecture.

 

EDIT: I would add that one can't understand the EPA without studying the story of DDT.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Brian

[gendao]

Well, the Feds (EPA/FDA/etc), Obama, and Hillary were all pro-GMO/fracking/deforestation/anti-cannabis//etc...and I think Trump is too.

 

Trump is a businessman developer, not an environmentalist savior, by any stretch.  So, I suspect he may trash the environment even worse than it is already...in the name of "pro-Big Biz."

 

I think Federal environmental deregulation in favor of "States' rights" here is sort of a cop-out.  Because if Trump really believed in decentralizing Federal power to the States - then why is his AG boy, Jeff Sessions, already threatening to enforce Federal laws against State cannabis-legalizing laws?  Granted, Trump might yank his chain back on that - but why would he even appoint him to begin with if he already sounds like a Federalist?

 

Just sounds like more of the same old agenda that stubbornly bans a natural "magic bullet" super plant, while promoting every GMO Frankenplant fresh out of the labs...

Edited March 8, 2017 by gendao

[dust]

Well, the Feds (EPA/FDA/etc), Obama, and Hillary were all pro-GMO/fracking/deforestation/anti-cannabis//etc...and I think Trump is too.

 

I was about to click 'thank you' for this but I was curious about the deforestation part.

 

I'm pro-GMO, or at least not anti, and I don't particularly care about cannabis, but I'm certainly against deforestation... so I clicked on the link, but it doesn't provide any evidence of any modern politician being a major advocate for cutting down forest...

 

Is there evidence? Obviously deforestation continues to happen, and most politicians don't make it part of their rhetoric any more (not like in the '90s) but do we blame politicians for that or do we blame ourselves for the stupid lifestyles we lead and for supporting the businesses/industries that continue to cut down trees?

 

 

 

 

Right after the inauguration, someone at the EPA was using the official EPA Twitter account (I think it was Twitter, might have been FB) to make unauthorized political statements. Happened at the Park Service, too, IIRC. The predictable response was an reminder to Federal employees that only authorized personnel were to make statements on behalf of the agencies for which they work.

 

You misrepresent the facts.

 

The EPA and USDA among others were forbidden to continue with business as usual -- it is part of their raison d'etre to provide the public with information, including new reports/analyses etc.

 

For example, Sharon Drumm, the chief of staff for Agricultural Research Service, wrote in a department-wide email:

 

“Starting immediately and until further notice, ARS will not release any public-facing documents.. This includes, but is not limited to, news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content"

[Brian]

I was about to click 'thank you' for this but I was curious about the deforestation part.

 

I'm pro-GMO, or at least not anti, and I don't particularly care about cannabis, but I'm certainly against deforestation... so I clicked on the link, but it doesn't provide any evidence of any modern politician being a major advocate for cutting down forest...

 

Is there evidence? Obviously deforestation continues to happen, and most politicians don't make it part of their rhetoric any more (not like in the '90s) but do we blame politicians for that or do we blame ourselves for the stupid lifestyles we lead and for supporting the businesses/industries that continue to cut down trees?

 

 

 

 

 

You misrepresent the facts.

 

The EPA and USDA among others were forbidden to continue with business as usual -- it is part of their raison d'etre to provide the public with information, including new reports/analyses etc.

 

For example, Sharon Drumm, the chief of staff for Agricultural Research Service, wrote in a department-wide email:

 

“Starting immediately and until further notice, ARS will not release any public-facing documents.. This includes, but is not limited to, news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content"

https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news-archive

 

Correct, I failed to mention the brief "until further notice" suspension of external communications. Looking at the ARS website (link above), it seems they didn't miss a beat.

[gendao]

I was about to click 'thank you' for this but I was curious about the deforestation part.

 

I'm pro-GMO, or at least not anti, and I don't particularly care about cannabis, but I'm certainly against deforestation... so I clicked on the link, but it doesn't provide any evidence of any modern politician being a major advocate for cutting down forest...

