• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

67 Environmental Rules on the Way Out Under Trump

chaos789

Banned
Nov 21, 2012
789
370
505
More at link
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump-environment-rules-reversed.html

OVERTURNED
1. Revoked Obama-era flood standards for federal infrastructure projects
This Obama-era rule, revoked by Mr. Trump last August, required that federal agencies protect new infrastructure projects by building to higher flood standards. Building trade groups and many Republican lawmakers opposed it as costly and burdensome.

2. Rejected a proposed ban on a potentially harmful pesticide
Dow AgroSciences, which sells the pesticide chlorpyrifos, opposed a risk analysis by the Obama-era E.P.A. that found the compound posed a risk to fetal brain and nervous system development. Mr. Pruitt rejected the E.P.A. analysis, reversing the Obama-era efforts to ban the compound, arguing that it needed further study. In December of 2017 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a biological opinion that chlorpyrifos — along with two other pesticides, Diazinon and Malathion — are harmful to endangered salmon.

3. Lifted a freeze on new coal leases on public lands
Coal companies weren't thrilled about the Obama administration's three-year freeze pending an environmental review. Mr. Zinke, the interior secretary, revoked the freeze and review in March of 2017. He appointed members to a new advisory committee on coal royalties in September.

4. Canceled a requirement for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions
In March of 2017, Republican officials from 11 states wrote a letter to Mr. Pruitt, saying the rule added costs and paperwork for oil and gas companies. The next day, Mr. Pruitt revoked the rule.

5. Revoked a rule that prevented coal companies from dumping mining debris into local streams
The coal industry said the rule was overly burdensome, calling it part of a “war on coal.” In February last year, Congress passed a bill revoking the rule, which Mr. Trump signed into law.

6. Approved the Keystone XL pipeline
Republicans, along with oil, gas and steel industry groups, opposed Mr. Obama's decision to block the pipeline, arguing that the project would create jobs and support North American energy independence. After the pipeline company reapplied for a permit, the Trump administration approved it. In November, state regulators in Nebraska, where the pipeline would pass through, approved the project but rejected the pipeline company’s proposed route.

7. Approved the Dakota Access pipeline
Republicans criticized Mr. Obama for delaying construction after protests led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Mr. Trump ordered an expedited review of the pipeline, and the Army approved it. Crude oil began flowing in June, but a federal judge later ordered a new environmental review. The pipeline can continue to operate, but its owners must develop a spill response plan with federal and tribal officials near Lake Oahe in North Dakota, enlist third-party auditors and produce bimonthly reports.

8. Prohibited funding third-party projects through federal lawsuit settlements, which could include environmental programs
Companies settling lawsuits with the federal government have sometimes paid for third-party projects, like when Volkswagen put $2.7 billion toward pollution-fighting programs after its emissions cheating scandal. The Justice Department has now prohibited such payments, which some conservatives have called “slush funds.”

9. Repealed a ban on offshore oil and gas drilling in the Atlantic and Arctic oceans
Lobbyists for the oil industry were opposed to Mr. Obama's use of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently ban offshore drilling along parts of the Atlantic coast and much of the ocean around Alaska. Mr. Trump repealed the policy in an April 2017 executive order and instructed his interior secretary, Mr. Zinke, to review the locations made available for offshore drilling. In January the Trump administration opened nearly all United States coastal waters to offshore drilling.

10. Proposed the use of seismic air guns for gas and oil exploration in the Atlantic
Following a executive order in April last year known as the America-First Offshore Energy Strategy, the Trump administration began an application process to allow five oil and gas companies to survey the Atlantic using seismic air guns, which fire loud blasts that can harm whales, fish and turtles. The Obama administration had previously denied such permits.

11. Revoked a 2016 order protecting the northern Bering Sea region in Alaska
Mr. Trump revoked a 2016 order by Mr. Obama that was meant to protect the Bering Sea and Bering Strait by conserving biodiversity, engaging Alaska Native tribes and building a sustainable economy in the Arctic, which is vulnerable to climate change. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, has said she will work on new legislation that would reinstate the part of Mr. Obama’s order that required policies be vetted by the region’s tribes.

12. Repealed an Obama-era rule regulating royalties for oil, gas and coal
Lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry opposed 2016 Interior Department regulations meant to ensure fair royalties were paid to the government for oil, gas and coal extracted from federal or tribal land. In August of 2017, the Trump administration rescinded the rule, saying it caused “confusion and uncertainty” for energy companies.

13. Withdrew guidance for federal agencies to include greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews
Republicans in Congress opposed the guidelines, which advised federal agencies to account for possible climate effects in environmental impact reviews. They argued that the government lacked the authority to make such recommendations, and that the new rules would slow down the issuing of permits. Critics say that by eliminating the guidance, the administration is inviting lawsuits that could slow down permitting even more.

14. Relaxed the environmental review process for federal infrastructure projects
Oil and gas industry leaders said the permit-issuing process for new infrastructure projects was costly and cumbersome. In an August executive order, Mr. Trump announced a policy he said would streamline the process for pipelines, bridges, power lines and other federal projects. The order put a single federal agency in charge of navigating environmental reviews, instituted a 90-day timeline for permit authorization decisions and set a goal of completing the full process in two years.

15. Announced intent to stop payments to the Green Climate Fund
Mr. Trump said he would cancel payments to the fund, a United Nations program that helps developing countries reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. Mr. Obama had pledged $3 billion, $1 billion of which Congress has already paid out over the opposition of some Republicans.

16. Removed a number of species from the endangered list
Arguing that they no longer warranted protection, the Trump administration removed a number of species from the endangered and threatened species lists, including the Yellowstone grizzly bear, which the Obama administration had also proposed removing. While Republicans had long pushed to have the bears removed, environmentalists said the population had not yet recovered.

