Forum Thread

destroyers of the environment

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 46 - 60 of 61 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    She deserves it. And Trump thought he would get it; probably tried to "bribe" it but sounder minds prevented it.

    But yeah, Trump will continue fighting "windmills" instead. Like they say in Dutch" he probably got hit by one of the blades; that is what him made "nuts"

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The insecure “president” took to Twitter Thursday morning to unleash 80 tweets or retweets before 9:00 am. In one, he lashed out at teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg, who has Asperger’s syndrome, after she was named Time magazine’s Person of the Year, calling her win “ridiculous” and suggested that she take anger management classes.

    That’s rich coming from a guy who is prone to mood shifts and angry outbursts. Thunberg seemed unfazed, and just calmly updated her Twitter profile to reflect Trump’s comment, writing: “A teenager working on her anger management problem.”

    “Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend,” she added.

    https://politicaltribune.org/trump-responds-to-greta-thunbergs-time-magazine-cover-tells-her-to-chill-greta-shoots-back/

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The University of Arizona just signed a 20 year contract with Tucson Electric Power that will make the U of A almost completely reliant on renewal energy. For its part, TEP will be relying on a 247-megawatt wind farm in New Mexico and a 100MW solar plant with 30MW of battery storage southeast of Tucson International Airport — to meet all of the UA’s power demand from the utility.

    https://tucson.com/business/landmark-renewable-energy-deal-between-the-ua-and-tucson-electric/article_109500b2-5c24-50dd-a054-4a9499fcc403.html#tracking-source=home-top-story-2

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    If you think the coronavirus is bad (and it is) how would you feel about coronavirus 2.0?

    By failing to address climate change, we are setting ourselves up for another pandemic at some point down the road, and it could be as bad, or worse, that our current crisis:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/opinion/climate-change-covid-economy.html?referringSource=articleShare

    Republican senators debating stimulus measures to address the coronavirus crisis, standing in the Senate chamber, saying that the Green New Deal was the reason millions of Americans would not receive the help that they need.

    Of the nearly $2 trillion in aid proposed in that first version of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, known as the CARES Act, $500 billion went toward a business-relief fund with little to no oversight. Fifty-eight billion of this was earmarked for airlines, and a lax definition of eligible businesses created a loophole for oil and gas. The bill included no climate protections, so the claim that it was being held up over Green New Deal provisions was absurd.

    Meanwhile, the Trump administration is hell-bent on relaxing as many environmental rules that it can, the most recent being the rollback of the fuel economy standards implemented by Obama.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    From Reddit this morning:

    Trump signs order removing environmental review of major projects

    President Trump signed an executive order Thursday evening that would waive requirements under a suite of environmental laws, a move the administration says will boost the economy amid the coronavirus pandemic.

    The new order expedites the permitting of construction projects and energy projects overseen by several federal agencies, using emergency authorities to skirt environmental regulations with little public notice.

    “From the beginning of my Administration, I have focused on reforming and streamlining an outdated regulatory system that has held back our economy with needless paperwork and costly delays,” Trump wrote in the order. “The need for continued progress in this streamlining effort is all the more acute now, due to the ongoing economic crisis.”

    The order would slash the requirements in a number of landmark environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires rigorous environmental review before building new infrastructure like highways or pipelines.

    Thursday's order sparked backlash from environmental justice advocates, who slammed both the substance of the order and its timing, which comes amid nationwide protests over police brutality.

    “This administration is removing phantom barriers that are at their essence protections for the very communities that are struggling most from the health impacts of air and water pollution,” Christy Goldfuss, who headed the White House Council on Environmental Quality under the Obama administration and now works at the Center for American Progress, said in a statement.

    “They’re trying to divert attention away from the crisis of racial injustice happening around the country, by giving agency leads the excuse to ram through polluting projects that will prop up the dying fossil fuel industry while destroying the very same communities that are dying at higher rates from COVID-19 and police violence, as well,” she added.

    Trump’s order comes on the heels of one signed last month that directs agency heads to “identify regulatory standards that may inhibit economic recovery,” prompting conservative groups to say the administration should further rollback NEPA.

    The latest order goes further, directing agencies to use their own emergency authorities and the emergency provisions of environmental laws to skip over standard requirements.

    Agencies will now have 30 days to report which projects will be expedited under the order, but there is no requirement for that list to be publicized.

    The order was widely criticized by congressional Democrats.

    “Let’s be clear, this executive order is not about providing immediate relief to the American people and boosting our economy. If President Trump was interested in anything other than expanding his power, there are a number of things he and his Administration could do to help our country combat this deadly epidemic and spur economic growth,” Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

    Once again, President Trump is using the pretense of a deadly pandemic and its ensuing economic calamity to accelerate his Administration’s agenda.”

    Nada Culver, senior policy counsel with the National Audubon Society, said the order mirrors similar legal maneuvers used by the Trump administration to push ahead with border wall construction.