 

Is there evidence? Obviously deforestation continues to happen, and most politicians don't make it part of their rhetoric any more (not like in the '90s) but do we blame politicians for that or do we blame ourselves for the stupid lifestyles we lead and for supporting the businesses/industries that continue to cut down trees?

In the WEIRD world, deforestation is only a "problem" in Third World countries (like Brazil, SE Asia, etc).  In First World countries, their only main concern is "too much carbon," lol...  But in fact, deforestation has been and still IS a near-root problem in the WEIRD world, too!  (Which is also what causes too much free carbon, btw.)

 

That article was about how the epidemic spread of Lyme disease is just one tiny, unforeseen consequence of all the mass deforestation in the US since the European invasion.  It just serves to show how many ramifications there are to "developing" (destroying) native habitat.  Which is happening on a daily basis here as more forests are continually razed to build more and more "developments."  Which is caused by...the ongoing proliferation of invasive humans.

The reasons for this Lyme explosion are many, Ostfeld says. Climate change is part of it. The surge in deer — which feed ticks and spread them around — has also been a factor.

But Ostfeld has found another reason, something that happened more than 200 years ago.

Today the Hudson River Valley in upstate New York is gorgeous. The hills are covered with oak forests, and the valleys are patchworks of hayfields and farms.

But Ostfeld says the area didn't always look like this. When the Europeans came here hundreds of years ago, they clear-cut nearly all of the forests to plant crops and raise livestock.

"They also cut down trees for commercial use," Ostfeld says, "to make masts for ships, and for firewood."

Since then a lot of the forest has come back — but it's not the same forest as before, he says. Today it's all broken up into little pieces, with roads, farms and housing developments.

For mice, this has been great news.

"They tend to thrive in these degraded, fragmented landscapes," Ostfeld says, because their predators need big forests to survive.

Without as many foxes, hawks and owls to eat them, mice crank out babies. And we end up with forests packed with mice — mice that are chronically infected with Lyme and covered with ticks.

So all these little patches of forest dotting the Northeast have basically turned into Lyme factories, spilling over with infected ticks.

Yet deforestation, and all the human population growth/artificial lifestyles driving it, are NEVER officially cited as environmental problems by...WEIRD humans.  Surprise, surprise.  Only downstream symptoms (excess carbon, dwindling aquifers, flooding, disappearing wildlife diversity, etc) of these underlying issues are ever publicly targeted. 

 

When was the last time ANY US politician talked about domestic deforestation as a problem, or human population growth causing it and other environmental destruction?  Compared to how many repeat globalist rhetoric about climate change caused by carbon emissions and how we actually always need more people (immigrants or babies) to pay for elderly care pyramid schemes...

 

I mean, put this in your pipe and smoke it: WEIRD disposable society is so inherently ANTI-NATURE - that every year, they celebrate winter by cutting down a million tons of trees and then simply throw them away in landfills a few weeks later...  Not only are so many trees wantonly destroyed to begin with - they are then discarded without ANY utilitarian USAGE (as lumber, compost, etc) whatsoever.  Trees themselves here are literally valued merely as disposable ornaments - just like the ones hung on them!  I mean, the absolute disregard for Mother Nature is just soooo deeply embedded and ingrained in the culture here!

An estimated 30 million Christmas trees are sold each year, and the brass at the EPA thinks this is far too many,” says one of the EPA officials. “These weigh about 70 pounds on average, so that’s around 1,050,000 tons of fir trees that are cut down yearly, and most of that lumber never ends up getting used, in most places anyway. So the thinking is that by outlawing Christmas trees, we’d cut out over a million tons of waste per year.

There’s a climate change angle to this, too,” the second EPA official chimed in. “A single fir tree can suck up around 20 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, so the EPA, well, the head honchos at the EPA, they believe that if those Christmas trees stay in the ground, that’s around 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide we’d be neutralizing. They think that would go a long way toward curbing the carbon dioxide that’s causing climate change.

So YES, domestic deforestation is a problem that has NOT been addressed by the Feds - and doubtfully by Trump, either.

 

But just because they don't run a massive PR campaign officially branding it as a problem...doesn't mean that it isn't a problem.

