Slashdot Mirror
Trump Administration Prepares a Major Weakening of Mercury Emissions Rules (nytimes.com)
The Trump administration has completed a detailed legal proposal to dramatically weaken a major environmental regulation covering mercury, a toxic chemical emitted from coal-burning power plants, The New York Times reports, citing a person familiar with the matter. From the report: The proposal would not eliminate the mercury regulation entirely, but it is designed to put in place the legal justification for the Trump administration to weaken it and several other pollution rules, while setting the stage for a possible full repeal of the rule. Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist who is now the acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is expected in the coming days to send the proposal to the White House for approval. The move is the latest, and one of the most significant, in the Trump administration's steady march of rollbacks of Obama-era health and environmental regulations on polluting industries, particularly coal. The weakening of the mercury rule -- which the E.P.A. considers the most expensive clean air regulation ever put forth in terms of annual cost to industry -- would represent a major victory for the coal industry. Mercury is known to damage the nervous systems of children and fetuses.
or is this man truly evil?
sag
Make America Mad Again
Mad like a hatter
Use of leaded gas in cars for next year ?
And dump untreated sewage into our rivers and lakes.
That'll MAGA
From Wikipedia:
Arendt's subtitle famously introduced the phrase "the banality of evil," which also serves as the final words of the book. In part, at least, the phrase refers to Eichmann's deportment at the trial as the man displayed neither guilt for his actions nor hatred for those trying him, claiming he bore no responsibility because he was simply "doing his job" ("He did his duty...; he not only obeyed orders, he also obeyed the law." p. 135).
It would be pretty funny if the end game of evangelical conservatism turned out to be 100% unviable fetuses for all Americans.
It would also be exceptionally positive for the future of humanity.
"We should be focused on magnificently clean and healthy air and not distracted by the expensive hoax that is global warming!"
Ezekiel 23:20
He's 72, so before any of the shit hits the fan with any force he'll probably be dead so what does he care? He'll just make sure his cronies in the oil and coal industries are happy with their backhanders then he'll retire to his golf course. Meanwhile the world could well be left picking up the pieces of his idiotic enviromental policies for decades to come when he's just a footnote in history books.
How do we keep all the coal emissions inside of the USA? They can emission all they want, just so long as they keep it to themselves. Dirty motherfuckers.
How will conservatives justify this one? I am eagerly waiting, I know that the human mind knows no bounds.
Mercury is particularly nasty but the effects can be hard to measure in individual cases. We do know it causes brain damage, but the effects will be hard to discern individually. Companies will be safe, since it is next to impossible to sue for accumulated environmental brain damage which can have many causes.
America will be a GREAT place for the next generation.
c6gunner is that you?
I'll wager that California and a bunch of other high revenue states will enact laws to counteract this measure, and the hillbillies will get all the mercury pollution and they won't notice any difference because there's not much in their heads to be affected in the first place.
"Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
What is the current limit? Is it reasonable? What is the cost? What is the new limit, it's cost, it's impact?
Discussing this without knowing the specifics is an empty talk about how evil they are. We could have much more environmental friendly products if you are willing to pay 5000 for what now you pay 100 so it's important to establish a reasonable limit.
next to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, will Trump have any of the concern of the effect of mercury on Barron ? Maybe he will pronounce the reported effects of mercury on children as fake news.
I wish Barron no harm at all. But what is good enough for the rest of us should also be good enough for him.
Instead, however, we have seven or eight billion -- who can count, they keep multiplying so quickly -- humans on Earth, most of which are below 90 IQ points.
You should look up how IQ points work. By definition the median IQ score is 100, So half of the population scores 100 or better.
....Then I start to remember that the stupidity of this clown will eventually spread to other neighborhoods/States/countries.
I have always felt that the best way to remind these heartless politicians of the impact of there greed, is to force their families to live within the area most affected by their votes (alas, as with Flint Michigan, they do even live nearby).
I am hoping that when we vote this corrupt administration out, that we can rapidly reverse these inept decisions by trumps FDA. Till then, sue them to prevent him from enacting the change.
new rules like:
"Lead, it makes paint better, and your car happier.'
'Asbestos, high in fiber and fire retardants."
"Mercury is known to damage the nervous systems of children and fetuses." It also is the reason that we have the phrase "Mad as a hatter". Look it up. I am beginning to believe that Trump may be constantly exposed.
I've spent a lot of time talking to people both liberal and conservative, even ones I could have an intelligent conversation on politics with just two decades ago.
Most of them can only parrot what they have heard from their favorite talking head. Few even attempt to verify the facts. Most have devolved into the soft of stereotype I usually reserve for beer guzzling tail gating sports fans who will get into fistfights over whose team is best.