17. Overturned a ban on the hunting of predators in Alaskan wildlife refuges
Alaskan politicians opposed the law, which prevented hunters from shooting wolves and grizzly bears on wildlife refuges, arguing that the state has authority over those lands. Congress passed a bill revoking the rule, which Mr. Trump signed into law.

18. Withdrew proposed limits on endangered marine mammals caught by fishing nets on the West Coast
Under Mr. Trump, the National Marine Fisheries Service withdrew the proposed rule, noting high costs to the fishing industry and arguing that sufficient protections were already in place.

19. Stopped discouraging the sale of plastic water bottles in national parks
The National Park Service had urged parks to reduce or eliminate the sale of disposable plastic water bottles in favor of filling stations and reusable bottles. The International Bottled Water Association called the action unjustified.

20. Rescinded an Obama-era order to consider climate change in managing natural resources in national parks
The 2016 policy, which called for scientific park management, among other objectives, was contested by Republicans. In August, the National Park Service said it rescinded the policy to eliminate confusion among the public and National Park Service employees regarding the Trump administration’s “new vision” for America’s parks.

21. Revoked directive for federal agencies to mitigate the environmental impacts of projects they approve
In a March 2017 executive order, Mr. Trump revoked an Obama-era memorandum that instructed five federal agencies to “avoid and then minimize” the impacts of development on water, wildlife, land and other natural resources. The memo also encouraged private investment in restoration projects.

22. Directed agencies to stop using an Obama-era calculation of the “social cost of carbon”
As part of an expansive March 2017 executive order, Mr. Trump directed agencies to stop using an Obama-era calculation that helped rulemakers monetize the costs of carbon emissions and instead base their estimates on a 2003 cost-benefit analysis. Despite the federal rollback, several states, including New York and Minnesota, are using the Obama-era metric to help reduce emissions from their energy grids.

23. Revoked an update to the Bureau of Land Management's public land use planning process
Republicans and fossil fuel industry groups opposed the updated planning rule for public lands, arguing that it gave the federal government too much power at the expense of local and business interests. Congress passed a bill revoking the rule, which Mr. Trump signed into law.

24. Removed copper filter cake, an electronics manufacturing byproduct, from the “hazardous waste” list
Samsung petitioned the E.P.A. to delist the waste product, which is produced during electroplating at its Texas semiconductor facility. The E.P.A. granted the petition after a public comment period.

25. Reversed a proposed rule that mines prove they can pay for cleanup
Mining groups and Western-state Republicans opposed an Obama-era proposal that mining companies prove they have the money to clean up pollution left behind at their sites. Abandoned mines have left waterways polluted in many parts of the country. In December, the Trump administration rejected the proposed rule, saying it would impose an undue burden on rural America and on an important sector of the economy.

26. Withdrew a proposed rule reducing pollutants at sewage treatment plants
In December 2016, the E.P.A. proposed a rule requiring sewage treatment plants to further regulate emissions, which can include hazardous air pollutants, including formaldehyde, toluene and tetrachloroethylene.

27. Overturned ban on use of lead ammunition on federal lands
Mr. Zinke overturned the Obama-era order, which banned the use of lead ammunition and fish tackle on lands and waters managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service, citing lack of “significant communication, consultation or coordination with affected stakeholders.”

28. Amended fishing regulations for a number of species
After a push by commercial fishing groups, the Trump administration began to roll back regulations on catch limits and season openings for various species of fish, including gray triggerfish, while proposing to review rules for others.

29. Announced plans to rescind water pollution regulations for fracking on federal and Indian lands
Energy companies petitioned the Bureau of Land Management to rescind the rule, which was proposed by Mr. Obama in 2015 but never enforced because of legal challenges. In July, the bureau announced plans to revoke the rule, citing Mr. Trump's "prioritization of domestic energy production." At the end of December, the rule was officially rescinded. This year, conservation and tribal groups along with the state of California sued to block the repeal.

30. Rolled back an Obama-era policy aimed at protecting migratory birds
In December, Mr. Trump's administration reversed a statement that energy companies might face prosecution for accidentally killing birds while operating their facilities.

31. Rollled back the Department of Interior's climate and mitigation policies
Following a March 2017 executive order, the Department of the Interior rescinded Obama-era climate and mitigation policies and directed the Bureau of Land Management to review its mitigation strategies for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.

32. Overturned a Clinton-era rule designed to regulate industrial polluters
In January 2018, the E.P.A. issued new guidance overturning a Clinton-era regulation designed to regulate industrial polluters. Under the old rules factories and other facilities that released airborne pollutants above a set threshold were required to install technologies that reduced pollution to the maximum level achievable. They were also required to maintain these technological controls even if they dropped below the threshold level. The new rules overturn the requirement to maintain these controls.

33. Reversed an Obama-era rule that required braking system upgrades for trains carrying oil and ethanol
In December, the Department of Transportation said it could no longer justify Obama-era rules that required improved braking systems on “high hazard” trains hauling flamabale liquids. The rules were designed to help prevent accidents like the 2013 train derilment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, that killed 47 people. That train, carrying crude oil, derailed in Lac-Mégantic's downtown, where it caught fire and exploded. The rule had been opposed by the railroad and oil industries as costly and unnecessary.

IN PROGRESS
34. Proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan
Coal companies and Republican officials in many states opposed the plan, which set limits on carbon emissions from existing coal- and gas-fired power plants. Mr. Trump issued an executive order in March last year instructing the E.P.A. to re-evaluate the plan, which had not taken effect. In October, the E.P.A. proposed repealing the plan without a replacement. In December, however, the department published a notice proposing a rule that would replace the plan . The comment period for the replacement proposal was slated to end in February, but has been extended through April 26th.

