EPA under Trump WH

[dust]

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

 

I don't understand. If you're taking it to the extreme, where there's no room for anything but humans, we're dead anyway.

 

Are you saying that there's no problem that Earth is trampled and most of its wildlife annihilated, because humans want more beef burgers?

Edited March 8, 2017 by dust

[dawei]

I don't understand. If you're taking it to the extreme, where there's no room for anything but humans, we're dead anyway.

 

Are you saying that there's no problem that Earth is trampled and most of its wildlife annihilated, because humans want more beef burgers?

 

I think your point is exactly my thinking, or at least seeing the future to its extreme.

 

I don't really hold any side to it, just comment on what I see/hear/think...

 

If the end-game is self-annihilation and self-exploitation and self-suicide... can we really just delay it if it will happen at some point?

 

I don't know the answer but I have this question

[dawei]

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

 

I'm almost sorry I asked... gives great pause... and Southern Comfort in a glass... no ice needed  

[gendao]

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?

Right, that's the inevitable result of a growing population, right?  So, aren't modernized humans the real environmental elephant in the room that nobody wants to discuss - much less label a problem (like carbon)?

 

In fact, not only is human population growth not deemed a problem, but a hypothetically lessening population is somehow deemed the problem, instead!

Thanks to the weak economy, Americans are having fewer babies than the British and the French — not enough to maintain the size of the U.S. population without immigration, according to the Economist.

The U.S. birth rate now is 1.9 births per woman over her lifetime, when 2 births per woman is necessary to sustain the population on its own.

So, an exploding human population threatening all other life on this planet = no problem.  But a human population possibly tapering off (which is not that hard and basically happens simply if everyone has less than 2 kids) down from 7 BILLION = ZOMGGGG oh noesssss!!!!

Edited March 8, 2017 by gendao

[dawei]

Right, that's the inevitable result of a growing population, right?  So, aren't modernized humans the real environmental elephant in the room that nobody wants to discuss - much less label a problem (like carbon)?

 

In fact, not only is it not deemed a problem, but a hypothetically lessening population is somehow deemed the problem!

So, an exploding human population threatening all other life on this planet = no problem.  But a human population possibly tapering off (which is not that hard and basically happens simply if everyone has less than 2 kids) down from 7 BILLION = ZOMGGGG oh noesssss!!!!

 

I'm not really following your exact point but feel we agreed at some point.

 

Maybe you want to say that population is the issue/cause of our throwing darts?

 

I've thought of this in regard to climate change.... I'm going to regret this line of thought but here goes...

 

At the most base level:  A growing population MUST affect the climate.  And by population I mean the ten thousand things.

 

We cannot compare 100,000 neanderthals walking the plains and building some fires here or there ...  vs today...      

 

With population comes industry and technology and complete disregard of the environment.

 

MY POINT IS:    Nothing will stop its forward march. 

[dust]

I think your point is exactly my thinking, or at least seeing the future to its extreme.

 

I don't really hold any side to it, just comment on what I see/hear/think...

 

If the end-game is self-annihilation and self-exploitation and self-suicide... can we really just delay it if it will happen at some point?

 

I don't know the answer but I have this question

 

Yes, it does seem like the end-game is suicide... Certainly (from a non-religious perspective, anyway) the inevitable conclusion is the destruction of the planet at some point anyway. Meteor or sun burnout or whatever.

 

But until then, we're here, and life is here, and it's pretty great. It's harsh and cold, but also beautiful and exciting. Personally... I'd rather have lived a life of more downs than ups than never lived at all. The fact of experience, even of just being able to sit here and write posts on the internet, is amazing.

 

And if we want to prolong our harsh cold beautiful exciting existence (which, however illogically, most of us do -- and many of us agree that the other species should be protected, so that we can live alongside them and experience them too) we must choose to not allow that extreme future to happen.

 

Yes, it seems like it will happen anyway. But I will be angry about it until I die.

[blackstar212]

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.

Besides health care I believe an amendment should be added for an EPA like dept. The fore fathers never imagined all the chemicals that could wreck the environment.

[Brian]

I'm not really following your exact point but feel we agreed at some point.

 

Maybe you want to say that population is the issue/cause of our throwing darts?

 

I've thought of this in regard to climate change.... I'm going to regret this line of thought but here goes...

 

At the most base level:  A growing population MUST affect the climate.  And by population I mean the ten thousand things.

 

We cannot compare 100,000 neanderthals walking the plains and building some fires here or there ...  vs today...      

 

With population comes industry and technology and complete disregard of the environment.

 

MY POINT IS:    Nothing will stop its forward march.

Well...

 

The dynamic system will adjust, as dynamic systems do, and we will adjust along with it -- or we will become extinct. We can declare that we have an understanding of the system and we can claim that declaration gives us authority over others who may claim to have a different understanding of the system (and therefore claim they have authority over us) or still others who may simply claim that we don't understand it any better than they do and therefore reject the authoritative claim of both us & them. In the end, though, the big old blue ball will just continue doing its thing and a million years from now the climate crisis of the late 20^th & early 21^st centuries will be as insignificant as all the other instances of hubris and self-importance of man.

