General

Trump rolls back endangered species act

«1345

Comments

  • edited November -1
    Stick to cars or maybe citydata
  • edited November -1
    I drive cars that preserve the environment. Destruction of the environment is a relevant crime to Tesla owners.
  • edited November -1
    No it’s relevant to you.
    And destruction is a matter of your opinion
    But your distortion field wants everyone to see it as a crime against humanity?
    Present the facts. Let each decide for themselves.
  • edited November -1
    Read the link
  • edited August 2019
    Yes tanks for the link
    Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said the changes would modernize the Endangered Species Act — which is credited with rescuing the bald eagle, the grizzly bear and the American alligator from the brink of extinction — and increase transparency in its application. “The act’s effectiveness rests on clear, consistent and efficient implementation,” he said in a statement Monday.

    If this “Change” does something reckless then by all means rally your legislators and protest,
    But change and transparency is desperately needed.

    And remember Nixon The vilified Republican was the one who signed this into law with many abuses since then
  • edited August 2019
    "Mr. Bernhardt, a former oil and gas lobbyist,"

    There you have it.
    Beyond disgusting.

    Follow the Effingham money!
  • edited August 2019
    @rhj

    Disgusting you want to support the destruction of the habitat for animals.

    Nice try at deflection BTW with your link.
  • edited August 2019
    rhi, don't you get it? Trump wants to kill all of the animals of the earth so he can stuff his pockets with dirty oil money. And if you don't think that, then you are a racist, sexist, homophobe!
  • edited August 2019
    nope. so sorry you are against critters. you are on the wrong side of history if you agree with anything donald does. it's just so obvious to smart people.

    fail.
  • edited August 2019
    Could be Trump's way of dealing with endangered animals. If they're dead, they're no longer endangered.
  • edited August 2019
    This promotes mining, drilling and development in sensitive habitats. I.e., more subsidies for fossil fuels and corporations plus increasing pollution and other externalities.
  • edited November -1
    Increased consumer activity promotes more mining of resources. If you want to reduce our impact on the planet, stop buying so much stuff. Reducing your consumption reduces the demand.
  • edited November -1
    @andy. Unfortunately there are many who care not for the environment and continue to use fossil fuels. The free market is a great way to control the economy. But at times a responsible government needs to intervene to ensure public safety and indeed the safety of the planet. This act was brought in to save species from extinction and it has. Examples would be the bald eagle, grizzly bear and the humpback whale. The claim is that these regulations cut red tape for businesses. The reality is that this is wanton destruction of species which upsets the ecosystem of the planet
    https://www.complex.com/life/2019/08/trum-administration-overhauls-endangered-species-act
  • edited August 2019
    Its not even just about fossil fuels. What i said is true about everything. Overconsuming leads to everything that we do not like about what is happening to the global environment.
  • edited August 2019
    "Could be Trump's way of dealing with endangered animals. If they're dead, they're no longer endangered."

    Kinda like the way he wants to handle anyone that is not WHITE. If he can just get them all to just go away there will be no more problems (his "perfect" world)
    He is sure NOT my president.
  • edited August 2019
    "If you want to reduce our impact on the planet, stop buying so much stuff. Reducing your consumption reduces the demand."
    "If you want to reduce our impact on the planet, stop buying so much stuff. Reducing your consumption reduces the demand." Do you mean individuals? Or all of us?

    Some individuals reducing consumption will have very little effect. We have large subsidies that encourage overconsumption of polluting fuels, chemicals and other stuff.

    Remove subsidies and internalize costs of externalities - very few companies or individuals can do this; it must be with government support. A fee & dividend approach would make it revenue neutral and give economic incentives to make better choices.
  • edited August 2019
    @teslu, check. And stop having babies (over population).

    @sosmerc, finally tired of bullshit Winning. Thank goodness.

    Not God. Good.
  • edited November -1
    Our we next? Ignoring the endangered species act at our peril.
    I seem to remember DDT and how it impacted the Bald Eagles and
    not to mention humans. Without the use of DDT as pesticide claim was
    we would not be able to feed ourselves. Ban in 1972 by the Nixon
    Administration.

    Ignoring rules that protect animals leads to repeat of Love
    Canal. Flint MI, Lake Erie burning and Beijing type air quality.
  • edited August 2019
    The person the lead the charge on eliminating DDT was Rachel Carson. She wrote
    Silent Spring which sold millions and help end DDT sales.

    Many believe the banning of DDT help the spread of malaria leading to the death of millions.

    Selective banning? More research? What's the solution in balancing nature with human life?
    Policy questions that need to be answered by the Sec of Interior.
  • edited August 2019
    @nwfan. In medicine we prescribe “poisons” to help people recognizing the potential harmful effects. It is a point of balancing the risks and benefits. If a condition is life threatening one needs to risk more consequence. If the condition is minimal zero risk will be tolerated. The same philosophy should apply to our food supply. I cannot judge DDT at the time as I did not have the whole picture then. It is possible that it was the right thing to do. Society is now more informed of the consequences of our actions and I believe we have safer alternatives than DDT. But I need to leave that to the experts in the field.
  • edited November -1
    Doesnt science show that natural selection and survival of the fittest is best? Species have come and gone throught the ages.
    Would you really want to have dinosaurs running around trying to eat you? Now they are all dead and we can use fossil fuels for our advantage to power equiptment to harvest and transport things so that humans can survive.
    The only species that we have to worry about replacing us is cockroaches, ants and mosquitos. As hard as you try to get rid of them, they keep coming back and they will eventually consume our corpses after we are gone!
  • edited August 2019
    Amazon has a good documentary worth watching "Love Thy Nature" with Liam Neesom. It beats the fake news.
  • edited August 2019
    @Tesla2018. Evolution and change are slow. But humans, other animals and plants are inter related. And when changes occur they impact everyone although some more than others. We adapt to slow changes. But sudden losses are devastating. Loss of crops or loss of animals leads to loss of others. As regards fossil fuels. We all survive by using the earth’s resources. But using too much again causes problems. Burning fossil fuels creates CO2. And small amounts can be dealt with. Large amount can not. And the excess CO2 that cannot be dealt with forms a greenhouse layer that traps heat and we get climate change. It dissolves in the ocean and acidifies it etc. etc. You have interesting thoughts but learning science will clarify this all. The main issue is excess that upsets the balance.
  • edited August 2019
    @tesla2018

    I’m shaking my head at the sheer unintelligent content in your post.

    You stupid moron, humans can wipe out all living things other than themselves if we desire.

    Would you want to live in such a world?

    Perhaps if we had less people like you, and more people who are empathetic and caring, the world would be a far better place.
Sign In or Register to comment.