That seems to sum up the 96 percent of Americans available today. I am not sure what percentage is still a swing vote, but it appears they have done an excellent job in the Bush Jr/Obama/Trump era of balancing voters into exactly the two mindless parties needed to push whatever policies are beneficial to corporations for many political terms to come. And until the people wake up and start having their own voices again, along with bringing their politicians to heel, the situation will not get any better.
or is this man truly evil?
Trump is easily the worst person (competence, morals, decency, empathy, etc - pick your measure) to get to the office of president in my lifetime and I'm old enough to have lived during Nixon's administration. He surrounds himself with people who are somehow if anything worse in a lot of ways. There are prominent republicans who I respect and think could be good presidents even if I don't necessarily agree with their policy positions on a given topic. Trump is not even close to among them. I thought Bush Jr was a terrible president but I'd take him in a heartbeat over Trump. Reagan or Bush Sr would be a huge upgrade. Heck I'd happily take McCain (even with Palin) or Romney who I think were both competent and fundamentally decent people. No I'm not arguing the Democrats were notably better (they weren't) but literally every other president or candidate for either party in the last half centry would be an improvement over Trump.
Sad to see this person not get the help it obviously urgently needs.
Yet suggest this might have been over-regulation and you'd get a downmod.
Present some actual evidence to support such a position and maybe you might get some thoughtful consideration. So far every suggestion of "over regulation" is really just an ideological statement rather than an evidence based consideration of the facts. Not all regulation is bad, particularly when it comes to toxic substances. Every bit of evidence points to this mostly being a needless handout to various industries (most notably coal) for financial gain of a few at the expense of the health and welfare of the many.
Well it should be a test of the anti-vaxxers in the Republican party, after all they said that mercury in vaccines causes autism:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/21/trump-vaccination-safety-commission-robert-kennedy-autism
Now suddenly mercury is good???
Who am I kidding, they won't do any soul searching. This is the group that brought back asbestos into the US, when literally only the Russian mines that make it asked for asbestos to be made legal again and its still dangerous as f**k and still causes lung disease.
So all the noise about tiny amounts of mercury compounds in vaccines leads to this?
Environmentalism consists of a set of rules by which we can keep our modern lifestyle and reckless expansion of our population but apply "band-aids" like buying green products, driving Priuses, hampering our industry with regulation, and having turn-out-the-lights days.
Obviously moral superiority is the answer.
Deep ecology says that we have to change how we live, and focus on the big problem, which is land overuse. If 50% of the land out there in every area was wild, we would not have pollution problems at all; nature would absorb our excess.
There is nothing like a gross over simplification to stop people thinking about issues.
Instead, however, we have seven or eight billion -- who can count, they keep multiplying so quickly -- humans on Earth, most of which are below 90 IQ points. We are not growing better; we are a dying species reproducing recklessly in a last-ditch bid to save itself.
This is a normal thing to think when you hang onto an ideology that doesn't know how to change. How hopeless and depressing your basic lack of faith in the capability of the human race is, however what is worse is it is a diguise for how terrified of change you are as you try to convince everyone else to be terrified. I do believe you are a Young fogey.
Regulations tie up industry and make it unable to compete, which then causes it to slow down and eventually die. That will not lead us to safer environmental practices, only a back-and-forth where one side writes a whole bunch of laws, and then the other side undoes them because those laws strangled jobs and communities.
So you would support deregulation of the corporations act around the world, remove limited liability for companies and have a return to true capitalism.
A better way is just to set aside the land, end and reverse immigration, and cut our population back to the 150-200m that America can safely support.
So would you kill all the native Americans or all the immigrants?
I work in IT for one of the most heavily over-regulated industries in this country, the medical laboratory.
I've worked in labs in years past and my wife is a laboratory director of a pathology lab. I disagree that medical labs are "heavily over regulated". Labs are regulated to the degree they are for VERY good reasons and we've seen what happens when they aren't. The data they produce and the means they use to produce it has to be as reliable as we can make and market pressures are demonstrably inadequate to make that happen. The regulations that are in place ensure corners are not cut that should not be cut. That's not an argument that every regulation is a good one but just an observation that labs that are well run mostly are already doing the things that the regulations require anyway aside from a bit of extra documentation to prove it. But without this requirement the temptation of profit motives would rapidly overwhelm some people and we would all suffer in the long run as a result.
We see our regulation as a challenge, not a burden. Why can't the coal industry?