35. Announced intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement
Arguing that it tied his hands in matters of domestic energy policy, Mr. Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris accord, under which the United States had pledged to cut emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The Trump administration has formally notified the United Nations of its intent to withdraw, but it cannot complete the process until late 2020. The United States is the only country in the world opposed to the agreement.

36. Reopened a review of fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks
Automakers said it would be difficult and costly to meet fuel economy goals they had agreed upon with the Obama administration. Under Mr. Trump, the E.P.A. and Department of Transportation have reopened a standards review for model years 2021 through 2025. The administration is also considering easing penalties on automakers who do not comply with the federal standards.

37. Proposed reopening nearly all U.S. waters for oil and gas drilling
The fossil fuel industry and Republican lawmakers pushed Mr. Zinke to revise a five-year offshore oil and gas leasing plan finalized by the Obama administration. The Obama-era plan put 94 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf off limits to drilling. Mr. Zinke's initial plan would open up over 90 percent of the area, but several states are now seeking exemptions.

38. Recommended shrinking or modifying 10 national monuments
Republicans in Congress said the Antiquities Act, which allows presidents to designate national monuments, had been abused by previous administrations. Mr. Obama used the law to protect more than 4 million acres of land and several million square miles of ocean. Mr. Trump ordered a review of recent monuments, culminating in proclamations that shrank two Utah sites, reducing Bears Ears National Monument by 85 percent and Grand Staircase-Escalante almost by half. At least five lawsuits are challenging the modifications.

39. Reviewing 12 marine protected areas
As part of his April executive order aimed at expanding offshore oil and gas drilling, Mr. Trump called for a review of national marine sanctuaries and monuments designated or expanded within the past decade. In June, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that 12 protected marine areas were under review. In his recommendation to the president, Mr. Zinke, the interior secretary, called for introducing commercial fishing in three protected marine areas: Rose Atoll, in the South Pacific; Pacific Remote Islands, to the south and west of Hawaii; and Northeast Canyons and Seamounts, off the coast of New England.

40. Reviewing limits on toxic discharge from power plants into public waterways
Utility and fossil fuel industry groups opposed the rule, which limited the amount of toxic metals — arsenic, lead and mercury, among others — power plants could release into public waterways. Industry representatives said complying with the guidelines, which were to take effect in 2018, would be extremely expensive. In September, Mr. Pruitt postponed the rule until 2020.

41. Reviewing rules regulating coal ash waste from power plants
Utility industry groups petitioned to change the rule, which regulates how power plants dispose of coal ash in waste pits that are often located near waterways. In December, the E.P.A. proposed technical changes to the rule, as well as alternative performance standards. In January, the E.P.A. accepted an application from Oklahoma seeking state regulatory control over its coal ash instead of E.P.A. control.

42. Reviewing emissions standards for new, modified and reconstructed power plants
In addition to the Clean Power Plan, Mr. Trump's Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence called on the E.P.A. to review a related rule limiting carbon dioxide emissions from new, modified and reconstructed power plants.

43. Reviewing emissions rules for power plant start-ups, shutdowns and malfunctions
Power companies and other industry groups sued the Obama administration over the rule, which asked 36 states to tighten emissions exemptions for power plants and other facilities. The E.P.A. under Mr. Trump asked the court to suspend the case while the rule undergoes review.

44. Announced plans to review greater sage grouse habitat protections
Oil and gas industry leaders criticized the Obama administration's plan, developed in coordination with thousands of stakeholders, for protecting the bird, whose numbers have plummeted in recent years. In July, the Bureau of Land Management issued recommendations that gave states greater latitude than the original plan. In December, The B.L.M. ended Obama-era rules that prioritized putting oil and gas drilling projects and grazing habitats outside of sage grouse habitat. The policy shifts led to an increase in federal leasing in sage grouse habitat in Wyoming at the end of 2017. In the first quarter of 2018, the agency is expected to offer seven times more sage grouse habitat for leasing in Wyoming compared to the same quarter in 2017.

45. Ordered review of regulations on oil and gas drilling in national parks where mineral rights are privately owned
Mr. Trump’s March executive order called for a review of Obama-era updates to a 50-year-old rule regulating oil and gas drilling in national parks with shared ownership. (Most national parks are owned solely by the government, and drilling in them is banned. In some parks, though, the government owns the surface but the mineral rights are privately held.)

46. Reviewing new safety regulations on offshore drilling
The American Petroleum Institute and other trade groups wrote to the Trump administration, raising concerns over oil rig safety regulations implemented after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. In August, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement confirmed it was moving forward with the review. Mr. Trump had ordered a review of the rules earlier in the year.

47. Ordered a review of a rule regulating offshore oil and gas exploration by floating vessels in the Arctic
As part of the expansive executive order on offshore drilling, Mr. Trump called for an immediate review of a rule intended to strengthen safety and environmental standards for exploratory drilling in the Arctic. The rule, a response to the 2013 Kulluk accident in the Gulf of Alaska, increased oversight of floating vessels and other mobile offshore drilling units.

48. Proposed ending a restriction on exploratory drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Republicans have long sought to to open the Alaska refuge to gas and oil drilling. In August, an Interior Department internal memo proposed lifting restrictions on exploratory seismic studies in the region, which is home to polar bears, caribou and other Arctic animals. In December, Republicans in Congress lifted the decades-old ban on drilling in the refuge as part of a sweeping tax bill. President Trump signed the bill into law on Dec. 22.

