Koko78 Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 22 minutes ago, ALF said: I don't believe anyone here supports making our air and water dirtier. I just don't see much resistance to the administration for 85 Environmental Rules being rolled back under Trump that affect clean air and water. Opinion is one thing , facts are important. Of those 85 regulations, how many were redundant? How many were necessary? How many were effective? What did they actually accomplish? 1
ALF Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 11 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Of those 85 regulations, how many were redundant? How many were necessary? How many were effective? What did they actually accomplish? Read the article and decide for yourself.
GG Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 (edited) 14 hours ago, ALF said: 85 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html So do you agree with the President ? ROLLBACKS COMPLETED ROLLBACKS IN PROCESS TOTAL ROLLBACKS Air pollution and emissions 10 14 24 Drilling and extraction 9 9 18 Infrastructure and planning 12 1 13 Animals 9 1 10 Toxic substances and safety 4 1 5 Water pollution 5 2 7 Other 4 4 8 The Times compilation is a 3rd or 4th hand account of the changes, and doesn’t actually detail the effects of the change and how it affects the environment. I’ll leave it to you to determine if the Times’ is biased in any way. I took a look at one of the regs cited, it dealt with reclassifying compliance requirement for chemical facilities that have reduced emissions and pollutants below the threshold levels. Under the old regs, the facilities were still bound under the stricter requirements, but under Trump the facilities who cleaned up would be subject to the same requirements as other cleaner facilities. It’s all in the perception, isn’t it? 3 hours ago, ALF said: Read the article and decide for yourself. The article is a compilation of the changes. It doesn’t address the regs themselves, nor Koko’s valid questions. Edited October 12, 2019 by GG
ALF Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 27 minutes ago, GG said: The Times compilation is a 3rd or 4th hand account of the changes, and doesn’t actually detail the effects of the change and how it affects the environment. I’ll leave it to you to determine if the Times’ is biased in any way It’s all in the perception, isn’t it? The article is a compilation of the changes. It doesn’t address the regs themselves, nor Koko’s valid questions. If I were a Environmental Scientist I might be able to answer those valid questions, but I'm not. It's a long article with a link to every item. It's a general take FWIW
GG Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 16 minutes ago, ALF said: If I were a Environmental Scientist I might be able to answer those valid questions, but I'm not. It's a long article with a link to every item. It's a general take FWIW That's the point. It's a generalized article from people with an agenda. 2 1
Koko78 Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 17 minutes ago, ALF said: If I were a Environmental Scientist I might be able to answer those valid questions, but I'm not. It's a long article with a link to every item. It's a general take FWIW A general take from the NY Times. The paper of record. A paper full of journalistic integrity! Staffed by teams of writers who would never spread less-than-accurate information, or intentionally put things out-of-context solely to trash the current administration. I'm convinced!
Bob in Mich Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 How did those regulations get put in place in the first place (rhetorical)? Were those Obama edicts or were they Congressional actions or where did they typically begin? If not edicts, at some point folks debated the need for these regs and thought they had some value, right? The problem I have is that Trump seems to view the economy as his sole scorecard. He acts as if the economy is good, he will be re-elected, and he is likely right. In my opinion, this is trading short term gain for long term pain. For example, I imagine dropping the child labor laws in this country would generate short term profits for some industries and look good for business profits initially but would leave our country with a generation of under educated, difficult to retrain workers. Promoting business growth over all else is bad policy.
Foxx Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 22 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: ... would leave our country with a generation of under educated, difficult to retrain workers. ... they're not under educated now?
DC Tom Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 1 hour ago, ALF said: If I were a Environmental Scientist I might be able to answer those valid questions, but I'm not. It's a long article with a link to every item. Probably a good time to point out that most of those regulations weren't written by environmental scientists anyway...
Bob in Mich Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 1 minute ago, Foxx said: they're not under educated now? Didn't say that actually. Certainly wide open for a different discussion. I was trying to make a point that placing business concerns uber alles is short sighted.
Koko78 Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 3 minutes ago, Foxx said: they're not under educated now? Can't have that. Ditch diggers need to be stupid so they keep voting Democrat.
IDBillzFan Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 1 hour ago, GG said: That's the point. It's a generalized article from people with an agenda. Gee, it's almost like you just described virtually every article about the reality of global warming cooling climate change climate crisis!
3rdnlng Posted October 12, 2019 Author Posted October 12, 2019 44 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Probably a good time to point out that most of those regulations weren't written by environmental scientists anyway... Lawyers writing environmental policy is made up for by MIT economists creating the ACA.