    “They’re trying to use the authority to say ‘We have an emergency and it will last until this administration feels like it, and that emergency is now defined so broadly as an economic issue that it will never end,’” she told The Hill. “‘We’ll keep delaying any NEPA requirements and you’ll have to guess what were approving and what were doing.’”

    NEPA has an emergency provision that allows speedy construction of projects, but the example given by the White House Council on Environmental Quality suggests it should be used to respond to natural disasters like flooding.

    Lifting the requirements of the law means cutting out a number of steps.

    “You’re not conducting adequate environmental review; you're not receiving public comments or responding to public comments. You’re not taking into account the value of birds, wildlife, tribal interests, community impacts. All of those things are considered a burden with this language,” Culver said.

    The laws targeted under the order have been targeted by industry groups for years, arguing that endangered species laws are too restrictive and NEPA reviews can stall projects.

    The Trump administration rolled back the Endangered Species Act in August, followed by a January proposal from the Council on Environmental Quality that would limit NEPA's scope.

    That proposal excludes some projects, particularly those that receive little federal funding, from undergoing an environmental review. It also would open the door for more industry involvement in reviewing the environmental impact of their projects.

    The rule is undergoing a review by the White House Office of Management and Budget.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    How is it possible that "one" guy can do all of this? As I've said a million times MAKE laws which LIMITS and clearly describe Presidential powers. I guess they are so stupid here to let an President do whatever he wants and become an "dictator" . Where are the "brains" here? Oversight may be worked in 1800, but not today, if you are allowed to appoint an "loyalist" to do this job. Brainless, brainless. Wake up Democrats!!
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The point is: How is this possible without approval from Congress? As well other environmental specialists?

    How often is it the case that there are no "laws" to stop idiots from becoming President and ruin our environment?

    Where are the "limits" ; write an "new/updated" Constitution" please, which also in detail describes on how to impeach an President without "bribery" and detailed "limits" in the job description.

    Sorry,this country is an total joke, since there are no "brains" in this country; just keep going this way; it will stay an dictatorship for ever if no one does anything.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The Trump administration is reversing 100 environmental rules. The complete list can be found below:

    https://outlook.live.com/mail/0/inbox/id/AQMkADAwATZiZmYAZC04YTBiLTEyYTYtMDACLTAwCgBGAAADpqG04fTX00KKsFUU3Y8pVAcA5lKaVemBxkqBRuAA9YyB%2FgAAAgEMAAAA5lKaVemBxkqBRuAA9YyB%2FgADhmL9owAAAA%3D%3D

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Who cares here? Animals and trees don't vote. Only "money" made from "trees" or natural resources counts. Let's ruin nature to satisfy "greed" I just wonder if Biden "re-installs" these rules. I doubt it, because his task will be enormous to reverse back all the Obama "good" things for nature which Trump ruined..

    Where is my barf bucket?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Yes to reimpose the Obama era regulations will take time. Each of the regulations took time to do research and planning as to impact on local economies, as well as staffing. Since Trump has gutted many of these agencies of the expert staff needed to do the job, it will take time to attract good people to enforce the regulations. And many miming companies have now staked a foothold in land that was taken away from the National Monuments and such. It's hard to take it back again.

    Many of these Obama initiatives were done as executive directives because Mitch McConnell refuses to approve any new environmental laws. That's why Trump has been so successful in undoing them. Anything with Obama's name on it had to go.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt, again it shows that the "system" and "laws" are not written as it should; if you give an President too much powers, without "real oversight" and don't have an "vote" in Congress about all of this, then things don't happen as it is now, because the "people' here should decide, what is good for the environment and not the "industry", who gives the President "kickbacks" or "election money" to get it their way. So forget an "democratic system"!
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    For the past three years, the Trump administration has been undermining safeguards for public lands. It slashed the acreage of Bear Ears National Monument in Utah by 85 percent, removed protection for millions of acres of sage-grouse habitat, opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and most of the US coastline to oil and gas drilling, reduced protections for wetlands, and weakened the Endangered Species Act. Earlier this year, Trump proposed draconian cuts to the National Parks budget and Land and Water Conservation Fund.

    In a year of astonishing reversals, one of the biggest may turn out to be President Trump’s emergence as the unlikely savior of America’s national parks. The president tweeted that he will sign the Great American Outdoors Act, which will provide billions of dollars to repair and maintain the country’s 419 national park sites and help to protect public lands in all 50 states. Hailed as “a conservationist’s dream,” the act will be the biggest land conservation legislation in a generation.

    The administration’s dramatic about-face is largely due to the fallout from the coronavirus pandemic. As the economy struggles in the deepest crisis since the 1930s, local communities that rely on visitors and tourism associated with national parks are desperate to protect their assets. According to the National Parks Foundation, visitor spending in and around national parks contributed more than $41 billion to the US economy last year and supported 340,500 jobs. Many of these jobs are now in jeopardy.

