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
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.
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.
new rules like:
"Lead, it makes paint better, and your car happier.'
'Asbestos, high in fiber and fire retardants."
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.
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.
This is sooo vital to point out. Especially in the West (a Judeo/Christian society), we are taught and culturally have a very specific notion of what "evil" is, such that we have trouble seeing it when it actually is staring us in the face. I think of serial killer neighbors "He was such a good neighbor" or as mentioned in the book about those who perpetrated the Holocaust. "How could they seem so normal". Because many were imaging pitchforks and tails and hooves and got company men who were "doing his job" and "following the law" and "serving their country" etc....
I am not drawing any conclusions about anyone in particular here, just noting that evil is often missed and not what we think it is....
Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
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.