Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday April 30 2017, @03:07PM   Printer-friendly
from the we-can-find-no-longer-find-data-against-our-plans dept.

You were warned. Now it begins: The Chicago Tribune reports that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working on changes to its Web properties:

The EPA's extensive climate change website now redirects to a page that says "this page is being updated" and that "we are currently updating our website to reflect EPA's priorities under the leadership of President Trump and Administrator Pruitt." It also links to a full archive of how the page used to look on Jan. 19, before Trump's inauguration.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @03:18PM (40 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @03:18PM (#501870)

    A president is elected who does not believe climate change is as big a risk as the previous administration thought. So the new president updates the website to get his message out. That's how democracy works. Or do you think the EPA should be an independent agency and not accountable to the electorate?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Troll=1, Insightful=4, Overrated=1, Total=6
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by VLM on Sunday April 30 2017, @03:57PM (11 children)

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 30 2017, @03:57PM (#501883)

    With a side dish of Trump Derangement Syndrome where some dude runs "apt-get upgrade" then the antifa claim that phrase is voodoo chanted during child sacrifices at comet pizza, oh wait the other guy won, I mean they claim its paternalistic and misogynistic because "apt-get" is one of the 47 new genders and its wrong to imply someone should be forced to upgrade their sexual identity so we need new bathrooms for everyone, especially the guy who sexually identifies as an apache attack helicopter, oh god slippery hydraulic oil everywhere.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday April 30 2017, @04:06PM (10 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday April 30 2017, @04:06PM (#501888)

      We get the government we deserve (we, the country - not we, your like-minded friends and acquaintances).

      Did you ever give up trying to convince your idiot acquaintances in school that their views and priorities were short-sighted, self-destructive, and very bad for other people around them? Yeah, me too. This is on us.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by piss_drinker on Sunday April 30 2017, @07:28PM (5 children)

        by piss_drinker (6536) on Sunday April 30 2017, @07:28PM (#501958)

        It doesn't take much to have a label like "Fringe Thinker" stamped on your forehead. Then anything you say, that others don't feel comfortable with, can be easily put aside. You don't even have to carry unpopular opinions. All it takes is to question opinions that others view as self evident. I don't have to say that the moon is made of cheese. But if I confess that I can't prove that it isn't made out cheese, which is the truth, I am just as bad.

        Many seem pretty taken with the, "if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything" phrase. But as soon as you stand for something, so you're not caught looking like you could fall for anything, you have pretty much just fallen for anything. Standing for something without sufficient data is simultaneously the accusation and productive aim of the phrase.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @07:49PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @07:49PM (#501966)

          All it takes is to question opinions that others view as self evident.

          You are right. There is one group, widely represented here and elsewhere online, who seem absolutely determined to question that all men are created equal and that the role of government is to effect their Safety and Happiness.

          • (Score: 1) by piss_drinker on Monday May 01 2017, @03:16PM

            by piss_drinker (6536) on Monday May 01 2017, @03:16PM (#502293)

            [QUOTE]widely represented here[/QUOTE]

            This place actually rocks. I enjoy /. but even the trolls here are more entertaining. It really shocked me to find that I could make posts without JS enables. Love that! Glad to hear that the site moved to Gentoo. I would have thought NetBSD, Slackware, or even Devaun as cool too. If I had the time, I'd see if I could dev some integration for reading and posting via a telnet/ssh BBS like connection. SDF seems like one of the last providers for that. But it has no web access for the console illiterate.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @08:48PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @08:48PM (#501991)

          The problem is when what is "self-evident" is stuff that has no empirical evidence. Empirical evidence should be the very definition of self-evident.

          Trickle down economics
          Invisible hand solutions
          Pull self up by bootstraps approach to welfare/healthcare
          Temperatures not increasing due to CO2
          More guns don't result in more unnecessary deaths

          The only thing self-evident about these is that they lead to certain rich people getting more money.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @11:41PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @11:41PM (#502049)

            Complex models man, complex models that show man is irrevocably responsible for the end of days. It is done by scientists with conclusions drawn subjectively by scientists, so it is science.

