SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Sunday April 30 2017, @03:07PM
from the we-can-find-no-longer-find-data-against-our-plans dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Big book, big bore.
-- Callimachus
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday April 30 2017, @08:35PM (1 child)
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:
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