[RD] The US Environmental Protection Agency

If he said the truth and operated within the confines of the truth, sure, yeah, absolutely. The issue here is that as a coal rep he will be acting in the interests of the coal industry. The coal industry does not want to be made irrelevant. There is existing evidence that companies actively fund research and legislation that can be spun to their advantage or glosses over the impact of their product. Tobacco companies were notorious for this in the past.
The definition of a denier is someone that will hear the truth and refuse to believe it.

Assuming you're right that the scope of the Waters rule should be scaled back or repealed, I'm still not in support of such an act until a replacement is envisioned and put into legislature. That is my main gripe with Trump and those he has appointed. They are eager to repeal but rarely have an equivalent replacement or a replacement at all. The claim that the EPA is refocusing is a claim that won't be believed until it is true. What new regulation or bill has the EPA been responsible for placing forward since the regime change that would definitively reduce air or water pollution?
The Waters rule is a rule. It does not go to the legislature. The Presidential order is for a new rule to be proposed and opened for public comment. This is the usual path to take.

Though he has never said it in so many words, it is clear that Administrator Pruitt is of the opinion that climate change is not a crisis. That said, his actions on the Clean Power Plan seem to be motivated more toward removing restrictions from the coal industry. President Obama stated that he wanted to shut the coal industry down. The CPP has all the earmarks of a level in that process. It raises an ethical question.

Do we want the government to ever attempt to shut down a legal industry? If so, do we want it done by regulatory strangulation? Since you mention tobacco, it also raises the question.

J
 
Do we want the government to ever attempt to shut down a legal industry? If so, do we want it done by regulatory strangulation? Since you mention tobacco, it also raises the question.

J

I know a guy who was a professional hit man. He would like to have you speak on behalf of his industry, which the oppressive government has been attempting to shut down.

Now, before you say that you are talking about legal industries...I think the killing people aspect that is common should be the main criteria here.
 
Now, before you say that you are talking about legal industries...I think the killing people aspect that is common should be the main criteria here.

Indeed, I would wager that the coal industry probably kills far more people annually than the contract killer industry.
 
If it is found out that doing certain things hurt the environment and the population (or humanity as a whole), then yes, the government should most definately enact regulations, even if it hurts the industry. That is the entire purpose of all this.

There is an endless number of jobs and industries that went down either because they fell out of use or they were deemed unhealthy or damaging. Clinging to one of these, and preventing the government from protecting its own people from something that is obviously threatening them, is not gross nengligence anymore, it actively tries to hurt the people just so a few companies can make a bit more money. It's the epitome of greed.

If an industry cannot adapt, or makes it living from something that is dangerous to the population, tough luck. It's not the governments job to subsidize an industry that cannot keep up with reality. Republicans of all people should know that, seeing how that's exactly how they treat people. It's funny how they go out of their way to save rich companies, while poor people or even average workers get treated like dirt if they dare to ask for a bit of help.
 
If it is found out that doing certain things hurt the environment and the population (or humanity as a whole), then yes, the government should most definately enact regulations, even if it hurts the industry. That is the entire purpose of all this.
Indeed, I would wager that the coal industry probably kills far more people annually than the contract killer industry.
If the government wanted to make use of coal prohibited, should it not pass a law to that affect? This sort of attack is under the table. Regardless of that point, this sort of using regulations to harass a whole industry is exactly the swamp. By rolling back the regulations, President Trump is fulfilling his promise to drain the swamp.

J
 
If the government wanted to make use of coal prohibited, should it not pass a law to that affect? This sort of attack is under the table. Regardless of that point, this sort of using regulations to harass a whole industry is exactly the swamp. By rolling back the regulations, President Trump is fulfilling his promise to drain the swamp.

No, I'm pretty sure that rich people buying politicians and controlling the political system to their advantage (ie, coal industry killing profit-cutting regulations that would, incidentally, protect people's health and safety and slow greenhouse gas emissions) was the swamp. Trump has populated the swamp with monsters and demons and is also now in the process of making the swamp radioactive.
 
