President Trump- The Implications

[heironymouspasparagus]

Sound studies for wind farms?   (Why are they even involved in this?)

Mileage regulations for vehicles?   (Shouldn't the market drive the demand for high mileage cars?)

Here..   Forbes did it for me.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2013/03/14/the-epa-the-worst-of-many-rogue-federal-agencies/#189a15d21adb

Oh, geez....

Sound studies??   Really??  That isn't a regulation, that is information gathering to help understand cause/effect and overall science.  You probably think it's a waste of time studying reproductive habits of frogs, too.  Even though they are one of the primary 'bellweathers' of environmental degradation.  But hey, that's what the fundamentalist extremist right wants you to believe - nobody should have information about reproduction!

Mileage - goes right with pollution controls.  If you use less fuel, you pollute less.  And that whole set of regulations has brought you a vehicle today that, while failing massively on the mileage front due to SUV's being excluded, still get slightly better AND get 100,000 miles on a set of spark plugs.  Wires.  No distributor cap, condensor, points, etc.  EGR so there is less blowby and WAY less exhaust stink.  You can always tell which dipstick has taken out his pollution controls - by the stench of 'rotten eggs'.

Can go 7,500 to 10,000 miles on an oil change.  Runs on a vastly more healthy fuel with no lead.  Gives you the opportunity to run on a 10% ethanol mix that has several major benefits that assist in prolonging life of your car!  Yeah, you take a 3% hit on mileage, but you get a 20%+ lower fuel cost, too!  Oh the horror of it all...

Plus we don't have rivers catching fire any more.   For me, that's a good thing...but hey, I can see how you might not think so.

And Mark Hendrickson...??  Really??  Ok.  It looks like Grove City college is doing some interesting work - especially in their chemistry department - studying fracking so the entire US can enjoy the benefits of newly created earthquake zones!

Asbestos is good and it was just government overreach to get rid of it!!   Really??   Whew!  Step away from the Kook-Aid!!

DDT - yeah, just more government overreach.  Except now we have eagles all over the place!  There was even one hit by a car last weekend on highway 169 between 76th and 86th St N, in the median.   But I guess we coulda been just as well off letting them go extinct, along with the other animals impacted heavily by it.  Like bees...but they only keep life as we know it possible, so I guess they could go, too.

Wonder why he didn't mention Anne Gorsuch Burford, EPA Administrator under Reagan?  Oh, yeah...cause she was actually breaking Federal law and in general drawing the blueprint for Scott Pruitt.  First woman admin AND first one cited for contempt of Congress!  Yay, team!!  Fraud to the tune of $1.6 billion in Superfund site monies.  Gotta be so proud!!


Grove City college is doing some interesting electrical engineering stuff - one of their projects is an open source hearing aid project!   I will be going back to look at that some more - I am extremely interested in that.

Overall, it he is a typical libertarian spewing nonsense about EPA history with the right wing bias applied heavily.

[swake]

Trump to ban bump stocks. It's a start, but more needed.

Yeah, Republicans said the same thing after Las Vegas where bump stocks were actually used but then conveniently forgot about it until now.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Trump to ban bump stocks. It's a start, but more needed.

About time he did something correct!!   It is WAY overdue!!


No reason they should be outside the automatic weapon licensing structure.

[TeeDub]

Oh, geez....

Sound studies??   Really??  That isn't a regulation, that is information gathering to help understand cause/effect and overall science.  You probably think it's a waste of time studying reproductive habits of frogs, too.  Even though they are one of the primary 'bellweathers' of environmental degradation.  But hey, that's what the fundamentalist extremist right wants you to believe - nobody should have information about reproduction!

Something tells me you won't admit you were wrong.

https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/clean-air-act-title-iv-noise-pollution

[heironymouspasparagus]

Something tells me you won't admit you were wrong.

https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/clean-air-act-title-iv-noise-pollution

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying...I took your comment to mean there was no need for wind studies.  And studies are scientific information - not regulations.  But, since you were apparently disparaging the noise regulations that arise from this - I was tunnel visioned into the fact of studies - you just proved the value of those regulations in your reference.

Here is their quote;

"Noise pollution adversely affects the lives of millions of people.  Studies have shown that there are direct links between noise and health.  Problems related to noise include stress related illnesses, high blood pressure, speech interference, hearing loss, sleep disruption, and lost productivity.  Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) is the most common and often discussed health effect, but research has shown that exposure to constant or high levels of noise can cause countless adverse health affects."

These are proven facts.  Not Fake Fox News Alternative Facts (aka lies.)   That is why there are regulations about noise.


And revisiting another comment you made - "Mileage regulations for vehicles?   (Shouldn't the market drive the demand for high mileage cars?)"