49. Ordered a review of federal regulations on hunting methods in Alaska
Obama-era rules prohibited certain hunting methods in Alaska’s national preserves. They overruled state law, which had allowed hunters to bait bears with food, shoot caribou from boats and kill bear cubs with their mothers present. Alaska sued the Interior Department, claiming that the regulations affected traditional harvesting. The Trump administration ordered a review.

50. Proposed repeal of a requirement for reporting emissions on federal highways
Transportation and infrastructure industry groups opposed a measure that required state and local officials to track greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles on federally funded highways. The rule took effect in September, after the Trump administration's attempts to postpone it were challenged in court. But the administration formally proposed reversing the rule the next week.

51. Proposed a repeal of emissions standards for trailers and glider kits
Stakeholders in the transportation industry opposed the Obama-era rule, which for the first time applied emissions standards to trailers and glider vehicles. They argued that the E.P.A. lacked the authority to regulate them, because their products are not motorized. In November, the E.P.A. proposed repealing the standards.

52. Suspended rule limiting methane emissions on public lands
The oil and gas industry opposed the rule, which required companies to control methane emissions on federal or tribal land. The House voted this year to revoke the rule, but the Senate rejected the measure, 51 to 49. In December, after a series of legal challenges, the Bureau of Land Management published a notice in the Federal Register delaying the requirements for a year. A coalition of environmental groups has sued the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior over the delay.
 

ilfait

Member
Jan 23, 2018
777
658
385
Terrible if it's as they say.

It's on issues like these that Trump should be attacked. Not the made-up inconsequential nonsense they usually try to pin on him.
 

NESguy5881

Banned
May 26, 2018
22
24
30
I refuse to believe the climate change fairy tale. Just another tactic used by the left to garner fear and gain control over the average person. Thank God for President Trump cleaning up dumbama's mess.
 

ilfait

Member
Jan 23, 2018
777
658
385
I refuse to believe the climate change fairy tale. Just another tactic used by the left to garner fear and gain control over the average person. Thank God for President Trump cleaning up dumbama's mess.
A fairly tale that nearly every expert in the field agrees is true. What's your evidence against the scientific consensus?
 

LegendOfKage

Member
Mar 6, 2018
3,560
5,202
735
I refuse to believe the climate change fairy tale. Just another tactic used by the left to garner fear and gain control over the average person. Thank God for President Trump cleaning up dumbama's mess.

Hypothetically speaking, even if climate change is a fairy tale, we still need clean air and clean water. We still need regulations on this sort of thing.
 

Rudelord

Member
Jun 11, 2013
524
333
570
I refuse to believe the climate change fairy tale. Just another tactic used by the left to garner fear and gain control over the average person. Thank God for President Trump cleaning up dumbama's mess.
Assuming it even is a fairy tale (it's not, the point of contention is how much we affect it), you still do need some regulations in play for keeping the water and air clean and keeping endangered species safe.
 

TrainedRage

Boss Blue Balls
Feb 3, 2018
8,998
13,862
1,080
35
USA
Good, states should control the natural resources of said state. Not be mandated by outdated federal law. Im for anything that takes away centralized power from the government.
Not to mention is usually conservationists/hunters that do the most state by state to help the environment.
 

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,583
48,091
1,610
He/him
I can’t speak for many of those regulation repeals but the coal one is a good thing. I can actually speak on this with some authority since I’m in the mining industry. US thermal coal is generally a lot cleaner and subject to tighter processing regulations than alternative producers like Indonesia. Reducing US coal production does nothing to address climate change because all you’re doing is tinkering the supply end. The demand remains the same, so other producers pick up the supply slack and the US misses out on an enormous source of taxes and royalties.

It’s global warming, not local warming. If you truly want to address it, you need to target the demand end of the system (China and India). Also part of why the Paris climate deal was awful for the US: even more penalties and regulations while China and India go untouched. Trump was 100% right on that.
 

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,583
48,091
1,610
He/him
I refuse to believe the climate change fairy tale. Just another tactic used by the left to garner fear and gain control over the average person. Thank God for President Trump cleaning up dumbama's mess.

No, climate change is definitely real, but the proposed solutions are generally awful and politically motivated. We can’t just release mass amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and expect nothing to happen. Action-reaction, etc. I don’t believe the rate of change is as urgent as reported though.

Coal needs to be phased out over time but the idiot politicians who want to turn the tap off overnight are looking for political points, not sustainable solutions. The most sustainable approach would be to invest in carbon capture technology so we can continue to burn coal in the short term while renewable energy technology improves in the long term. I’ve asked this question to some of the loud activist environmentalist types and none of them can give me a reasonable answer because they’re ideologically motivated. If we can burn the coal and stop the carbon from releasing into the atmosphere, is coal still an environmental issue?
 

Blood Borne

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,612
2,770
505
A fairly tale that nearly every expert in the field agrees is true. What's your evidence against the scientific consensus?
There's no democracy in science. Science is about facts. There's no most people believe that 2 + 2 = 4 or that most experts agree that there's gravity. FACT IS FACT. Consensus is not fact.
 

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,583
48,091
1,610
He/him
Terrible if it's as they say.

It's on issues like these that Trump should be attacked. Not the made-up inconsequential nonsense they usually try to pin on him.