No, I'm pretty sure that rich people buying politicians and controlling the political system to their advantage (ie, coal industry killing profit-cutting regulations that would, incidentally, protect people's health and safety and slow greenhouse gas emissions) was the swamp. Trump has populated the swamp with monsters and demons and is also now in the process of making the swamp radioactive.
Fine. your opinion is noted. Bought politicians is tinfoil hat territory. Are you sure you want to go there?

Usually all money will buy is attention. If you pay enough to the right people, the politician in question will listen to your pitch, let you take pictures, and so on. Bill Clinton famously used the White House as a bed-and-breakfast. When you leave, your facts and logic has to be enough to sway the decision. But, he/she will at least give them a good look.

Back to the ethics. Isn't it dishonest to do by regulatory authority what you failed do by legislature?

J
 
The Waters rule is a rule. It does not go to the legislature. The Presidential order is for a new rule to be proposed and opened for public comment. This is the usual path to take.

Where is the new rule then? Where are all these refocused changes the new EPA is promising?

I see no positive value behind the repeals so long as it's just repeals. Tearing things down without so much as a glimmer of a new plan is nonsensical.
 
Fine. your opinion is noted. Bought politicians is tinfoil hat territory. Are you sure you want to go there?

Right, this ranks right up there with your denial that global warming constitutes a problem. Bought politicians are obvious.
Noted tinfoil hat wearers at the Roosevelt Institute have just released a study demonstrating it conclusively:
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/fifty-shades-green/

Some key conclusions:
The authors test five votes from 2013 to 2015, finding the link between campaign contributions from the financial sectorand switching to a pro-bank vote to be direct and substantial. The results indicate that for every $100,000 thatDemocratic representatives received from finance, the odds they would break with their party’s majority support for theDodd-Frank legislation increased by 13.9 percent. Democratic representatives who voted in favor of finance oftenreceived $200,000–$300,000 from that sector, which raised the odds of switching by 25–40 percent.

Back to the ethics. Isn't it dishonest to do by regulatory authority what you failed do by legislature?

That doesn't concern me in the slightest. It's called politics, or, alternately, playing the hand you're dealt. My concern is generally that what the Republicans want to do horrifies me, I don't pretend that how they do it is the primary issue (though sometimes how they do it is extremely concerning to say the least).
 
Where is the new rule then? Where are all these refocused changes the new EPA is promising? I see no positive value behind the repeals so long as it's just repeals. Tearing things down without so much as a glimmer of a new plan is nonsensical.
It cannot be just repealed. It must be replaced. Even a rule replacing the rule with nothing would be subject to public commentary.

This Presidential order was cited a page back.

Sec. 3. Definition of "Navigable Waters" in Future Rulemaking. In connection with the proposed rule described in section 2(a) of this order, the Administrator and the Assistant Secretary shall consider interpreting the term "navigable waters," as defined in 33 U.S.C. 1362(7), in a manner consistent with the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...er-restoring-rule-law-federalism-and-economic

In Rapanos a landowner filled a wet area with sand in preparation to building. He was over 20 miles from navigable waters, yet the EPA and Corps of Engineers cited him for violations. There was no definition of navigable waters extant at the time. Afterward, the CoE and EPA produced a 75 page rule detailing the reach of the term navigable waters. It would have included Mr. Rapanos' construction project. Even Justice Scalia's definition of navigable waters includes shallower headwaters and tributaries. A rule of thumb, if you can get to navigable waters by canoe, you are in navigable waters under the new rule.

That doesn't concern me in the slightest. It's called politics, or, alternately, playing the hand you're dealt. My concern is generally that what the Republicans want to do horrifies me, I don't pretend that how they do it is the primary issue (though sometimes how they do it is extremely concerning to say the least).
Just to be clear, you are saying that ethics are unimportant. It's win by any means available.

J
 
Back to the ethics. Isn't it dishonest to do by regulatory authority what you failed do by legislature?

J
Given that Trump has failed to sign any legislation of significance other than the budget deal he criticized and all of his other "accomplishments" have come by executive order and regulation, you may be onto something.
 
