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
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).
"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.
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.
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.
So now you've embraced genocide?
Look at what you're becoming.
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.
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.
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.
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
Anti-vaxxing is not a left/right wing issue ... that's just a fable some leftist like to tell themselves. California is as much a hotbed of anti-vaxxers as the midwest. As the saying goes, sometimes the left and right cooperate to be stupid and evil.
The only left/right wing divide is on the issue of mandatory vaccinations.
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.
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.
You are a fool and an ass as well as a coward.
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."