You posted this 8 minutes after the OP went up. Assuming you’re some kind of world record speed reader and got through the whole article in that time, how many of the issues did you understand? I’m sure some of the repeals were good, like the coal one I addressed above, while others were probably not good. I don’t understand all of the issues well enough to criticise them all, but it’s generally not as clear cut as the flashy headlines indicate.
 

ilfait

Member
Jan 23, 2018
777
658
385
You posted this 8 minutes after the OP went up. Assuming you’re some kind of world record speed reader and got through the whole article in that time, how many of the issues did you understand? I’m sure some of the repeals were good, like the coal one I addressed above, while others were probably not good. I don’t understand all of the issues well enough to criticise them all, but it’s generally not as clear cut as the flashy headlines indicate.
I didn't read many of them and my post wasn't meant as a criticism of every repeal. For all I know most of them could be good, and even the ones that struck me as bad could be a result of me not knowing the details of the issue. But like I said, these are the kinds of issues--real issues of consequence--that Trump should be attacked on, or at the very least heavily scrutinized about, because they're important, and he generally seems to be too cavalier when it comes to the environment. If I had any power to influence policy then I'd carefully read through all the repeals and any pertinent expert opinions, but I don't, so I don't.
 

ilfait

Member
Jan 23, 2018
777
658
385
There's no democracy in science. Science is about facts. There's no most people believe that 2 + 2 = 4 or that most experts agree that there's gravity. FACT IS FACT. Consensus is not fact.
So until every expert instead of 95% of experts agree, and it's 100% provable and undeniable, we should act under the assumption that they're wrong?
 
Last edited:

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,120
2,017
1,180
I feel like Trump supporters are giving up way too much in order to stay in allegiance to trump.
 

pramod

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,727
3,249
695
67 revoked and we still have what 15000 other regulations? I think we will survive.
 

michaelius

Member
Jan 5, 2012
16,035
1,899
935
There's no democracy in science. Science is about facts. There's no most people believe that 2 + 2 = 4 or that most experts agree that there's gravity. FACT IS FACT. Consensus is not fact.

Science is fueled by money. Can't make research without government or private funding and people giving funding expect results.

Still this looks like very worrying list - it isn't regulations like EU nonsence where they reduce power of of vacuum cleaners
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,120
2,017
1,180
Care to elaborate or will you continue to throw out vague accusations to get your daily anti-Trump high?

Destroyed relationships with the EU, NATO, bolsters russia. That alone is too much to to support without criticism.

Complete failure at trade which costs jobs, net negative and soured relationships.

Swamp growing stronger than ever before as he benefits the wealthy far more than anyone else.

The self-serving ZTE fiasco that Congress stepped in on.
 
Last edited:

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,583
48,091
1,610
He/him
Destroyed relationships with the EU, NATO, bolsters russia. That alone is too much to to support without criticism.

Complete failure at trade which costs jobs, net negative and soured relationships.

Swamp growing stronger than ever before as he benefits the wealthy far more than anyone else.

The self-serving ZTE fiasco that Congress stepped in on.

Maybe

lol wat

wat

wat
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,120
2,017
1,180
Maybe

lol wat

wat

wat

We are losing at least 5 jobs to every 1 we gain from tariffs, but that's the low side. Trumps strat is to use our strong economy to weather the storm meanwhile there's collateral damage of real American jobs. That should not be tolerated without knowing the predicted results.

Perm tax cuts for rich, yours expire. The wealthy got the best tax perks too, per usual.

Trump tried to benefit from ZTE spy/fine fiasco but got blocked. All you got was a company promising not to spy on citizens anymore.
 

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,583
48,091
1,610
He/him
We are losing at least 5 jobs to every 1 we gain from tariffs, but that's the low side. Trumps strat is to use our strong economy to weather the storm meanwhile there's collateral damage of real American jobs. That should not be tolerated without knowing the predicted results.

Perm tax cuts for rich, yours expire. The wealthy got the best tax perks too, per usual.

Trump tried to benefit from ZTE spy/fine fiasco but got blocked. All you got was a company promising not to spy on citizens anymore.

Citation needed for your jobs figures. I think the strategy on tariffs will pay off in the long run. There will be some short term pain while China and the Love Guru try to call Trump’s bluff but the US is ultimately bargaining from a position of power. It’s too early for you to say it has failed.

I don’t buy into the tax mentality of the le Reddit types who like to sneer and paint any corporate tax cut as trickle-down Reaganomics. It’s the same socialist mindset that makes people to want to redistribute wealth rather than create it. Lower corporate tax rates will be important in staving off the corrosive effects of automation technology on the job market. Who cares if we create a few billionaires if you have a job that keeps you above the poverty line?

The ZTE thing hasn’t even fully played out yet so I’m not sure why you’re calling that out now. Keep your powder dry until you have all the details my man.

The EU/NATO stuff I don’t know enough about to comment so maybe you’re right on that.
 

Arkage

Banned
Sep 25, 2012
2,947
1,906
885
I'm trying to find the positive side to being able to dump waste into streams and I can't think of one.

That's because you're not thinking like a corporation who's entire existence depends upon profit margins. It's much cheaper for corporations to be able to dump horrible chemicals and waste into streams than it is to properly process and contain it. For every acre of wetlands they destroy, one shitty American job is saved. Praise be.

This strategy will undoubtedly fuck over all the non-elite rich in the end, but if you're wealthy enough you can live in a rich secluded area that didn't get polluted while your company raked in profits for you.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,120
2,017
1,180
Citation needed for your jobs figures. I think the strategy on tariffs will pay off in the long run. There will be some short term pain while China and the Love Guru try to call Trump’s bluff but the US is ultimately bargaining from a position of power. It’s too early for you to say it has failed.

Wait, so why is collateral damage a good thing? Ends justify the means? That's possibly giving up a lot. I dont even know what to expect from all of this, nor does Trump. That's wild to me. Now on the jobs, almost universally economists and analysts back up the losses, just run a quick google search to get the hard predictions. 146k steel, 400k escalated tariffs, etc.