I said, "Mileage - goes right with pollution controls.  If you use less fuel, you pollute less."  Which is only part of the story (tip of the iceberg).  The remaining part consists of things like overall environmental degradation and it's effects on climate, which I am leaving out of this for now.  The big part of the pollution issue goes to the air quality conditions that ensue when there are ineffective pollution controls.  I mentioned rotten egg smell, but that is the smallest part of it.  The obvious adverse health effects in past decades are what drove the country to create the EPA in the first place.  Environmental Protection.  If you had driven even in a small a place as Tulsa in the 60's, you would have smelled what has been eliminated for the most part.  It was not just an occasional car like the a$$hats who have modified the pollution equipment today - it was every car!  The health effects were wide spread - even non-drivers - and extremely bad.  Places like LA...well, google is your friend, look up some of the old pictures.  

OR just look at all of China's largest cities today!  They are up to the point in "development" where we were in the 50's and 60's.  But they are starting to do something about it much faster than we ever did!  Their problems will subside at a much quicker rate than ours, because they are unlikely to try to destroy the effectiveness of their EPA equivalent like we have done.

And those smells and smog are the causes a set of health problem causes that are similar in nature but broader in scope and larger in magnitude to the sound pollution health effects.

But you may be right...EPA overreach may be a bad thing...   For oil companies, coal burners, and large scale polluters like the one's who destroyed Picher, OK.  And it is important to 'protect' the thousands of CEO's of those companies since they ARE more important than the millions affected (as defined by the EPA above.)

[TeeDub]

The EPA is important.   I think we are splitting hairs (like ususal.)

I think the EPA's role was a necessary evil, much like that of labor unions.   I feel that with the 24 hour news cycle and the fact that less slips through the public perview (partially due to the abundance of social media, whistleblowers, etc.) that large scale abuses have slowed dramatically.

My real concern is more toward the law of diminishing returns.   They have gotten the big abusers.   Now they are spending lots of money to go after the last few percentage points of pollution producers.   Would that money be better spent encouraging the market to produce more efficient cars, using renewable resources, or something similar to put those business that innately produce pollution out of business rather than regulating those businesses into a stricter and stricter compliance standard.


Cliff notes:   Is the money better spent trying to regulate efficiencies from legacy production or to change the landscape to an underlying technology that inherently produces less pollution?

[patric]

Is the money better spent trying to regulate efficiencies from legacy production or to change the landscape to an underlying technology that inherently produces less pollution?

Like this?



Scott Pruitt's War On Wind Energy Will Only Hurt Oklahomans
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scott-pruitts-war-on-wind-oklahoma_us_5a303fdee4b07ff75afe583d

Thinking the polluters will police themselves is a fairy tale hoping for a happy ending.

[Hoss]

Like this?



Scott Pruitt's War On Wind Energy Will Only Hurt Oklahomans
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scott-pruitts-war-on-wind-oklahoma_us_5a303fdee4b07ff75afe583d

Thinking the polluters will police themselves is a fairy tale hoping for a happy ending.

We all know how that worked out in the finace industry culminating in the shitstorm that was October of 2008.

[TeeDub]

Like this?



Scott Pruitt's War On Wind Energy Will Only Hurt Oklahomans
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scott-pruitts-war-on-wind-oklahoma_us_5a303fdee4b07ff75afe583d

Thinking the polluters will police themselves is a fairy tale hoping for a happy ending.

Right...   From your article...

The market is speaking loud and clear – fossil fuels have no future against cleaner, cheaper, twenty-first century sources of energy.

[guido911]

Yeah, Republicans said the same thing after Las Vegas where bump stocks were actually used but then conveniently forgot about it until now.

It would literally break your damned neck to nod ONE TIME in agreement with Trump, wouldn't it.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It would literally break your damned neck to nod ONE TIME in agreement with Trump, wouldn't it.

If Trump weren't lying about it, it would be good.  Since he never tells the truth, even when he could be right on something, probably not much point in agreeing just yet.

[swake]

It would literally break your damned neck to nod ONE TIME in agreement with Trump, wouldn't it.

You know how you know when Trump is lying? He's talking (or tweeting). He has a record that his words are meaningless.

[patric]

You know how you know when Trump is lying? He's talking (or tweeting). He has a record that his words are meaningless.

Trump casually threatens to pull ICE out of California to teach the state a lesson
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2018/02/22/trump-casually-threatens-to-pull-ice-officers-out-of-california-to-teach-the-state-a-lesson

...because thats how you talk when you are a spoiled 14-year old girl.

[joiei]

It would literally break your damned neck to nod ONE TIME in agreement with Trump, wouldn't it.

When he says something worthwhile that I agree with then I will nod. Until then, Nope. 

[swake]

In this tweet he disagrees with himself in less than 40 words. Impressive.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

I never said "give teachers guns" like was stated on Fake News @CNN & @NBC. What I said was to look at the possibility of giving "concealed guns to gun adept teachers with military or special training experience - only the best. 20% of teachers, a lot, would now be able to

And teachers with guns in classrooms is beyond a terrible idea.