Just to remind everyone about Scott Pruitt the new head of the EPA. This is what he had to say this weekhttp://nbcnews.to/2mF36wr
Did the voters vote for the Kochs agenda to be implemented? I think not.
And when it does it is called a flip-flopper.
I wish Trump and his regime would become flip-floppers
Maybe under Pruitt they'll take responsibility the next time they cause a major environmental disaster. You know, like dumping millions of gallons of toxic waste into a public waterway.
Dramsey - that's a HUGE maybe.
Yes the EPA was wrong to not fire someone over that leak. But does that warrant disbanding the whole thing? Or reducing it to being practically worthless?
I guess some people believe the free market solves everything. If human nature and greed wasn't part of that equation, then perhaps the free market would take care of the environment. But as we all know, human nature is a part of it.
Is there as yet any evidence to support your assertion that the EPA is going to be either disbanded, or rendered "practically worthless"?
I believe there's a strong role for the EPA to play, but I also believe it's been overly polictized and to some degree quite out of control.
He doesn't need to disband the EPA when he gets rid of legislation and hides sciencehttp://www.npr.org/2017/01/30/512445032/trump-acts-to-roll-back-regulati...https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-20/trump-removes-climate-change-whit...http://www.vox.com/2017/2/2/14488448/stream-protection-rulehttps://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-told-epa-remove-1555...
SO "Yes the EPA was wrong to not fire someone over that leak. But does that warrant disbanding the whole thing? Or reducing it to being practically worthless?" You have to understand it is not a "someone" but read this to help you understand the problem http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429803/flint-water-scandal-democra...
"I guess some people believe the free market solves everything." No, you are correct that the Govt needs to be involved in a SMALL part. But as Dramsey said, they are out of control. There has to be a balance.
Citing the National Review to prove a political assertion is like me proving an assertion to you with an op-ed from the Huffington Post.
rxlawdude +21 I agree
"Citing the National Review to prove a political assertion..."
You don't have to cite the National Review. You simply need to look at what the EPA has done. For example, not only did they dump 3 million gallons of toxic waste into a public waterway, they refused to pay a dime in remuneration:
(Gosh, they'd _like_ to, but that darned Federal Tort Claims Act...)
And unilaterally changing the definition of "navigable waterway" to include virtually any ditch with flowing water, even for just part of the year.
Don't forget former EPA head Lisa Jackson, who used multiple email accounts and fake names to evade public records disclosure requests under FIOA. She resigned in late 2012 while under investigation. No penalty of any sort, natch.
Not that transparency problems are anything new for the agency:
There are lots of other examples, but that's what Google's for. Basically, the EPA has a long history of granting itself ever-expanding authority, from designating new pollutants to expanding the physical area they have authority over. They've demonstrated a lack of accountability and transparency. They are far from the only Federal agency to be so afflicted, but it's a damn good place to start.
rxlawdude As said I agree but please tell us where the information was not correct.
I agree that the EPA has lost sight of it's goal - or has perhaps gotten close enough to it's goals that it's at a loss for what it should be doing (pray tell me what the Department of Education does again?).
However, we simply can't abolish it. I grew up in Los Angeles' air sewer in the '70s, and I don't want to go back to those times. We have mostly cleaned up what's left of our rivers and waterways, and have mostly stopped using them as convenient ways to get rid of poisons that would reduce profits if they had to be disposed of properly.
So how do we maintain the gains we've made, and finish the job of stopping people and companies from poisoning the rest of us in the name of convenience and profit? We can't do that by simply abolishing the EPA; with no focus on the goal, we'll revert to Beijing levels of pollution. Rather than a grunt of "bad" and leveling the EPA in retaliation, do you have a concept of how to go forward?
"So how do we maintain the gains we've made, and finish the job of stopping people and companies from poisoning the rest of us in the name of convenience and profit? We can't do that by simply abolishing the EPA; with no focus on the goal, we'll revert to Beijing levels of pollution. Rather than a grunt of "bad" and leveling the EPA in retaliation, do you have a concept of how to go forward?"
Well, the conservatives feel if they are not litigating, they aren't being paid attention to! So, let's google whatever bad things EPA has done. To what end? How about googling the GOOD things too? Compare results?
No... let's instead litigate. Attempt to paint the EPA as just a stooge of the hippies.
That's how we become great. Again.
@bigd, the article is so full of biased partisan crap it deserves no further comment. "The Democrats are organized crime syndicate.". Again, a partisan hack does not truth make. And blaming the Flint government for things outside their scope just ignores the fact that Republicans were responsible for Flint's poison water.
Perhaps a more balanced assessment. Bottom line is that those who were responsible should be taken to task including the EPA. But that does not seem like a logical reason to shut down the EPA. One needs someone to watch our environment. At the moment the fox is guarding the henhousehttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/15/whos-blame-f...
Just to remind you all. This is the role of the EPAhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_A...
@rxlawdude It's hard to take you seriously after you say this >>>>> it deserves no further commen<<<<
And you follow it with a comment.
@Jt. Nitpicking again??
@JT, I take every one of your lame comments as desperation. No facts, just spew.
"significant impact" on its water program. The governor at the time? Democrat Jennifer Granholm" Once again a republican has to go in and try to fix the problems from the democrats.
@bigd. Take off your tinted glasses. I clearly stated that whoever is guilty should take the consequences. Most liability probably lies with Snyder but he wasn't the only one. Again not a reason to get rid of the EPA. In fact a bigger reason to correct the problem and continue the EPA
allcapsguy "Most liability probably lies with Snyder" Nope he was trying to clean up the fiscal mess from his predecessor :-)
Loves those guys who clean up fiscal messes while allowing health messes.
I'm sure @bigd and @JT are all on board with the GOP health plan, which never promised coverage for all (as the PPACA attempted to do through incentives and penalties). Now, it's "you have access to health insurance."
Great, I have access to the Presidential Suite at a Trump hotel. I wouldn't spend the $1200/night.
This will be so fun. Waiting for the CBO numbers and the real anTi Party to vote in droves in '18. Meanwhile, let the GOP continue to wrap themselves in that hangin' rope.
Seems corruption and greed know no boundaries. Companies, banks, CIA, governments, presidents ...
How far back do you put human history? 6,000 or 12,000 years?
Industrialization about 200 years?
We have cut down half of the world's trees and at least 500 species may have gone for ever.
Cod, Salmon, Tuna how much longer will they last?
Our Orca whales in Puget Sound are starving to death. Star fish still absent from our local harbor. No sports fishing for Salmon last year in an attempt to save the salmon. Gold mine in Alaska will probably destroy the largest Salmon breeding grounds in the Americas.
you get my drift
Here is a summary of CBO estimate of Trump/Ryan carehttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39261503
China closed down over hundred coal power plants.
China leads the world in renewableshttps://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources
China spends 10% of what US spends on their military.
China moving away from fossil fuels and avoids US war for resources. They may well have energy independence before the US.
The only electric power plants bid the last two years in the US are solar or wind.
(that is true for most of the world, even in Dubai.)https://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/02/lowest-solar-price-dubai-800-mw-sol...
Plug-in electric vehicles by country