On tax cuts and spending I'm tired of the principal: The rich will do more with more, while the rest will do more with less.
 
Last edited:

TheShadowLord

Member
Jan 7, 2018
2,700
1,223
565
It’s global warming, not local warming. If you truly want to address it, you need to target the demand end of the system (China and India). Also part of why the Paris climate deal was awful for the US: even more penalties and regulations while China and India go untouched. Trump was 100% right on that.
https://www.wired.com/story/china-wont-solve-the-worlds-plastics-problem-any-more/

China will start be calling for a ban on plastics. As mentioned in the article, countries from parts of the world send their plastic to China. China is at least making progress in regards to reduce air pollution and it appears India would be on the top spot.
 
Last edited:

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,583
48,091
1,610
He/him
Wait, so why is collateral damage a good thing? Ends justify the means? That's possibly giving up a lot. I dont even know what to expect from all of this, nor does Trump. That's wild to me. Now on the jobs, almost universally economists and analysts back up the losses, just run a quick google search to get the hard predictions. 146k steel, 400k escalated tariffs, etc.

On tax cuts and spending I'm tired of the principal: The rich will do more with more, while the rest will do more with less.

Because short term collateral damage to the economy as a result of a trade war and collateral damage to individual freedom as a result of Antifa indiscriminately punching people they deem nazis (in reality, getting punched by) are not comparable (I assume you are referencing that Antifa thread here). The burden of proof is on you to provide me with your sources, not tell me to do a google search and find my own.
 

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,583
48,091
1,610
He/him

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,120
2,017
1,180
Because short term collateral damage to the economy as a result of a trade war and collateral damage to individual freedom as a result of Antifa indiscriminately punching people they deem nazis (in reality, getting punched by) are not comparable (I assume you are referencing that Antifa thread here). The burden of proof is on you to provide me with your sources, not tell me to do a google search and find my own.

I'm not talking about antifa.

The ends justifying the means on tariffs
is a scary thought. That's running blind, and we do not have a goal or expectations.

Now on the sources it's a general consensus, and it's bad news everywhere, even if say it's exaggerated. There's a million articles, and the real studies back up losses.

http://time.com/money/5322347/trump-tariffs-jobs/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...e-first-layoffs-from-trumps-tariffs-are-here/
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/business/automakers-tariffs-job-cuts.html
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tariffs-trade-job-loss-961988
http://fortune.com/2018/03/06/trump-steel-aluminum-tariffs-cost-jobs/
 
Last edited:
Nov 13, 2016
2,187
2,368
465
I don't know much about Trump's or previous president's policies regarding the environment, and I haven't read every single point on this list (sorry!) but this is one of the points I greatly disagree with Trump. I think it's time we start prioritizing sustainability and yes, we'll have to sacrifice companies' profits and everyone's convenience to achieve this. Even if some of these rules are in fact good, as someone mentioned before, there's still dozens that suck. That's no good. It's weird that a concervative party wouldn't want to concerve the most basic thing required for all life. Even if you think global warming is false.

That's not to say most other countries are doing any better. They're all just nodding their heads during these meeting when they're think up some new international standard, but in the end hardly anything comes of it. A shameful display.
 
Last edited:

Fox Mulder

Member
Jul 1, 2009
18,548
2,131
1,100
Greensboro, NC
19. Stopped discouraging the sale of plastic water bottles in national parks
The National Park Service had urged parks to reduce or eliminate the sale of disposable plastic water bottles in favor of filling stations and reusable bottles. The International Bottled Water Association called the action unjustified.

there really is a a lobby group for everything.

Even if global warming was proven to be a huge myth that required countless people to pull off, I still don't want polluted skies like China or corporations dumping shit in rivers like Mr Burns.
 
Last edited:

404Ender

Member
Jun 17, 2006
3,839
300
1,385
There's no democracy in science. Science is about facts. There's no most people believe that 2 + 2 = 4 or that most experts agree that there's gravity. FACT IS FACT. Consensus is not fact.

No, the scientific community embraces the fact that it doesn’t know many/most things with any kind of certainty. This is literally what the scientific method is about.

Scientists continually test, re-examine, refine and reaffirm, or completely rethink existing assumptions and build them into general theories (like relativity, evolution, etc). All based on a steady stream of newly collected evidence and observations. Nothing is taken for granted as “certain”. The best we can get is a general consensus when dealing with and attempting to model complicated and sophisticated systems.

Also it’s interesting that you chose gravity as an example, considering all that we’ve learned in recent years about dark matter, gravitational waves and gravitons that have challenged our existing assumptions and generated alternative theories of how gravity works and behaves in the universe.
 
Last edited:

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,583
48,091
1,610
He/him
I'm not talking about antifa.

The ends justifying the means on tariffs
is a scary thought. That's running blind, and we do not have a goal or expectations.

Now on the sources it's a general consensus, and it's bad news everywhere, even if say it's exaggerated. There's a million articles, and the real studies back up losses.

http://time.com/money/5322347/trump-tariffs-jobs/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...e-first-layoffs-from-trumps-tariffs-are-here/
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/business/automakers-tariffs-job-cuts.html
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tariffs-trade-job-loss-961988
http://fortune.com/2018/03/06/trump-steel-aluminum-tariffs-cost-jobs/

Interesting timing since collateral damage just came up in the Antifa thread.

I think a lot of this stuff has come about from unsustainable economic policy in the past, i.e. kicking the can down the road for short term gain and political points. Meanwhile, the underlying economic structure has allowed China to make significant advances at the expense of the US. I do not want China to become the dominant world power.