            I have a weird mad hat conspiracy theory that all these are done by creationists and religious nut cakes to discredit science. After all the best way to beat something is to join in and discredit it from within while having the perfect cover to push your agendas. Just like the mafia/mob's approach to beat the police is to join their ranks

          • (Score: 1) by piss_drinker on Monday May 01 2017, @05:07PM

            by piss_drinker (6536) on Monday May 01 2017, @05:07PM (#502359)
            I felt inspired today, so don't blame yourself for this reply. Feel free to flame it and laugh :)

            The problem is when what is "self-evident" is stuff that has no empirical evidence. Empirical evidence should be the very definition of self-evident.

            That is the beginning of a long conversation. But I agree that it is a problem. The issue with theory (logic) is that it hardly ever comes in a distilled package. But empirical evidence is always examined with logic. Not all logic is equal. So it seems that supposing our own logic as empirical might be the problem. But thats more of a problem for you and me. Fortunately we often realize that it can be a problem, which is why we are so good at pointing it out in others. A really interesting problem is not even questioning whats empirical, with whatever logic one does have. Just basing rational on emotions that hang from a sleeve and the pattern of thought that places you in a comfortable social group. Which is almost a contradiction since no one in the groups are actually open or social. They are just repeaters of clique validation to continually build the pleasant foundations fantasy cohesion. Thats why its the American "Dream". The real thing requires too much personal responsibility on the part of ever single moving body. And the very thought that this could happen causes the masters of illusion to break into a sweat of terror. Thats why we call it terrorism. So they pour on the ever relieving elixirs of opinions, well designed and orchestrated toward pride and conflict. Then the people sleep well at night (and during the day) again, enjoying freedom and liberty from self governing. We don't have to think it out. We are smart enough to agree with leaders that have nothing but the patriotism of governing us in mind. We may get the government that we deserve. But history seems to show that when the people start deserving something other than what they've been programmed for; its often something like the "Red Scare" so that the bad code can be weeded back out again. But then again thats what government is. They are not ever going to allow us voting it out as a whole. But if we all did self govern, our limited perspective of species management might have us preventing things like cancer and war. People might start living well into their 80's, across the board. Which is fine, except that we all have different ideas about what fair division of resources is; against what might be a enormous population of personal governments. Without our culturally designed distractions, me might become efficient managers of our time and self development. All of our social pleasantries may fall through the cracks. We might start stoning people, in the center of town, for being too lazy or reckless. If one of your children gets out of line, you better stone it to death to assure everyone that you aren't going to be a problem. We would at least know that we were the masters of our own destiny. At least until the dirt takes us. Which is about the time some of us realize we were being masterfully governed all along. Governed by some force that nurtures the minds/natures of life to reach for control, like a plant leaning towards the sunlight. Be it nuclear devastation, genocide, or the labor of birth; every degree of societal station witness to the empirical evidence that nature governs everything within in it, by varying mixtures of attraction and repulsion. The division between the two actions a complete illusion. As each attraction is a repulse from, and each repulsions is an attract towards. So no matter if the observation is within the illusion or unified without it, the law is irrevocably fair. This since each return is always a whole with each investment. The two were always one thing. Being forcefully naive about the unseen investments and returns that are responsible for each persons available investments, and the paired returns, is no excuses deserving of grace. But I don't mind owning it, with a crooked smile on my face and a twinkle in my eye. Behind every joke posing as a responsible system, is a truth that is just as funny. I don't mind taking a real sincere go at it. I never really had anything to lose. Failure and success were both daydreams. But thats a different kind of freedom altogether. One that everything alive was born with, and every con must veil. I could go on like this forever. Fortunately for everyone else, I don't. Today.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @08:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @08:28PM (#501981)

        We get the government we deserve (we, the country - not we, your like-minded friends and acquaintances).

        That's a vacuous claim.
        It presumes that all people have equal access to the levers of democracy.
        And that's demonstrably not true. We don't live in a country that follows the principle of one-man, one-vote.
        Not to mention that voting itself is much more feasible for people of means.
        So, as a description of the collective will of the people, your statement is just plain false.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday April 30 2017, @09:05PM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 30 2017, @09:05PM (#501999) Journal

        Did you ever give up trying to convince your idiot acquaintances in school that their views and priorities were short-sighted, self-destructive, and very bad for other people around them?

        Yes, because I grew up and realized that was hypocritical delusion. Sanctimonious virtue signaling is a paltry replacement for a good argument and some patience can sway more people than you can be bothered to care about. Let us keep in mind that the EPA is one of the many blocks in the wall that created the Trump administration.

