Slashdot Mirror
EPA's Science Advisory Board Has Not Met in 6 Months (scientificamerican.com)
The U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board has not met in at least six months, and some of its members say it's being sidelined to avoid getting in the way of agency Administrator Scott Pruitt's anti-regulatory agenda, Scientific American reported this week. From the report: Agency officials say the lapse isn't intentional and that it's just the result of delayed paperwork. That has prevented the group from meeting because there weren't enough members to make a quorum. The board, which typically has about 45 members, is tasked by Congress to evaluate the science used by EPA to craft policy. The full board has not met since August, nor has it had any conference calls or votes. In the past, members would have had multiple interactions during that time period, said William Schlesinger, a board member who is an emeritus professor of biogeochemistry at Duke University. "I guess the Science Advisory Board still exists; I guess I'm still on it," he said. "I think the answer is maybe they're giving it what we used to call the 'pocket veto': If you don't meet, then the scientists are not a pain, because they don't have a forum."
This is not governance in any political affiliation. This is treason and abdication of duty. Prison can't come soon enough for these fools.
Treason has a specific constitutionally defined meaning. I think you are trying way to hard to make Trump's actions meet that definition.
Prison time usually requires the commission of a crime. At this point, we have no direct evidence Trump committed any crimes here. We have a lot of theories about possible crimes being investigated, but being investigated isn't evidence of a crime. No crimes are in evidence and Treason isn't really possible at this point so I think you are rattling on about nothing but wild conspiracy theories for now..
Can we at least wait until the evidence comes out before we make wildly unlikely charges like Treason?
No? Ok.. Then stay with the partisan political craziness that drives all this pointless wrangling...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I hear you and I agree.
The EPA is one of those necessary evil parts of what should be the smallest government we can manage. I think the issue has been the liberal's approach of making government agencies so they have authority of law to pass "regulations" which carry the force of law and using that ability to further their political, social, and economic views. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, and this stuff is getting rolled back by the other party, they are coming unglued. This shouldn't happen...
The REAL problem here is Congress refusing to actually do their job and make LAWS by just authorizing the executive branch to take care of the day to day regulations. Congress took the easy way out and created all these organizations in the executive branch to manage all sorts of things through regulations... They should take responsibility back and stop this slow motion train wreak by resending this abrogation of their duty and start actually making laws about this stuff. The EPA should be retained to recommend laws but regulations should be passed like any other law, though a bill Congress approves of and is signed by the president.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
As it states in the linked Scientific American article;
The board, which typically has about 45 members, is tasked by Congress to evaluate the science used by EPA to craft policy.
I can't comment on treating a 'farm drainage ditch be treated like a "navigable waterway"', as you don't cite any reference (and, as I say, I'm a foregner so if it is commonly cited in the US National News I wouldn't be aware of it), but if there is dodgy science behind it, then I would expect the Advisory Board to have an opinion (i.e. 'evaluate').
But then I suppose in a way you're correct when you say 'The EPA has had little to do with science in a long time.'. Well, at least six months according to the article!
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
I've been on them. They are always for show and politically correct. One member from this place. One member from there. One Black. One Hispanic. Equality for women. One union rep, one from academia, one from the public sector. And every single person there has a political agenda to push, something they want done in the name of "justice" for their cause. Everyone tries one upmanship and grandstanding and thinks they can control the agency from their chair around the table. Advisory committees are not worth the cost the agency must pay for their lunches. It looks good on a resume and is a great excuse for a junket away from work so your employer thinks you're "contributing to the public good." and putting a feather in your oranization's cap as well as your own. It's a waste of time.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
"Government is what you get when people get together and decide how they want to live together, beyond just tribal rules.
Much of America's legal framework actually came from studying multi-tribe gatherings of tribes, banding together to end cycles of violence."
And what was the key insight of the Founding Fathers in their observations? That governments are made of people, and people are prone to corruption and motivated primarily by self interest. So they built a democratic republic (not a democracy - they found that repugnant) in which the key mechanisms are CONSTRAINT of whatever minimalist government was necessary to keep things functioning.
The US Constitution is not an elucidation of the rights of the people of the United States; on the contrary, it is precisely and completely a FENCE limiting the power of government, handing the bulk of the responsibility for governing to the states and the peoples within them. Further, even within this 'minimalist' structure, they set each of the three branches in diametric, constant opposition to keep them all in check.
In no sense, ever, was the US federal government intended to be a funder of science, the arts, a clearinghouse of consumer information, or the setter of regulation heights of doorknobs. It was not meant to be the second chance of people who made bad choices, the comforter of the foolish, or the feeder of the hungry.
Look, I understand: your point is less about government and more about virtue signaling. Look everyone, Anonymous Coward (/shock) on the "hate Trump" bandwagon! But I had to interrupt your screed with actual facts about what the US government was intended to be from the beginning.
"....they're largely the last place of noteworthy power that baby boomers will hold in this world..."
Good, fuck them. I hope history holds them with the level of scorn appropriate to the shit they've pulled, basically wrecking this country on the shoals of their ceaseless narcissism.
-Styopa