Because they have made a crap ton of money being comparatively unregulated and would like to continue to make more and there is no mechanism for accountability. In a medical lab if you screw up a specimen, that error is generally immediately traceable back to the lab and liability follows. But without regulation the volume of corner cutting would rapidly overwhelm the ability of the legal system to deal with the problem. Not to mention that liability is a post-hoc solution which doesn't help people already injured. There is no such feedback mechanism in place for the coal industry generally speaking and putting them in place makes them FAR less financially competitive than they are now. (that's probably a good thing but they obviously don't see it that way) They've gotten a free ride for years not having to pay for the full cost of the pollution they generate so it's hardly shocking that it's a real life tragedy of the commons.
Take your shit to daily kos or vox. At least leave us to pretend slashdot might have a fact based conversation.
The anti-vax movement is pushed hard by Hollywood, unless you are claiming Hollywood is not left.
This is interesting, if the alt-right starts supporting depopulation, or real anti-illegal-immigration measures (like employer-side checks and liability), the ownership class will switch from collaborating with or at least tolerating them, to throwing them under the bus and organizing opposition to them. The world's economies demand infinite growth in a finite world and that is incompatible with anything but infinite population growth.
Also this argument can't be taken seriously from an environmental/ecological perspective because it's a laughable attempt to sweep the problems it attempts to address under the rug. In fact that analogy is too generous, it's like dealing with a forest fire by putting post-it notes on your house windows to block your view of the flames.
America is not its own planet and turning it into a sustainably-populated white ethnostate will do exactly jack shit to solve global environmental problems, which includes mercury pollution.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"Mercury is known to damage the nervous systems of children and fetuses."
Be sure to leave out the amount. Just make a blanket statement as though all mercury is harmful.
Not much to do when you get brain damage from mercury poisoning, just smile, nod and pity the fool.
With that username you are disqualified from any serious discussion. The door is that way.
[...] humans on Earth, most of which are below 90 IQ points
Even if you were correct, it still would mean that 100% of them score better than you.
Trump is okay with people being poisoned by useless and unnecessary coal burning power plants? Color me surprised (not!). Trump doesn't give a fuck about average people, only himself and The Rich, who will have HEPA filtered homes and won't give a shit if The Poor are being poisoned with every breath -- especially minorites and immigrants who they'd rather all see dead anyway. When are you people going to see that Trump has to GO? Demand of Congress that he be impeached and literally run out of Washington on a rail, along with his entire corrupt, destructive 'Administration'. In fact they should all be sent to Leavenworth (or perhaps The Hague), and hanged for crimes against humanity. Enough is enough.
Instead, however, we have seven or eight billion -- who can count, they keep multiplying so quickly -- humans on Earth, most of which are below 90 IQ points.
You should look up how IQ points work. By definition the median IQ score is 100, So half of the population scores 100 or better.
Indeed. But the OP seems to be decidedly below that median. Probably thinks he is a "stable genius" or something like that though.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
How many more stories like this one (as well as the tariff issue and plenty of others), will it take before everyone will accept that Republicans are not conservatives anymore? They've often been on thin ice, but over the last two years the amount that Republicans intersect conservativism has clearly fallen to less than the amount that Democrats intersect conservativism. The difference, of course, is that Democrats also intersect liberalism, a claim the Republicans can't really make with a straight face.
Note that I'm just talking about left and right ideals, not what strategies are a good idea. If you want to defend Trump's policies, this particular comment isn't in opposition to that. I'm just calling you a liar if you do that while also claiming to be conservative, right-wing, or something like that.
Republicans aren't quite a right-wing as Democrats are, and they're far less left-wing. If right and left are the values by which you evaluate politicians, then Republicans aren't on your map.
Any Republicans wanna chime in on this? Do you still call yourself conservative, as some part of redefinition? It seems if you were to do that, then you would have to say Reagan, Goldwater, etc weren't among your people and they're every bit historical ideological enemies as LBJ, Bill Clinton, etc.
China China bla bla bla
--
WindBourne
Voting in Trump was necessary in order to combat the lunatic SJW left. That's most important of all. I just wish on some days that we had a better champion.
Trump has a valid argument. The actual health benefit that accrues annually directly from the Obama mercury rule is about $6 million. That's right, million with an "M", as calculated by the Obama administration. The cost to industry is $9.6 billion annually. That's right, billion with a "B", as calculated by the Obama administration.
But the Obama administration did a clever little trick. They said, oh, but other things will happen, as a collateral effect it will probably reduce emissions of soot and nitrogen oxides to give a benefit of $80 billion annually. That's right, billion with a "B." Orders of magnitude difference.