        There are glaring abuses of the EPA's power, such as Sackett v. EPA [ballotpedia.org] where a couple was fined almost $75k per day for filling in alleged wetlands on a 0.6 acre lot or a quarter of a hectare with the EPA claiming that the couple couldn't appeal the fines and the EPA's ruling in court until they had paid those fines. The EPA has a variety of abusive and sometimes unconstitutional powers like the regulations on wetlands (a very expansive power since any poorly drained land is technically wetlands), Superfund, and vague laws on what is considered pollution (leading to their now reversed declaration that CO2 was a pollutant).

        And what exactly is short sighted and self destructive about not being interested in more orders of magnitude reduction in pollution thresholds for already stringent pollution standards or one of the more significant creators of bureaucracy and stultifying regulation in the US (last I heard the EPA has contributed 10-20% of the pages of US law and regulation)? A lot of what the EPA does is just not that valuable for what the EPA costs - not just in direct budget but also in limiting US society.

        • (Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @10:40PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @10:40PM (#502028)

          Here's how to determine the difference between virtue signalling and good argument: does khallow agree with it? If so, it's good argument. If not, it's virtue signalling.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 01 2017, @04:52PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 01 2017, @04:52PM (#502349) Journal

            Here's how to determine the difference between virtue signalling and good argument: does khallow agree with it?

            Sorry, there's a lot of stuff I don't disagree with that isn't virtue signalling. You'll just have to come up with a better test. Although it is remarkable how many people with bad arguments (such as yourself here), I happen to disagree with.

            One doesn't go to school because one knows too much. Let's look again at the virtue signalling I quoted:

            Did you ever give up trying to convince your idiot acquaintances in school that their views and priorities were short-sighted, self-destructive, and very bad for other people around them?

            Note the blanket characterization of everyone he knew as "idiot acquaintances". The genius swimming alone in a sea of fools is a traditional bit of virtue signalling going back to Plato's cave and using a lantern to search for wise men. And he casts blame only on others. They couldn't recognize the alleged wisdom of JoeMerchant's words, according to his comfortable narrative.

            And what exactly is the smart thing to do about the US's situation that is so obvious that only "idiot acquaintances" can miss it?

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Sunday April 30 2017, @04:06PM (12 children)

    by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 30 2017, @04:06PM (#501889)

    I'd settle for the electorate being accountable to reality.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by BK on Sunday April 30 2017, @04:37PM (10 children)

      by BK (4868) on Sunday April 30 2017, @04:37PM (#501903)

      No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time… --Winston Churchill, 11-Nov-1947

      I suppose we need an enlightened dictator to hold the people accountable then?

      --
      ...but you HAVE heard of me.
      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @06:49PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @06:49PM (#501948)

        I suppose we need an enlightened dictator to hold the people accountable then?

        Fuck you and your dark enlightenment fascism.

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday April 30 2017, @07:46PM (1 child)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday April 30 2017, @07:46PM (#501964) Journal

        There is no such thing as an enlightened dictator. If such were possible, s/he would not be a dictator.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday April 30 2017, @08:18PM

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday April 30 2017, @08:18PM (#501979) Journal

          Maybe not as the word is used today, but that's not the root of the word. The Romans understood the necessity of dictators from time-to-time, and one of the early ones was basically a legendary Roman figure for handling the position appropriately, i.e., giving up his power once the crisis was resolved and returning to his farm [wikipedia.org].

          Unfortunately, later Roman dictators abused the privilege and eventually refused to give up the dictatorship entirely (see the Caesars). Ever since, dictators have gotten a bad name.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday April 30 2017, @08:09PM (3 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 30 2017, @08:09PM (#501976) Journal

        I suppose we need an enlightened dictator to hold the people accountable then?

        You already have one, it's called nature. Not quite a dictator, rather a despot.

        It's enlightened, does not micromanage, you have as much free will as possible.
        Try to break one of its rules see what happens.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @08:51PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @08:51PM (#501992)

          What happens is some poor brown people die in a far away country. Problem?

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday April 30 2017, @09:00PM (1 child)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 30 2017, @09:00PM (#501997) Journal

            Maybe a human tragedy but definitely not a problem.
            Humans are just one small part of the nature, no matter what they think (of themselves).

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @03:12AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @03:12AM (#502111)

              Indeed. It's not like we're burning down/cutting down rainforest faster than any other species in nature. We're not spilling more oil in the ocean than any other. We're not releasing any more carbon monoxide into the atmosphere than any other species either. Totes a small nail in the scheme of things that can be hammered down at any time.