All of the articles you linked point to a small number of short term job losses but are coy on the long term effects. Nobody knows what's going to happen as it all depends on how China responds. We just don't know the outcome yet, but I am optimistic that the US will win a trade war.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,120
2,017
1,180
Interesting timing since collateral damage just came up in the Antifa thread.

I think a lot of this stuff has come about from unsustainable economic policy in the past, i.e. kicking the can down the road for short term gain and political points. Meanwhile, the underlying economic structure has allowed China to make significant advances at the expense of the US. I do not want China to become the dominant world power.

All of the articles you linked point to a small number of short term job losses but are coy on the long term effects. Nobody knows what's going to happen as it all depends on how China responds. We just don't know the outcome yet, but I am optimistic that the US will win a trade war.

It's China, NAFTA, and the EU so far. And win what exactly? What is a win? What if we lose far more than we gain as likely to happen?
 

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,583
48,091
1,610
He/him
It's China, NAFTA, and the EU so far. And win what exactly? What is a win? What if we lose far more than we gain as likely to happen?

If you lose far more than you gain, it's not a win. Duh.

The win would be the US maintaining its position as the predominant global superpower. Culturally, I am well and truly on Team America. Fuck yeah.
 

NESguy5881

Banned
May 26, 2018
22
24
30
So until every expert instead of 95% of experts agree, and it's 100% provable and undeniable, we should act under the assumption that they're wrong?
They're very wrong. They are paid large sums of money to come to these "conclusions". Modern day science is just like everything else......all about the money.
 

ssolitare

Manbaby: The Member
Jan 12, 2009
17,120
2,017
1,180
If you lose far more than you gain, it's not a win. Duh.

The win would be the US maintaining its position as the predominant global superpower. Culturally, I am well and truly on Team America. Fuck yeah.

But we already are, we're the reserve currency.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
5,700
10,261
910
No, the scientific community embraces the fact that it doesn’t know many/most things with any kind of certainty. This is literally what the scientific method is about.

Scientists continually test, re-examine, refine and reaffirm, or completely rethink existing assumptions and build them into general theories (like relativity, evolution, etc). All based on a steady stream of newly collected evidence and observations. Nothing is taken for granted as “certain”. The best we can get is a general consensus when dealing with and attempting to model complicated and sophisticated systems.

Also it’s interesting that you chose gravity as an example, considering all that we’ve learned in recent years about dark matter, gravitational waves and gravitons that have challenged our existing assumptions and generated alternative theories of how gravity works and behaves in the universe.

Absolutely correct. Our theories change as we gain new information, however for the sake of the argument that was proposed here:

I refuse to believe the climate change fairy tale. Just another tactic used by the left to garner fear and gain control over the average person. Thank God for President Trump cleaning up dumbama's mess.

The majority of the scientific community has enough evidence to show that we are affecting the climate of our planet. This isn't a "tactic" used by political powers to control or gain power. There is more than enough experimental data to show that climate change is real and that we, as industrial humans, are affecting it. To what degree is the current debate, as is what methods are best taken to lessen our impact.

I would highly suggest that y'all ( N NESguy5881 and Blood Borne Blood Borne ) pick up an environmental and toxicology textbook and read up on the concept of fate transports. Please educate yourself before you make silly conspiracy theories.

Last Minute Addition:

They're very wrong. They are paid large sums of money to come to these "conclusions". Modern day science is just like everything else......all about the money.

You are correct that without money, research cannot begin. Government agencies as well as private companies, industry leaders, and various other avenues (grants, scholarships) award money for which one can do research. Sometimes they ask you to do a very specific type of research job. Whether this is to categorize the chemical compounds within a treated sewage sludge, ensuring quality control in Blue Bunny Ice Cream, or looking at the local wild life for a number of reasons (birth rate, death rate, population control, etc). Sometimes, a University is given a set amount of funding to their PhD/Master's Programs to ensure research can be done by the various groups within, who usually can dictate their research goals and paths - as long as they can produce quality papers and continued research (which then allows more funding and more recognition for the school). However and I want to stress this as much as possible: DATA IS DATA.

No matter what you do, you will get data. That data will be scrutinized by every other scientist within the field all over the globe. Chinese, Russian, Japanese, Indonesian, British, American - it doesn't matter who you are, what political party you associate yourself with, or who pays you. It will be ripped apart. That is Science. You can try to lie, you can try to come to a very specific conclusion - but the scientific community will go through every method you used, every data point you collected, every single thing that may have gone wrong and they will tell you and they will prove you wrong.

I suggest you look up the former PhD "Andrew Wakefield" and his work with Vaccines and Autism to see this in action.
 
Last edited:

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,583
48,091
1,610
He/him
That's because you're not thinking like a corporation who's entire existence depends upon profit margins. It's much cheaper for corporations to be able to dump horrible chemicals and waste into streams than it is to properly process and contain it. For every acre of wetlands they destroy, one shitty American job is saved. Praise be.

This strategy will undoubtedly fuck over all the non-elite rich in the end, but if you're wealthy enough you can live in a rich secluded area that didn't get polluted while your company raked in profits for you.

That's a very simplistic view of it. I work in mining and waste/tailings management is one of the biggest operating costs. To suggest that mining corporations want to pollute streams and the environment in general is just wrong. Most of the worst environmental disasters such as Samarco, Ok Tedi, etc. are a result of getting the engineering design wrong rather than willful negligence. Engineering natural materials is no easy task. If you want to keep driving your car and living in any building with steel in it (i.e. all of them), you need to accept that mining is necessary to modern society.
 

