SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
EPA scientists warn the EPA against proposed regulation rollbacks:
The Environmental Protection Agency's Scientific Advisory Board isn't down with the organization's proposed regulatory rollbacks. In the draft reports the panel has published, it warned that the rollbacks are based on weak scientific analysis and even go against established science.
One of the proposals the board criticized is the administration's plan to reduce Obama-era vehicle emissions standards for car and light truck models up to 2026. The 41 scientists in the board, many of whom were appointed by the Trump administration, said there are "significant weaknesses in the scientific analysis of the proposed rule." They explained (PDF) that the economic models used to justify the rollback have weaknesses that lead to "implausible results."
Meanwhile, they said the EPA's plan to modify the Waters of the United States rule, which defines the waterways that can be federally regulated, is not fully consistent with established science. The change would reverse a rule that limits dredging and pesticide applications near smaller streams and wetlands, and the panel says it "neglects established science" that shows how contaminated wetlands and groundwater can spread to drinking water reserves.
[...] Vermont Law School Patrick Parenteau told The New York Times, however, that the panel's recommendations could stop the rollbacks from happening. "The courts basically say if you're going to ignore the advice of your own experts you have to have really good reasons for that," he said. "And not just policy reasons but reasons that go to the merits of what the critiques are saying."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 03 2020, @11:06AM (6 children)
If what you do on your land stops at the property line I might agree with you. But the science says that what you want to do affects your neighbor and your neighbor's neighbor.
Wrapping yourself in the constitution doesn't cut it this time.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Friday January 03 2020, @03:12PM (5 children)
Indeed - you've got to wonder how they'd feel about someone dumping liquid toxic waste just uphill from their house so that it flows into their yard. I'd warrant they start singing sing a very different tune.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 03 2020, @06:07PM (4 children)
There's lawsuits for that, and it has nothing to do with the federal gov. Not sure why this concept is difficult for you to understand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 03 2020, @07:44PM
exactly. no one here is against actual accountability for polluters. we're against criminal parasites lording over innocent land owners.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Friday January 03 2020, @08:30PM (2 children)
The problem with lawsuits is that:
1) You have to prove you were directly harmed in order to have standing - and pollutants typically cause slow-developing chronic problems that *might* be caused by other things - so good luck proving that you wouldn't have gotten cancer, etc. if not for the pollutants.
2) You have to prove who caused the problem - good luck proving that the chemicals in your water supply came from one particular polluter 600 miles upstream - particularly when there's 300 other polluters dumping the same shit into your water. When many people are responsible for a problem, no one will be found at fault. There's no basis in US law for "anti-class action" lawsuits against everyone in a group.
3) Even if you somehow win, there's no way to clean up the problem once it's been created - so other people will keep being poisoned for many years to come.
And of course most people don't regularly test their water, so they won't even know there's a problem until much later.
Heck, the people of Flint haven't even been able to successfully sue the people who intentionally subjected them to lead poisoning, with a paper trail proving who was responsible. You really think they'd have better luck suing people three states away for the other pollutants in their water?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday January 03 2020, @09:03PM
It is a common Libertarian trope that the market will take care of things like water pollution, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Don't go bringing your logic and real-world examples to this debate, those people believe in magic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 03 2020, @11:50PM
Yes, how interesting. That is exactly what was predicted to happen when the federal government starts meddling and people turn to the EPA/FDA/etc as the final experts then this gets codified into law. It is all very obvious and predictable but you are apparently doomed to continue fallign for it and bitching helplessly on the internet as the exact opposite of what you claim to want happens over and over and over.