[RD] The US Environmental Protection Agency

onejayhawk

Afflicted with reason
Joined
Jul 6, 2002
Messages
13,706
Location
next to George Bush's parents
A few days ago these were posted in the Trump 100 Days thread.

In case the image is not visible, a transcript: EPA's Back-to-basics agenda:
  • Protecting the environment
  • Engaging with partners
  • Sensible regulations for economic growth
Something does not quite compute.

As a matter of fact I was reading this just a few minutes ago and hadn't made a post on that.
I think that the EPA deleting its page on climate change is downright shameful.
He may be able to spell things out in more detail. The EPA is certainly a place where the new administration is having an impact. Elsewhere in the same thread, Takhasis referred to the "climate change crisis."

This raises a question in my mind. What has the EPA to do with climate change? Greenhouse gases seem far out of its purview, since they have zero impact on clean air and clean water. However, much of the reportage leads specifically to greenhouse gases. For example:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/politics/trump-has-epa-on-notice/index.html

J
 
Last edited:
It's in the name Evironmental Protection Agency
 
No I do not. You have to show that the EPA is only concerned with the air, excluding green house gases, and water.
Most people realise thet the EPA has more areas of activity than just air and water, it deals with the whole environment.
 
Well, what do the police and the FBI have to do with cybercrime ?
What does the US navy have to do with submarines, airplanes or missiles ?
What do American universities have to do with genetics, computer science or particle physics ?
Those were not A Thing when those institutions were created.
 
Supreme Court Ruled that CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act's definition because it may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
The EPA may deem carbon dioxide a pollutant, not must or even should so deem.

Well, what do the police and the FBI have to do with cybercrime ?
What does the US navy have to do with submarines, airplanes or missiles ?
What do American universities have to do with genetics, computer science or particle physics ?
Those were not A Thing when those institutions were created.
Meh. The cases are not parallel. Cybercrime is theft by fraud, for example. A submarine is a ship and a rocket propelled missile is a ship launched projectile. Carbon dioxide does not make the water less drinkable. Your last example works against your argument. Universities created new programs, sometimes new schools, to cover emerging fields. We do not study particle physics in the Philosophy department, even though the degree is Doctor of Philosophy.

I begin to comprehend the difficulty. It is starting to look like climate change is the tail that wags the dog. How much of the EPA's manpower and resources were directed toward climate change? If the Agency went back to only policing air and water for immediate issues, how much of a cutback would be entailed?

J
 
Carbon dioxide does not make the water less drinkable.

Increased flooding carrying topsoil into reservoirs makes water less drinkable.

Sea level rise leading to salt water intrusion does make water less drinkable.
 
The EPA may deem carbon dioxide a pollutant, not must or even should so deem.
You are correct in noting that. However the EPA has deemed it a pollutant for those reasons.

The fact is CO2 emission causes harm. Failure to regulate will result in increased harm in the future.

You should be on the side that wants to understand and manage this important issue not the side that wants to sweep it under the rug.
 
Interesting timing for the release of this study: The Long-Term Consequences of the Clean Air Act of 1970

Abstract
This paper examines the long-term impacts of early childhood exposure to air pollution on adult outcomes using US administrative data. We exploit changes in air pollution driven by the 1970 Clean Air Act to analyze the difference in outcomes between cohorts born in counties before and after large improvements in air pollution relative to those same cohorts born in counties that had no improvements. We find a significant relationship between pollution exposure in the year of birth and later-life outcomes. A higher pollution level in the year of birth is associated with lower labor force participation and lower earnings at age 30.

There is a reddit thread about it with commentary far more intelligent than mine.

While I don't think it's totally radical to imply that exposure to pollutants is a hazard for children and generally impacts their ability to fulfill their potential, it's nice to see some numbers that support such a claim.

I don't think "economic incentive" should matter when it comes to improving our collective health and ability to live on this world comfortably but I like the idea of being able to point to the economy as a reason for why environmental reform is good. Those who say it's an economic sham to invest in renewable resources and pollutant regulation have less room to make such an argument if it ends up being the case that economically speaking... it's the opposite.
 
Increased flooding carrying topsoil into reservoirs makes water less drinkable. Sea level rise leading to salt water intrusion does make water less drinkable.
These are speculative. They might occur in the future if the models are correct.

You are correct in noting that. However the EPA has deemed it a pollutant for those reasons. The fact is CO2 emission causes harm. Failure to regulate will result in increased harm in the future. You should be on the side that wants to understand and manage this important issue not the side that wants to sweep it under the rug.
So the EPA reverses itself. A minor issue, no?

You say that CO2 causes harm is a fact. In the near term, this is clearly false. Possible future harm is not effecting the water and air here and now.

J
 
You say that CO2 causes harm is a fact. In the near term, this is clearly false. Possible future harm is not effecting the water and air here and now.