Given that Trump has failed to sign any legislation of significance other than the budget deal he criticized and all of his other "accomplishments" have come by executive order and regulation, you may be onto something.
That's basically right. There have been a number of acts passed. Most of them were to rescind pending regulation. That is low profile rather than unimportant. Still, it is all in the same vein. What Trump has done substanially is cut red tape and defund a lot of climate change initiatives. Other than that it has been a lot of meet and greet at the White House while SecState travels the world.

Unless and until we get a crisis, that may be the extent of things.

J
 
Well yeah, Trump hasn't yet learned to draft a substantial executive order that can withstand a Constitutional challenge.
 
It cannot be just repealed. It must be replaced. Even a rule replacing the rule with nothing would be subject to public commentary.

This Presidential order was cited a page back.

Sec. 3. Definition of "Navigable Waters" in Future Rulemaking. In connection with the proposed rule described in section 2(a) of this order, the Administrator and the Assistant Secretary shall consider interpreting the term "navigable waters," as defined in 33 U.S.C. 1362(7), in a manner consistent with the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...er-restoring-rule-law-federalism-and-economic

In Rapanos a landowner filled a wet area with sand in preparation to building. He was over 20 miles from navigable waters, yet the EPA and Corps of Engineers cited him for violations. There was no definition of navigable waters extant at the time. Afterward, the CoE and EPA produced a 75 page rule detailing the reach of the term navigable waters. It would have included Mr. Rapanos' construction project. Even Justice Scalia's definition of navigable waters includes shallower headwaters and tributaries. A rule of thumb, if you can get to navigable waters by canoe, you are in navigable waters under the new rule.

Interesting, to be sure, but this reply didn't answer what you quoted. What has the new EPA done besides tearing down preexisting things?
 
A rule of thumb, if you can get to navigable waters by canoe, you are in navigable waters under the new rule.
I must be missing something. What is strange about saying that if you can navigate the waters in a boat, you are in navigable waters?
 
Well yeah, Trump hasn't yet learned to draft a substantial executive order that can withstand a Constitutional challenge.
That one is still in the air. IIRC the hearings on the revised order are coming up shortly. Plus, SCOTUS may grant certiorari this time.

I must be missing something. What is strange about saying that if you can navigate the waters in a boat, you are in navigable waters?
Navigable refers to ships and barges, which require several feet of depth continuously along the route. For purposes of the EPA rule, headwater and tributaries fall under navigable water even if they are not themselves navigable. It becomes a question of where to draw the line.

Interesting, to be sure, but this reply didn't answer what you quoted. What has the new EPA done besides tearing down preexisting things?
They have not torn down anything. They have begun to create a new rule. Til that process is complete, the rules stays in place.

As a practical matter, the EPA can voluntarily use less jurisdiction than the rule allows. However, once the new rule is in place, it will bind future administrations until a similar process is complete.

J
 
Last edited:
Fine. your opinion is noted. Bought politicians is tinfoil hat territory. Are you sure you want to go there?

Usually all money will buy is attention. If you pay enough to the right people, the politician in question will listen to your pitch, let you take pictures, and so on. Bill Clinton famously used the White House as a bed-and-breakfast. When you leave, your facts and logic has to be enough to sway the decision. But, he/she will at least give them a good look.

Back to the ethics. Isn't it dishonest to do by regulatory authority what you failed do by legislature?

J

Unfortunately, in the brave new world of Dingbat Don, the opinion of the president will be an exact match to whoever had the last ten minute conversation with him, so just buying access is now sufficient.

By the way, where was this post back in the day when you were constantly babbling about how US foreign policy was for sale at the Clinton Foundation? Double standard much?
 
That one is still in the air. IIRC the hearings on the revised order are coming up shortly. Plus, SCOTUS may grant certiorari this time.

J
The revised travel ban has gotten struck down by courts and maybe Trump will push it to SCOTUS when he loses the appeals. The sanctuary city order should get struck down by SCOTUS if it gets there based on prior conservative anti-commandeering precedent.
 
The revised travel ban has gotten struck down by courts and maybe Trump will push it to SCOTUS when he loses the appeals. The sanctuary city order should get struck down by SCOTUS if it gets there based on prior conservative anti-commandeering precedent.
The key word is when, acknowledging your position is premature.

Don't feel too bad. Trump's people went off half cocked as well.

J
 
Top Bottom