It's that trick that is at issue. The point is that if you want to regulate soot and nitrogen oxides, then do so, rather than regulate the trivial improvement from mercury. But there already are soot and nitrogen oxide regs, and Obama did not try to change them. Why not? My guess would be that that would have harmed interests friendly to Obama, while the mercury regs harm only coal companies.
From an economic perspective is coal better than natural gas in any way? Is is even better than frakking, which US has already developed very well?
Or the more important question: is keeping coal subsidized gives benefit anyone other than coal mine owners in the long run? Even the workers would be better off switching to another profession, like solar panel installers. Is it as "manly"? No, However is is manly to die of cancer at young age? And solar installation also pays better as a bonus (it is kind of a contractor/construction job anyways).
There is still a lot of potential here in US. It would be better not to waste it trying to keep dying industries alive.
This must be part of a twenty year plan to grow a new batch of Trump-style electors: people who confuse their tribe—and the size of its roar—with their political interests.
I tend to see the recent political era as the ascendancy of people who can't explain anything.
Trump has actually admitted an error or two. But he's still never explained a single physical or political mechanism with more than two moving parts.
This is why Bannon was on Maher the other day suggesting that Bernie would have been more effective if his style was more like Michael Avenatti (which pot/kettle was this suggestion most intended to blacken by association?), and then immediately followed up on this by suggesting that maybe Oprah was the kind of person who could carry the Democratic nomination in the near future.
Yeah, great: another person in bright glare of the media business, who's consistently light on explanation as a matter of personal style.
The party that cried wolf is quickly becoming the party that really wants polling to replace voting.
citing a person familiar with the matter
This should set off alarm bells for anybody who has a shred of skepticism.
The Obama administration estimated that it would cost the electric utility industry an estimated $9.6 billion a year to install that mercury control technology, making it the most expensive clean air regulation ever put forth by the federal government. It found that reducing mercury brings up to $6 million annually in health benefits â" a high number, but not as high as the cost to industry. However, it further justified the regulation by citing an additional $80 billion in health benefits from the additional reduction in soot and nitrogen oxide that occur as a side effect of controlling mercury.
Got that? $9.6BN/to save $6M in direct health costs, a 0.0625% return on investment, but wait! Then they 'projected' a convenient $80BN savings for related reasons... per year. That's a little less than half the health care budget of the VA ($196BN/yr), or about $240/per us citizen ($80BN/320M citizens).
The numbers are pure fantasy.
Ken
Suddenly everything coming out of an executive agency is labeled as "the trump administration" doing this or that where in the past you'd see "The EPA has completed a."
enjoy your retard babbys
Seriously, this again. A Trump supporter claiming totes allegiance to Bernie, you are so authentic, I'm throwing up in my mouth a little!
The economy was a gift from Obama, you can start by thanking him. Neither the regulatory cuts nor the tax cuts were particularly important or necessary; it's likely the economy would be strong had neither one been done.
Singling out minorities as beneficiaries is also a vomit-inducing tactic, considering that this Administration has used racist strategy, racist rhetoric, and racist policy. But sure, you care about minorities!
Big Giant Orange Head is -1 on nuclear deals and Kim is smarter (and deadlier) than BGOH. Remember when the Administration was all, "we have a very short timeline on a NK nuclear deal"? Now the message is, "hey, there's no hurry, we have all the time in the world, can I reheat your tea while you torture a political opponent?"
Kavanaugh is a dead man walking, even if he is confirmed to the Supreme Court. His testimony was correct about one thing, his reputation is in tatters. I've been thinking about the screams of outrage from the political Right on this topic. You know what prompted the screams? Arrogance, and a beautiful plan going up in smoke.
The Repubs blocked Garland, got Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh was supposed to seal the deal. A generational conservative advantage on the Supreme Court. It was brilliant, entitled, the product of years of effort.
Yet all the screams are merely the screams of snowflakes melting on the ground. Kavanaugh isn't the victim of of some witch hunt (a favorite talking point), he's the victim of his own behavior. Remember when the Republican Party stood for personal character, accountability, and consequences? Funny, whatever happened to that belief, which we were staunchly told was a Value and Would Never Change.
Winning!
Regulations tie up industry and make it unable to compete, which then causes it to slow down and eventually die. That will not lead us to safer environmental practices
Actually if the coal industry can no longer compete, it will lead to safer environmental practices because pretty much all the alternatives to coal are better for the environment.
Look at the clown, don't worry about the pickpocket.
These regulations are about differences in PPM and the economic differences between them and more importantly , if they are worth it. It is Really STUPID to Spend unreasonable amounts of GDP and Real Money to curb emissions by a few PPM. And the Libtard's don't get economics. I expect better of /. than to give this stupid credence.