Edited March 9, 2017 by gendao

[dust]

https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news-archive

 

Correct, I failed to mention the brief "until further notice" suspension of external communications. Looking at the ARS website (link above), it seems they didn't miss a beat.

 

Tehe, yes, it was temporary.

 

I think the main issue, though, is the disregard the new White House seems to have for the environment. That Mother Jones article makes some decent points about the EPA. It might appear to be doing nothing, to some, but without environmental regulations/agencies ensuring certain businesses/governments adhered to certain targets/rules, the world would be in an even shittier state than it is right now.

 

[...]

And just because they don't run a massive PR campaign labeling it as a problem...doesn't mean that it isn't a problem.

I agree with everything you said.

 

What I see, though, is that though someone like Obama might not have prevented deforestation (I don't know..), it seems like Trump is essentially saying "Fuck nature."

Edited March 8, 2017 by dust

[Brian]

Tehe, yes, it was temporary.

 

I think the main issue, though, is the disregard the new White House seems to have for the environment. That Mother Jones article makes some decent points about the EPA. It might appear to be doing nothing, to some, but without environmental regulations/agencies ensuring certain businesses/governments adhered to certain targets/rules, the world would be in an even shittier state than it is right now.

 

 

I agree with everything you said.

 

What I see, though, is that though someone like Obama might not have prevented deforestation (I don't know..), it seems like Trump is essentially saying "Fuck nature."

This is a concern I share but I think I'll reserve judgement until we see real actions come from the Administration or the EPA. The EPA itself is a questionable agency run amok and it definitely needs reining in but we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The agency was unconstitutional from day 1 but, having been invested with power & resources, the State agencies which constitutionally should have oversight on such things are ill-prepared.

 

In the 1820s, President Andrew Jackson sought to restore constitutional balance by reining in an out-of-control Congress (and central bank) but did so in a heavy-handed & accelerated fashion which was partially responsible for the Panic of 1837. IF the Trump Administration intends to scale down Federal involvement in aspects of life which the Constitution doesn't delegate to the central government, it needs to be done gently. Personally, I doubt anything of significance will change in this regard, though -- it is largely posturing and propaganda by both sides.

[dawei]

The agency was unconstitutional from day 1 but, having been invested with power & resources, the State agencies which constitutionally should have oversight on such things are ill-prepared.

 

Purely from interest... please don't think I agree with any side

 

Can you explain more why it was unconstitutional but you seem to say the states were in no better position to deal with the environment.

[MooNiNite]

Water quality definitely went down the last 8 years. 

 

Many people refuse tap water these days.

 

I hope someone asks a relevant question when they interview Trump.

 

Like,

 

"Hey Mr. President, have you noticed that many major universities have unanimously declared fluoride a neurotoxin?" 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/fluoride_b_2479833.html

 

http://wakingscience.com/2016/02/fluoride-officially-classified-as-a-neurotoxin-in-worlds-most-prestigious-medical-journal/

 

It is good, however, that Trump is a strong proponent for clean air and clean water.

[gendao]

I agree with everything you said.

 

What I see, though, is that though someone like Obama might not have prevented deforestation (I don't know..), it seems like Trump is essentially saying "Fuck nature."

Haven't fact-checked this yet, but you're probably right...

 

Previous administrations have simply neglected deforestation - as it has never been on the Federal political radar.  Whereas Trump might be a bit more proactively deforestative from a developer's aesthetic of beauty as glitzy hotels, manicured lawns, and golf courses...

 

Sadly, there is no TLM movement, either.

 

But in reality, forests are VASTLY underrated as MASSIVE genetic libraries for all lifeforms (and their diverse variations) within the local ecosystem.  So, chopping them down is the equivalent to burning down libraries.  To further that analogy, a virgin, mature, old-growth forest would be equivalent to the Library of Alexandria, or some other ancient repositories of accumulated wisdom/code - but LIVING!  So, the loss of such evolved over eons is unconscionable and irreplaceable.  Yet, it happens on the daily due to WEIRD culture...and is deemed "no problemo" compared to the all-consuming "carbon juggernaut" that displaces all other causes...