Albwan Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said: How did those regulations get put in place in the first place (rhetorical)? Were those Obama edicts or were they Congressional actions or where did they typically begin? If not edicts, at some point folks debated the need for these regs and thought they had some value, right? The problem I have is that Trump seems to view the economy as his sole scorecard. He acts as if the economy is good, he will be re-elected, and he is likely right. In my opinion, this is trading short term gain for long term pain. For example, I imagine dropping the child labor laws in this country would generate short term profits for some industries and look good for business profits initially but would leave our country with a generation of under educated, difficult to retrain workers. Promoting business growth over all else is bad policy. Why is this just a Trump issue...why is everyone dead silent on China on these same climate issues? This is just another weapon forged by the left to attack Trump. 1
Foxx Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 (edited) https://twitter.com/WWLTV/status/1183032346032922624 https://twitter.com/NOLAnews/status/1183057734306074625 Edited October 12, 2019 by Foxx
Koko78 Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 30 minutes ago, Foxx said: I'm not sure what's more disturbing, people driving around while recording it on their cell phones, or people who watch TV while recording it on their cell phones.
Azalin Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 (edited) 8 hours ago, Koko78 said: Of those 85 regulations, how many were redundant? How many were necessary? How many were effective? What did they actually accomplish? Exactly. How many are based in science, or even reality vs purely political motivation? Many regulatory benchmarks are set simply to allow officials to say that they imposed tighter regulations, many of which are nothing more than lip service to activists. 8 hours ago, ALF said: Read the article and decide for yourself. Dodge. You posted it, so you must find some validity in it, right? 5 hours ago, GG said: The Times compilation is a 3rd or 4th hand account of the changes, and doesn’t actually detail the effects of the change and how it affects the environment. I’ll leave it to you to determine if the Times’ is biased in any way. I took a look at one of the regs cited, it dealt with reclassifying compliance requirement for chemical facilities that have reduced emissions and pollutants below the threshold levels. Under the old regs, the facilities were still bound under the stricter requirements, but under Trump the facilities who cleaned up would be subject to the same requirements as other cleaner facilities. It’s all in the perception, isn’t it? The article is a compilation of the changes. It doesn’t address the regs themselves, nor Koko’s valid questions. Exactly. 4 hours ago, ALF said: If I were a Environmental Scientist I might be able to answer those valid questions, but I'm not. It's a long article with a link to every item. It's a general take FWIW General take or not, you ought to be able to back up your point with some kind of substance. 4 hours ago, GG said: That's the point. It's a generalized article from people with an agenda. 3 hours ago, DC Tom said: Probably a good time to point out that most of those regulations weren't written by environmental scientists anyway... 2 hours ago, Albwan said: Why is this just a Trump issue...why is everyone dead silent on China on these same climate issues? This is just another weapon forged by the left to attack Trump. The NYT would be all over China if they adopted Trump's environmental standards, despite the fact that his are far more responsible than theirs are currently. Edited October 12, 2019 by Azalin
Foxx Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Koko78 said: I'm not sure what's more disturbing, people driving around while recording it on their cell phones, or people who watch TV while recording it on their cell phones. what's disturbing is that it doesn't appear that we can build ***** anymore.
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 4 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: How did those regulations get put in place in the first place (rhetorical)? Were those Obama edicts or were they Congressional actions or where did they typically begin? If not edicts, at some point folks debated the need for these regs and thought they had some value, right? The problem I have is that Trump seems to view the economy as his sole scorecard. He acts as if the economy is good, he will be re-elected, and he is likely right. In my opinion, this is trading short term gain for long term pain. For example, I imagine dropping the child labor laws in this country would generate short term profits for some industries and look good for business profits initially but would leave our country with a generation of under educated, difficult to retrain workers. Promoting business growth over all else is bad policy. Child labor laws didn’t do the leg work to end child labor in the US, capitalism did. Almost all child labor had been eliminated prior to legislation being passed. Innovations which made workers more productive had eliminated the need for their labor in the economy. The only child labor those regulations eliminated was that of people in families living in poverty and orphans, two groups which depended on the ability to work to survive. 1
ALF Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Azalin said: Exactly. How many are based in science, or even reality vs purely political motivation? Many regulatory benchmarks are set simply to allow officials to say that they imposed tighter regulations, many of which are nothing more than lip service to activists. Dodge. You posted it, so you must find some validity in it, right? General take or not, you ought to be able to back up your point with some kind of substance. The NYT would be all over China if they adopted Trump's environmental standards, despite the fact that his are far more responsible than theirs are currently. You convinced me , Trump is the greatest savior of the environment in the history of mankind
Recommended Posts