NESguy5881

Banned
May 26, 2018
22
24
30
Absolutely correct. Our theories change as we gain new information, however for the sake of the argument that was proposed here:



The majority of the scientific community has enough evidence to show that we are affecting the climate of our planet. This isn't a "tactic" used by political powers to control or gain power. There is more than enough experimental data to show that climate change is real and that we, as industrial humans, are affecting it. To what degree is the current debate, as is what methods are best taken to lessen our impact.

I would highly suggest that y'all ( N NESguy5881 and Blood Borne Blood Borne ) pick up an environmental and toxicology textbook and read up on the concept of fate transports. Please educate yourself before you make silly conspiracy theories.

Last Minute Addition:



You are correct that without money, research cannot begin. Government agencies as well as private companies, industry leaders, and various other avenues (grants, scholarships) award money for which one can do research. Sometimes they ask you to do a very specific type of research job. Whether this is to categorize the chemical compounds within a treated sewage sludge, ensuring quality control in Blue Bunny Ice Cream, or looking at the local wild life for a number of reasons (birth rate, death rate, population control, etc). Sometimes, a University is given a set amount of funding to their PhD/Master's Programs to ensure research can be done by the various groups within, who usually can dictate their research goals and paths - as long as they can produce quality papers and continued research (which then allows more funding and more recognition for the school). However and I want to stress this as much as possible: DATA IS DATA.

No matter what you do, you will get data. That data will be scrutinized by every other scientist within the field all over the globe. Chinese, Russian, Japanese, Indonesian, British, American - it doesn't matter who you are, what political party you associate yourself with, or who pays you. It will be ripped apart. That is Science. You can try to lie, you can try to come to a very specific conclusion - but the scientific community will go through every method you used, every data point you collected, every single thing that may have gone wrong and they will tell you and they will prove you wrong.

I suggest you look up the former PhD "Andrew Wakefield" and his work with Vaccines and Autism to see this in action.
I don't need Andrew Wakefield or anyone else to confirm that modern day science is in bed with the great liberal lie 1000 percent. They are paid to provide the data that the liberals and democrats want.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
5,700
10,261
910
I don't need Andrew Wakefield or anyone else to confirm that modern day science is in bed with the great liberal lie 1000 percent. They are paid to provide the data that the liberals and democrats want.

I am curious, do you have any evidence to this "bed laying" that you claim? Or that the data they provide is somehow falsified? Do you even have any idea how research is done? It seems more likely the answer to any of these questions is "no" from you. Again, I urge you to educate yourself.
 

Papa

Banned
Apr 25, 2009
23,583
48,091
1,610
He/him
I don't need Andrew Wakefield or anyone else to confirm that modern day science is in bed with the great liberal lie 1000 percent. They are paid to provide the data that the liberals and democrats want.

I did my PhD in Australia not too long ago and this couldn’t be further from the truth in my experience. I had a few hundred thousand in funding and not once did anyone from the funding body tell me what to research or publish. There was general guidance around research priorities during the application process but they were very vague generic. Not sure why you seek to dismiss all science as being corrupted by politics.
 

NESguy5881

Banned
May 26, 2018
22
24
30
I am curious, do you have any evidence to this "bed laying" that you claim? Or that the data they provide is somehow falsified? Do you even have any idea how research is done? It seems more likely the answer to any of these questions is "no" from you. Again, I urge you to educate yourself.
DId you know that scientists have donated nearly 140 million dollars to the democratic party the last ten years? Have you ever heard of base line budgeting that scientist use to twist the lie of global warming? Perhaps you should educate yourself. I am above the great liberal lie and am not afraid to stand for truth against liberal liars.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
5,700
10,261
910
DId you know that scientists have donated nearly 140 million dollars to the democratic party the last ten years? Have you ever heard of base line budgeting that scientist use to twist the lie of global warming? Perhaps you should educate yourself. I am above the great liberal lie and am not afraid to stand for truth against liberal liars.

It is clear you have no interest in engaging in a reasonable discussion and instead are going to rely on crazy conspiracy jargon. I shouldn't need to explain the fact that "scientists" are not one group dedicated to one nation or one political party. They can be republican, democratic, socialist, fascist, as well as from a variety of nations that have no interest in the going's on of the American people. However, I am sure you know this and you are being purposefully ignorant - possibly to troll or maybe you are just truly believe what you say. If it is the latter, then I hope you learn better. If it is the former, well then you got me good.

Have a nice day.
 

NESguy5881

Banned
May 26, 2018
22
24
30
It is clear you have no interest in engaging in a reasonable discussion and instead are going to rely on crazy conspiracy jargon. I shouldn't need to explain the fact that "scientists" are not one group dedicated to one nation or one political party. They can be republican, democratic, socialist, fascist, as well as from a variety of nations that have no interest in the going's on of the American people. However, I am sure you know this and you are being purposefully ignorant - possibly to troll or maybe you are just truly believe what you say. If it is the latter, then I hope you learn better. If it is the former, well then you got me good.

Have a nice day.
Call me whatever you wish. Modern day science is in bed with the great liberal lie. More and more true Americans are discovering the truth after years of lies. Regarding my "conspiracy jargon", am I lying when I present the facts regarding how much money scientists donate to the democrats?
 
Last edited:

Xiaoki

Member
Sep 11, 2005
2,809
373
1,325
They're very wrong. They are paid large sums of money to come to these "conclusions". Modern day science is just like everything else......all about the money.
Oh, yeah, its definitely a myth

 

NESguy5881

Banned
May 26, 2018
22
24
30
Oh, yeah, its definitely a myth

That chart's a lie. Ice is not melting but is actually at record highs. Didn't Al Gore say Florida would already be flooded four or five years ago? Weather runs in cycles. It got hot a hundred and fifty years ago too. Wake up. Don't believe the great liberal lie.