      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday May 01 2017, @02:39AM

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday May 01 2017, @02:39AM (#502104) Journal

        Churchill also said that the best argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter.

        There should be no doubt, this is our battle to lose.

        --
        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @10:16AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @10:16AM (#502206)

        That was going to be Hillary's job.

      • (Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday May 01 2017, @01:38PM

        by jdavidb (5690) on Monday May 01 2017, @01:38PM (#502256) Homepage Journal

        I'd settle for the electorate being accountable to reality.

        I suppose we need an enlightened dictator to hold the people accountable then?

        False dichotomy.

        No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time… --Winston Churchill, 11-Nov-1947

        Winston Churchill never tried voluntaryism/panarchy.

        --
        ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @06:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @06:33PM (#501943)

      The electorate is accountable to reality.*

      *Eventually, with collateral damage.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday April 30 2017, @04:26PM (10 children)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday April 30 2017, @04:26PM (#501897) Journal

    That's how democracy works.

    Science is not a democracy.

    Or do you think the EPA should be an independent agency and not accountable to the electorate?

    The whole reason we have elected officials is because direct democracy doesn't work well for making ALL decisions. People can't be educated all about all possible things the government is involved with -- and for that matter, neither can presidents. Which is why presidents traditionally depend on experts to help them make decisions. Military experts inform them about the best strategies for winning a battle. Financial experts inform them about the potential consequences of economic policy. And science experts advise on a great number of topics, too. Most of these decisions would NOT be better if "the electorate" was micromanaging things. Should we take a vote on the best battle plan too?

    A president is elected who does not believe climate change is as big a risk as the previous administration thought.

    The previous administration was an embarrassment on environmental issues too. The rhetoric was better, but the action was not significant. At least this administration is being more honest about it. So, my best hope is that seeing truly terrible environment policy and anti-science rhetoric might actually wake some more people up.

    But I doubt it. The real bad effects are likely still a few decades off. Business leaders these days can't generally see further than a five-year plan, if that. Executives are worse, because they often jump ship and do something else when the business threatens to go down. If they're a CEO, they just take a golden parachute and live out their retirement in luxury. Trump is such a person. Unfortunately for us, his "company" is now the U.S., and his environmental policy affects the entire planet. "Jumping ship" is not an option for most of us when his four-year plan is not sustainable, but we only see the business collapse decades from now.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by BK on Sunday April 30 2017, @04:50PM (2 children)

      by BK (4868) on Sunday April 30 2017, @04:50PM (#501907)

      That's how democracy works.

      Science is not a democracy.

      Seems like there are two responses here.
      1 - I've heard the word consensus bandied about from time to time in relation to science. If having majorities (of the scientists) matters so much, how can you say that science is not a democracy?
      2 - The EPA is an agency that makes and implements Policy. That places in to the literal realm of politics and not of science. In the USA, politics is (or pretends to be) driven by democracy. Why pretend otherwise?

      --
      ...but you HAVE heard of me.
      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday April 30 2017, @05:32PM (1 child)

        by kaszz (4211) on Sunday April 30 2017, @05:32PM (#501918) Journal

        I've heard the word consensus bandied about from time to time in relation to science. If having majorities (of the scientists) matters so much, how can you say that science is not a democracy?

        If all the voters have a PhD or better in the relevant field, then yes a consensus on the matter in question may matter. Otherwise not.

        The EPA is an agency that makes and implements Policy. That places in to the literal realm of politics and not of science. In the USA, politics is (or pretends to be) driven by democracy. Why pretend otherwise?

        The EPA should decide on what to do to keep the environment in good shape. If the presidential administration wants to send a new directive like "drop the environment and keep out of any profiteering enterprise". Well that's their privilege. To tell EPA how to protect the environment is just messes things up.

        I wonder how long it takes before some physical reality that won't budge at all to do the administration in. It tends to be consequential without any discrimination whatsoever.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @11:28PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @11:28PM (#502043)

          First of all, consider how you get a PhD. You have to toe the line. Your work gets reviewed by people already in the field, with a bias toward not showing their own ideas to be wrong.

          Second of all, consider funding. In all fields, "The sky is falling, and we need to study this more!" is how you get funding. Try with "There is nothing serious." or "Previous research already figured things out." and see how much you get funded.