[Brian]

Besides health care I believe an amendment should be added for an EPA like dept. The fore fathers never imagined all the chemicals that could wreck the environment.

I recommend you contact your members of Congress or help push for a Convention of States. Ohio has already applied for a Convention of States, BTW.

[blackstar212]

I recommend you contact your members of Congress or help push for a Convention of States. Ohio has already applied for a Convention of States, BTW.

Thank you I will.

[Trunk]

EPA chief Scott Pruitt says carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming

 

:lol:

Edited March 9, 2017 by Trunk

[Trunk]

... and, here are some of the budget cuts coming for the EPA ...

summary: the EPA is being gutted.

 

 

(source: alt national park service.  You know that since the EPA and NPS got cut off from communicating to the public that they've started "alt" sites so that they can do so in their spare time, right?)

Edited March 9, 2017 by Trunk

[Brian]

EPA chief Scott Pruitt says carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming

 

:lol:

A hell of a lot of scientists have been saying the same thing for a couple decades now, you know.

[dust]

When Semmelweis discovered that the act of washing one's hands between dealing with corpses and living patients cut deaths in his hospital by 90%, he ended up beaten to death in an asylum because doctors didn't want to believe they had "dirty" hands.

[Trunk]

The EPA’s Science Office Removed “Science” From Its Mission Statement

 

"The EPA’s Office of Science and Technology Policy no longer lists “science” in the paragraph describing what it does. The language changes here are not nuanced—they have really important regulatory implications.

The EPA’s Office of Science and Technology has historically been in charge of developing clean water standards for states. Before January 30 of this year, the website said those standards were “science-based,” meaning they were based on what peer-reviewed science recommended as safe levels of pollutants for drinking, swimming, or fishing. Since January 30, though, the reference to “science-based” standards has disappeared. Now, the office, instead, says it develops “economically and technologically achievable standards” to address water pollution."

 

[Brian]

DDT: A Case of Scientific Fraud

[dust]

Doing a quick scan of google it does seem that there's scant evidence of long-term harmful effects to humans or other animals in doses that are likely to be encountered.

 

The same happened with vaccines and autism. Eventually, (most) people realized that the claims were nonsense.

 

However, this does not go any way to proving that AGW is 'fake' or 'fraudulent', or that carbon is not a major factor in it.

 

See my comment above. Sometimes, a genuine discovery is made and the majority of people ignore it out of convenience or arrogance; sometimes, no true discovery is made yet the majority are taken in by falsehoods.

[MooNiNite]

Solar panels are $100 each. 

 

Tesla can power most homes with a battery for $5,500

 

The new Tesla car only costs $30,000 it can run for 5 hours and only needs to be charged for 30 minutes at a time.

 

It isnt the EPA or any government agency that is going to save the climate.

 

It is the millions of companies that are competing for a better world.

 

Trump is lowering taxes and making the economy work again.

 

This destruction of greed impowers millions of businesses across the USA to be more efficient and have more capital for research.

 

When the government takes a majority of the money, these millions of companies  take a hit and we evolve slowly.

 

The government is the impeding force. 

 

Fear has led people to a poor society, poor water quality, and ridiculous deficits. 

 

 

You tell me how the government can invest money more efficiently than the super intelligence behind a free, competitive, and open marketplace.

 

You cant.

 

Your answer is null. 

[Brian]

Doing a quick scan of google it does seem that there's scant evidence of long-term harmful effects to humans or other animals in doses that are likely to be encountered.

 

The same happened with vaccines and autism. Eventually, (most) people realized that the claims were nonsense.

 

However, this does not go any way to proving that AGW is 'fake' or 'fraudulent', or that carbon is not a major factor in it.

 

See my comment above. Sometimes, a genuine discovery is made and the majority of people ignore it out of convenience or arrogance; sometimes, no true discovery is made yet the majority are taken in by falsehoods.

Quite so -- and that's why I advocate for extensive, continuing and comprehensive personal research. In many cases, we can't actually research the science itself as the technology is cost-prohibitive but we can scrutinize the work done by others as well as examine the rhetoric surrounding the topic. In this particular case, the premise was flawed (the review process of the original IPCC document made it clear the intent was policy-shaping rather than scientific research), the research has been riddled with examples of malfeasance and outright fraud, the results don't fit the models, the collection process has been in constant turmoil, the proposed solutions don't address the problem and the cost/benefit analysis makes it the most expensive boondoggle in world history. Add to that the fact that the planet's biosphere historically thrives during warming periods and struggles during cold periods and the whole thing becomes incredibly dubious. As a final straw, the people who are most strident & urgent in sounding the alarm do so in a manner which conspicuously betrays their own belief in what they are selling.

 

Are we having terrible impacts on the biosphere? Absolutely! Carbon is just a ruse, though. A very clever one, I'll give them -- the CO₂-O₂ cycle is enormously complex and dynamic and it is a situation in which they "win" regardless of what happens as long as they stick to the script -- but it is a power-grab at mankind's expense.

 

We should be much more worried about pollinators, for instance.

[gendao]

It isnt the EPA or any government agency that is going to save the climate.