This seems intellectually dishonest. How can you acknowledge there's "possible" future risk but definitively say there is no short term risk? Is this like smoking? One cigarette won't give you cancer but long-term use has a good chance of causing it?

Then, wouldn't it stand to reason that you could prevent this long term risk by not partaking in the supposedly safe short term?

This is also ignoring the fact that carbon dioxide is harmful. It's an asphyxiant. It traps heat in the atmosphere as all other greenhouse gases do. I am not sure how one can realistically claim that carbon dioxide has a null effect on the environment, be it locally or globally. Greenhouse gases act as a blanket for our planet. It would be illogical to assume one 'thickness' of blanket is the same as another.
 
These are speculative. They might occur in the future if the models are correct.

Who decides what models to accept.
Should we ignore all models.
Who will pay if the models are found to be more or less correct.
 
So the EPA reverses itself. A minor issue, no?
I'm not following on what you believe this real problematic reversal is. I await your elaboration.

You say that CO2 causes harm is a fact. In the near term, this is clearly false. Possible future harm is not effecting the water and air here and now.

J
So if I dump mercury into a river it's okay because it will take some time before it bioaccumulates in fish? What is the appropriate timetable here for harm?

And Ocean Acidification and Climate Change are already having impacts.
 
The reason so many conservatives don't get the EPA is that they don't get the concept of the private ownership of property. Which is what the EPA is based on, and what the EPA exists to enforce. These conservatives don't like or understand property for the same reason that they don't like or understand liberty or the rule of law. And that is because if you understand and approve of private property, then like liberty or law, it only works if it applies to everyone. And it's that part, the applying to everyone, that they have a fundamental problem with.

What EPA is basically saying is that you can't destroy someone else's property. What the opponents of EPA are saying is that it's OK to destroy other people's property. Because reasons. But the real reason is that to them only the elite should have property. No one else's has any value and no one not of the elite should be secure in their property. No more than they should be secure in their liberty or their rights under the law.

You can see that in the arguments that are being made. They are not making a liberty argument, not making a law argument, and not making a property argument. Instead they make the essentially fascist argument that environmental protections cut too much into economic growth. And that growing the economy is the higher priority, even when doing so means the confiscation and destruction of the property of the citizenry. And the destruction of the citizenry themselves.

Irony being, of course, that it won't result in greater economic growth.

But that irony is ignored because Crony Capitalism. Which in America today is the privileged aristocrats. So instead of the lords and barons of times past, who should not be taxed or regulated because of their special place in society, where they do so much for us, today we have the job creatorsCrony Capitalists who should not be taxed or regulated because of their special place in society, where they do so much for us.

Global warming is just part of the trend. The US Department of Defense thinks man made global warming is not just real, but a major risk to national security. The insurance industry thinks man made global warming is not just real, but a major risk to the economic future. It's real. Everyone except radical ideologues know that it's real. But they are opposed to doing anything about it because Crony Capitalism now matters more to them than the good of the country in the future.
 
Who decides what models to accept.
Should we ignore all models.
Who will pay if the models are found to be more or less correct.
President Trump through the Cabinet member in charge of the Agency.
Apparently so.
Nothing will be owing. Harsh but true.
I'm not following on what you believe this real problematic reversal is. I await your elaboration.
Unclear what you are asking. The Agency may have the power to treat CO2 as a pollutant but is not required to do so. Simple as that.

So if I dump mercury into a river it's okay because it will take some time before it bioaccumulates in fish? What is the appropriate timetable here for harm?
Not parallel. Be serious.

J
 
You say that CO2 causes harm is a fact. In the near term, this is clearly false. Possible future harm is not effecting the water and air here and now.

Wait, are you seriously arguing that we shouldn't plan for the long term in the interest of short term gain? If so, that's some bananas thinking right there.
 
Wait, are you seriously arguing that we shouldn't plan for the long term in the interest of short term gain? If so, that's some bananas thinking right there.
No I was not. I am arguing that it is not the job of this particular agency.

The EPA is part of the swamp the President wants to drain and climate change initiatives are the mucky water. The EPA's record on the job of monitoring air and water pollution has suffered badly. Their response time for information and permits is horrific. Things like five year waits for a simple permit that is supposed to be approved or disapproved in 30 days.

Job definitions for Agencies come from Congress. The EPA is mandated to monitor air and water pollution. The Trump administration is telling the EPA staff to do their job. Climate change is not that job. Never was. If the question is what Agency should have authority over climate change, check with Congress. It's their job to decide.

J
 
Last edited:
Congress has passed many laws which has expanded the scope of the EPA.

If the EPA does not carry out the expanded roles that Congress has directed it to do then the EPA and its Trump director will be open legal challenges and possibile damages.
 
Top Bottom