 

Which again, is due to the WEIRD penchant of reducing complex/holistic problems and solutions down to an isolated "active ingredient."  Deforestation is too complex and has no simple solution.  Whereas carbon emissions is a simple metric that can at least be taxed...so BINGO!

Edited March 9, 2017 by gendao

[dawei]

But in reality, forests are VASTLY underrated as MASSIVE genetic libraries for all lifeforms (and their diverse variations) within the local ecosystem.  So, chopping them down is the equivalent to burning down libraries.  To further that analogy, a virgin, mature, old-growth forest would be equivalent to the Library of Alexandria, or some other ancient storehouses of accumulated wisdom/code.  The loss of such evolved over eons is unconscionable and irreplaceable.  Yet, it happens on the daily due to WEIRD culture...and is deemed "no problemo" compared to the all-consuming "carbon juggernaut" that displaces all other causes...

 

Which again, is due to the WEIRD penchant of reducing complex/holistic problems and solutions down to an isolated "active ingredient."  Deforestation is too complex and has no simple solution.  Whereas carbon emissions is a simple metric that can at least be taxed...so BINGO!

 

I've never heard of this and so just jumping in with my thoughts.  I think I get the stated problem but it seems to me that land resources can only allow occupation  so far.   Meaning, if we have a growing population, there is a need for land.   If we take this out to the furthest end, there are only people and no forests at the extreme point.

 

So, I ask this with any issue:  What is the problem ?  

 

If mankind's population will at some point run over all of natural growth, how do we not chop them down?

[Brian]

Purely from interest... please don't think I agree with any side

 

Can you explain more why it was unconstitutional but you seem to say the states were in no better position to deal with the environment.

The Federal government is authorized to act in 18 enumerated functions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers

• The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
• To borrow on the credit of the United States;
• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
• To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
• To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
• To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
• To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
• To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
• To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
• To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
• To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

There are some modifications which come from subsequent Amendments to the Constitution (like the 16^th granting specific authority for direct taxation (which actually is a clarification and additional restriction on a previous power but is generally misinterpreted as conveying a new power) but this is basically "the list." If it ain't there, it's reserved to the several States (if provided for in the individual State Constitutions) or to the People.

 

Some elaboration is probably necessary for that last enumerated power as it is much abused. The "Necessary and Proper" clause is understood to allow sufficient operating room as to accommodate and facilitate the previous powers ("To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof") but does NOT mean the Federal government can do anything it feels is appropriate -- ONLY those things which are necessary (and proper) for fulfilling its charge.

 

You may notice that a lot of stuff seems missing, if you compare this list to the stuff Washington currently does. Nothing about deciding what kind of products citizens are allowed to purchase or are required to purchase, nothing about protecting people from themselves, nothing about protecting trees or rivers or animals, nothing about schools or doctors, nothing about marriage or potty behavior, nothing about who can smoke what. The list, in fact, is pretty dang sparse! That is by design.

 

States are free to make decisions according to the will of their citizens, and can sue each other in court if one State infringes upon the sovereignty of another -- and States can form voluntary associations with each other (or not, depending on the situation) to do things like build an electric grid (we did pretty well before the DoE was established in 1977) and build highways (again, we did pretty well before the DoT was established in 1967) or build schools (ditto, before the ED was established in 1979), just to name a few examples. Notice a pattern here?

[Brian]

Purely from interest... please don't think I agree with any side

 

Can you explain more why it was unconstitutional but you seem to say the states were in no better position to deal with the environment.

Reading back over my original post and your question in response to it, I think I see the root of your question. When I said "(t)he agency was unconstitutional from day 1 but, having been invested with power & resources, the State agencies which constitutionally should have oversight on such things are ill-prepared", I meant that the EPA has been given power and funding taken from the States (more than $8B/year) and has grown into a behemoth of over 15,000 regular employees (plus LOTS of contract employees and service providers). Saying tomorrow, "OK, the EPA is closed, everyone go home, States figure it out on your own!" -- that would be foolish and irresponsible.