 

It is the millions of companies that are competing for a better world.

I don't think the answer is either/or.  Millions of companies also destroy the environment.  And you can't tell me that the EPA does NOTHING good, either.  There's some baby and bathwater in both.

 

And even cleaner, cheaper energy is just a relative improvement.  Taken as a whole, it still degrades the planet due to all the processes needed to source raw materials and manufacture its products.

 

What free market incentive (profit motive) is there to stop deforestation or pollution?

 

Reality is, none.  That's why practically this entire country has been deforested over the past 200 years - because deforestation has actually been far more profitable, than preserving forests.

 

Which is why before regulations, companies trashed the environment even worse.  If you look at what happened around any of your local areas between WWII and the 1970s, companies were literally just dumping toxic wastes everywhere left and right.  Nobody (companies or mass consumers) gave a crap...  It took social activism and some government regulations to start abating some of that.  If it were simply left to the free market alone - the status quo would have stayed the status quo.  Which is why it had become the status quo to begin with - because that is what laissez-faire without any intervention evidently led to here in our WEIRD culture.

 

Realistic Libertarianism is about reducing government overreach, not eliminating all government or rules altogether.  Or do you want to drive around on freeways without traffic signals, driver licenses, and speed limits?  Hell, would safe freeways even be built soundly if they were completely privatized?

Edited March 9, 2017 by gendao

[Brian]

As an FYI, the US is slightly more than 1/3 forested. Here's a "by State" breakdown:

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

[MooNiNite]

Companies have a reputation to keep, especially in a competitive market.

It is the government that decides "too big to fail."

 

And even cleaner, cheaper energy is just a relative improvement.  Taken as a whole, it still degrades the planet due to all the processes needed to source raw materials and manufacture its products.

 

I think energy taken from the sun is more sustainable for the earth than energy processed from the earth, even if the initial components are harvested from the earth.

 

Deforestation is an interesting concern...

 

As technology increases

 

paper for information is being replaced. Just look at Kindle Books. Or online websites instead of the news papers. 

 

Wood used for heat, is also replaced by more efficient solar/ wind technology. Or how about new implementations of geothermal heating? Using the earth's heat?

 

The advancement of technology is curbing the destruction of the environment much more so than the EPA ever has. 

 

And the advancement of technology is in the hands of independent businesses. 

Edited March 9, 2017 by MooNiNite

[MooNiNite]

It's kind of sad how the same sort of thing still happens...

 

Truth still prevails. 

 

And now we wash our hands. 

[gendao]

As an FYI, the US is slightly more than 1/3 forested. Here's a "by State" breakdown:

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

Well, US forests have declined in both quantity and quality. Most original forests here have already been clear-cut long ago and secondary forests now are increasingly full of invasive species.

Since 1600, 90% of the old-growth forests that once were expansive over the Continental US have been burned, logged, and cleared away.

The USA has already experienced its wave of deforestation, with the exception of small areas in the west and Alaska. Our old growth forests were mostly harvested by 1920, particularly in the East. Pacific Northwest forests and UP Michigan forests were heavily cut after 1920 until quite recently, and harvest of old growth continues today in Southeast Alaska. Interestingly, deforestation rates at their peak in the Midwest were ~2% annually, about the rates now seen in Amazonia. At that rate, how much of existing forest will remain in 70 years? Just one-fourth. However, much forest re-growth has occurred in the eastern USA during the 20^th Century, although these second-growth forests differ in structure and composition from their predecessors.

North America has a history of dense forests. However, decades of agrarian activities, urban development, and other human actions deprived much of once-lush forest cover.

 

by contrasting the 1992 forest data versus 2001 mapped with the help of satellites.

The authors showed that in the nine years between the two given time frames, the nearest forest in the United States became far (further) off by a third of a mile.

The "forest attrition distance" is an index that reflects the loss of isolated forest patches, which the authors attributed to distancing from forests caused by the loss of forest patches. As the distance between forests increases, it takes a toll on biodiversity and adds to soil erosion, local climate, and other conditions.

Using the metrics, they ascertained the loss of total forest cover from 1992 to 2001 to be 3 percent which translates to 35,000 square miles.

Increasing urbanization from population growth is preventing the regrowth of many forests altogether - and even when they do, they are simply not the same. You cannot unring a bell - and magically restore all the native organisms that collectively formed each forest. A forest is not a forest. And that is the real shame - because once these massive genetic pools and living libraries of highly-diverse, heirloom lineages are lost, they can't simply be recovered. It's like killing "John Chang" and saying "who cares," because there were just 10 more kids born to "replace" him with...if a human is a human, and a tree is a tree?

Heck, when's the last time people here have even seen supposedly "common" North American wildlife like armadillos, wild turkeys, etc? Or foraged a native persimmon or red mulberry? And if so, how far did you have to drive to do it, lol?

Among native bee species with sufficient data to assess (1,437), more than half (749) are declining.

Nearly 1 in 4 (347 native bee species) is imperiled and at increasing risk of extinction.

Bee Lives Matter? Nope, not in WEIRD World! Edited April 24, 2017 by gendao

[Trunk]

... musical break ...