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/07/27/opinion/who-is-rescuing-americas-national-parks-trump/

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Trump followed up last night’s interview with another gaffe this morning. At a press conference, he demonstrated that he could not pronounce “Yosemite,” one of the nation’s best known national parks. Trying to read it from a sheet of paper, he tried twice to come up with the right pronunciation—Yoh-sem-it-ee—and instead settled on “YO-se-MIGHT” and then “Yo-se-min-NIGHT.”

    Yosemite is quite a common word in America, and observers expressed surprise that Trump was apparently not familiar enough with it to recognize it, especially since he was saying the word to publicize the passage of the Great American Outdoors Act, which he claimed rivaled the accomplishments of President Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt did not initiate the federal protection of conservation land but broadened it so dramatically he is known as the “conservation president.”

    The new law provides up to $9.5 billion over five years to begin addressing long-overdue maintenance at national parks, and it passed on a bipartisan vote. Representative John Lewis (D-GA) who passed away last month, introduced the bill last year. Trump came around to the bill only after two Republican Senators, Corey Gardner (R-CO) and Steve Daines (R-MT), told him it would help their reelection bids.

    Nonetheless, Trump claimed all credit for the bill for Republicans. He invited no Democrats to the signing, and when reporters asked Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary, why Democrats had been excluded, she said “the only thing we’re recognizing about congressional Democrats right now is how appalling it is that there are Americans… who are going without paychecks because they refuse to partner with Martha McSally, Republicans and the president to make sure those payments go out."

    This is political spin. The reality is that the Democrats passed a coronavirus relief bill in May and the Republican Senate refused to take it up. Senate Republicans turned to the construction of their own bill too late, and now cannot agree on their own package. So now Democrats are negotiating directly with the White House. While the two sides are apparently making some progress, it’s slow going.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    On March 20, 2019, fish caught in Ohio’s Cuyahoga River were declared safe to eat by federal environmental regulators. It was a major milestone in the river’s recovery—once one of the most polluted waterways in the country—because 50 years earlier, it caught on fire. Public outrage around that 1969 fire spawned a national reckoning on water pollution and led to the creation of the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency, and Earth Day. Earlier this week, however, the Cuyahoga caught fire again. It’s a timely reminder that much of the progress made on water pollution during the past 51 years is rapidly being undone.

    Late last year, the Trump administration made changes to the Clean Water Act that strip its protections from 60 percent of streams in this country, along with 110 million acres of wetlands. At the same time, it restricted the ability of state governments to regulate their own waters. Before that, it revoked a proposed rule aimed at limiting water pollution caused by sewage-treatment plants and eliminated an established rule stopping coal companies from dumping waste into water sources. All three actions directly threaten the legacy of Carl Stokes and that river fire back in 1969.

    https://www.outsideonline.com/2416154/switching-banks-environment

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    that guy in AZ Wrote:

    The Trump administration is reversing 100 environmental rules. The complete list can be found below:

    https://outlook.live.com/mail/0/inbox/id/AQMkADAwATZiZmYAZC04YTBiLTEyYTYtMDACLTAwCgBGAAADpqG04fTX00KKsFUU3Y8pVAcA5lKaVemBxkqBRuAA9YyB%2FgAAAgEMAAAA5lKaVemBxkqBRuAA9YyB%2FgADhmL9owAAAA%3D%3D

    Here is the update on how those reversals are going:

    While other administrations have emphasized cutting regulations, calling them burdensome to industries like coal, oil and gas, the scope of actions under Mr. Trump is “fundamentally different,” said Hana V. Vizcarra, a staff attorney at Harvard Law School’s Environmental and Energy Law Program.

    In all, a New York Times analysis, based on research from Harvard Law School, Columbia Law School and other sources, counts more than 70 environmental rules and regulations officially reversed, revoked or otherwise rolled back under Mr. Trump. Another 26 rollbacks are still in progress.

    The bulk of the rollbacks identified by the Times have been carried out by the Environmental Protection Agency, which has weakened Obama-era limits on planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and from cars and trucks; removed protections from more than half the nation's wetlands; and withdrawn the legal justification for restricting mercury emissions from power plants.

    At the same time, the Interior Department has worked to open up more land for oil and gas leasing by limiting wildlife protections and weakening environmental requirements for projects.

    Many of the rollbacks are facing legal challenges by states, environmental groups and others. Hillary Aidun, who tracks deregulation at Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, said many of the Trump-era rules have not been adequately justified, leaving them vulnerable to litigation.

    Some rollbacks have already been struck down in court. The Times’ analysis identified a dozen rules that were initially reversed or suspended by the Trump administration but later reinstated, often following lawsuits and other challenges.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Climate%20and%20Environment