          Third of all, consider the mindset needed to devote your life to an impractical profession that offers low pay, probably futile struggle for position (tenure), and lots of liberal/office politics. This is something only a liberal could love. It's like joining the Peace Corps or running off to Hollywood in search of stardom. Liberals dominate both ends of the education spectrum. Conservatives, with their practical mindset, tend to get a bachelor's or master's degree in something like economics or engineering. They then get married, buy a house, and pop out kids. Being a PhD (or a high school drop-out) almost requires a liberal mindset.

          Fourth of all, consider the hiring and tenure process. (a typical motivation for getting the PhD) Faculty are openly biased against conservatives. Why bother with the PhD if the deck is stacked against you?

    • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday April 30 2017, @07:10PM (6 children)

      by linkdude64 (5482) on Sunday April 30 2017, @07:10PM (#501954)

      "Science is not a democracy."

      Well it's a good thing that SCIENCE itself is not under attack, then, and that the EPA is NOT "SCIENCE Inc." but an organization that is headed by an appointee made via a democratic process.

      You jokers and your "I fucking love science" facebook-tier arguments. Trump is not attacking this very un-funny "SCIENCE" meme that you've been dragging along since Portal 10 fucking years ago, he is attacking Federal Enforcement of environmental policies. The states are still completely free to impose environmental sanctions as their constituents so desire.

      "Well the states are weak! Big government has all the power!"

      Guess whose political party is responsible for that.

      "Well the Federal government has all the tax money! They're the ones who need to fund SCIENCE!"

      Guess whose political party is responsible for that.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @07:27PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @07:27PM (#501957)

        So much bolding, so much anger.

        he is attacking Federal Enforcement of environmental policies.

        And he's doing that by trying to erase the science that is the evidence for those policies.
        If you don't look for evidence you'll never find any evidence.
        Much like how the DEA refused access to legal marijuana for anyone doing research on its beneficial properties.

        The EPA is a lot more than enforcement. The EPA is a research organization [scientificamerican.com] and the websites that are being disappeared are not enforcement websites, they are science websites.

        But you are also right. Trump wants to cut one third of the EPA's superfund budget. [reuters.com] Cleaning up after bankrupt polluters is enforcement over-reach! Leaving the land and water contaminated is the responsible thing to do.

        • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @07:29PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @07:29PM (#501959)

          Cleaning up after bankrupt polluters is enforcement over-reach!

          MAGA!
          Make America Gross Again!

          Are you tired of winning yet?

      • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday April 30 2017, @08:35PM (1 child)

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Sunday April 30 2017, @08:35PM (#501986) Journal

        Well it's a good thing that SCIENCE itself is not under attack, then, and that the EPA is NOT "SCIENCE Inc." but an organization that is headed by an appointee made via a democratic process.

        The OP I was responding to was talking about how Trump didn't "believe in climate change" and therefore is going to change the EPA. That is a rejection of science.

        Trump is not attacking this very un-funny "SCIENCE" meme that you've been dragging along since Portal 10 fucking years ago, he is attacking Federal Enforcement of environmental policies.

        Well, as I already stated, the last administration already had a pretty terrible record on actual policy relating to climate science. We shall see what Mr. Trump replaces this with. If he is merely changing policy, then you might have a point. If his revised website is going to question the science (or at least remove it) and become a source of anti-climate change propaganda (as the post I was actually replying to suggested), then he will actually be addressing the SCIENCE, not just policy.

        The states are still completely free to impose environmental sanctions as their constituents so desire.

        LOL. Seriously, I'd be rolling on the floor if I didn't think you were actually serious. The very idea that individual states should have their own policy on global warming?? It's bad enough that the globe is still fractured into countries who can't agree on what to do, but sure, let's add in 50 more dysfunctional governments into the picture.

        Even the Founders of the U.S. understood very well that there are SOME things that the people need to band together on. That's why they founded the U.S. in the first place, rather than remaining individual colonies. The original enumerated powers in the Constitution were an explicit list of all the things the Founders understood were better handled by a larger government, rather than just addressed by local ones.

        If an issue like global climate change doesn't qualify as something that we should try to have a consistent national policy on... I just don't know how to respond to that.

        P.S. I completely understand the small government constitutional argument that the federal government has been acting beyond the enumerated powers for many decades. In an ideal world, we should be amending the Constitution to deal with threats to the nation (or globe) as a whole. But even IF we followed constitutional procedure, climate change is pretty much exactly the sort of things the Founders would have said we need to band together on.

        Guess whose political party is responsible for that.

        I hate both major parties with a passion. My previous post condemned the Obama administration as well as the current one. I'm not sure what your point is, though keep bolding and repeating it like a weird chant and maybe something will happen....

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday May 01 2017, @12:12AM

          Guess whose political party is responsible for that.

          The Clean Air Act [wikipedia.org] was an incredible power grab. It was passed with broad bi-partisan support in 1963. The major amendments (including creation of the EPA, also garnered wide bi-partisan support. This historic government overreach, however, fall squarely on the pinko commie sleaze, led by Richard Nixon, who signed the Clean Air Act, then created the EPA by (unconstitutional) executive order [ontheissues.org] said:

          Our national government today is not structured to make a coordinated attack on the pollutants which debase the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land that grows our food. Indeed, the present governmental structure for dealing with environmental pollution often defies effective and concerted action. Despite its complexity, for pollution control purposes the environment must be perceived as a single, interrelated system. Present assignments of departmental responsibiliti reflect this interrelatedness.

                  A far more effective approach to pollution control would:
                  Identify pollutants.
                  Trace them through the entire ecological chain, observing and recording changes in form as they occur.
                  Determine the tot of man and his environment.
                  Examine interactions among forms of pollution.
                  Identify where in the ecological chain interdiction would be most appropriate.

          In 1990, once again those filthy liberals, like George H.W. Bush and majorities in both houses (Senate: 89-11, and House: 401-21) created more job-killing regulation, just to grab more power for themselves. [epa.gov]

          We need to just bomb the next Democratic National Convention (in 2020) and get rid of of those commie pigs forever. Fucking liberals are destroying everything! Oh, wait.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @09:01PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @09:01PM (#501998)

        The states are still completely free to impose environmental sanctions as their constituents so desire.

        Nope.

        It seemed likely, she said, that the Trump administration and its allies in the car industry would attack California’s ability to regulate greenhouse-gas pollution from car tailpipes.

        This may sound niche. But if Trump revoked the special federal waiver that gives California this power, it could hinder the ability of the United States to address climate change for decades to come, she said.

        On Saturday, The New York Times reported that Scott Pruitt, the new administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was exploring how to withdraw this waiver from California.

        The Coming Clean-Air War Between Trump and California [theatlantic.com]

        You got any more alt-facts to regale us with?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @11:34PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @11:34PM (#502046)

          California is hurting all non-California car manufacturers. It's like a trade war, which is supposed to be prevented by our constitution.

          California is also crying wolf about cancer. Vague and useless cancer warnings are posted on every business in California and on nearly every product that might be sold in California. I'm not kidding: go to a hotel, and somewhere you'll find posted a notice that the hotel contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer. It's chemphobia, and it gets people used to ignoring cancer warnings.

  • (Score: 2) by BK on Sunday April 30 2017, @04:32PM

    by BK (4868) on Sunday April 30 2017, @04:32PM (#501900)

    Or do you think the EPA should be an independent agency and not accountable to the electorate?

    I think lots of folks here expect that agencies will be unaccountable when the accountability runs counter to their preferred religion -- oh, I mean 'societal and political system' [soylentnews.org].

    There are a few bits of the US government that serve all of the parties fairly well most of the time (the CBO for example), but too many of them threw in maybe a bit too much with one side over the past few years and forgot to stay useful to the opposition. All their eggs in one basket and all of that.

    --
    ...but you HAVE heard of me.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @07:41PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @07:41PM (#501961)

    That's how democracy works.

    No, that is only how 'democracy' works if you are a reductive fool who flunked out of civics class.

    Democracy requires a baselines set of norms and institutions that all groups accept as important and valuable because they are the scaffolding that supports the democratic process. When those norms are violated and those institutions discarded democracy is weakened. Dismantle too much of that scaffolding and democracy collapses into tribal conflict. President bannon has outright said that is his goal — "the deconstruction of the administrative state" — his word choice demonstrates he is an illiterate blowhard, [merriam-webster.com] but his intent was clear and this attack on the EPA's science work is a clear example of that intent in action.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @10:15PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @10:15PM (#502018)

      Well, you are wrong about flunking out of civics class. It's reasonable to assume that the rest of your rant has equal truth value.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @11:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30 2017, @11:04PM (#502036)

        AC got owned and now his feelings are hurt.