EPA Proposes Rule Change That Would Let Power Plants Release More Toxic Pollution (npr.org) 400
The Trump administration announced on Friday a plan designed to make it easier for coal-fired power plants, after nearly a decade of restrictions, to release into the atmosphere more mercury and other pollutants linked to developmental disorders and respiratory illnesses [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source].
From a report: The limits on mercury, set in 2011, were the first federal standards to restrict some of the most hazardous pollutants emitted by coal plants and were considered one of former President Barack Obama's signature environmental achievements. Since then, scientists have said, mercury pollution from power plants has declined more than 80 percent nationwide. President Trump's new proposal does not repeal the regulation, known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, but it would lay the groundwork for doing so by weakening a key legal justification for the measure. The long-term impact would be significant: It would weaken the ability of the E.P.A. to impose new regulations in the future by adjusting the way the agency measures the benefits of curbing pollutants, giving less weight to the potential health gains.
In announcing the proposed rule, the Environmental Protection Agency said in a statement that the cost of cutting mercury from power plants "dwarfs" the monetary benefits. The proposal, which the acting E.P.A. administrator, Andrew Wheeler, signed on Thursday, is expected to appear in the federal register in the coming weeks. The public will have 60 days to comment on it before a final rule is issued. [...] Reworking the mercury rule, which the E.P.A. considers the priciest clean air regulation ever put forth in terms of annual cost to industry, would represent a victory for the coal industry, and in particular for Robert E. Murray, an important former client of Mr. Wheeler's from his days as a lobbyist.
In announcing the proposed rule, the Environmental Protection Agency said in a statement that the cost of cutting mercury from power plants "dwarfs" the monetary benefits. The proposal, which the acting E.P.A. administrator, Andrew Wheeler, signed on Thursday, is expected to appear in the federal register in the coming weeks. The public will have 60 days to comment on it before a final rule is issued. [...] Reworking the mercury rule, which the E.P.A. considers the priciest clean air regulation ever put forth in terms of annual cost to industry, would represent a victory for the coal industry, and in particular for Robert E. Murray, an important former client of Mr. Wheeler's from his days as a lobbyist.
This whole administration (Score:4, Insightful)
is mentally ill.
Re:This whole administration (Score:5, Informative)
Profits > human health and well being and lives.
And the donors paid awesome money for Trump and the Republicans. They are getting exactly what they want.
See, the Republican has been sold this lie that environmental protections are liberal snowflake luxuries when in fact they are about protecting our health and well being. And then you have business owners who say regulations are "job killers" and when those regulations are removed they - get this - STILL eliminate jobs to fatten their bottom lines even more.
But yet we little people are stuck with the healthcare bills and costs for the damage caused by the pollution and toxins.
Re: (Score:3)
That's okay. America has cheap and cost effective healthcare available to all.
Re:This whole administration (Score:5, Funny)
is mentally ill.
That is the point. Mercury is a neurotoxin. It makes you dumb. By loosening the standard, this will make people in critical swing states that have a lot of coal mining, such as Pennsylvania, dumber and more like to vote for Trump in 2020.
Trump won Pennsylvania by less than 1% in 2016. Obama carried it by 5.4% in 2012.
Re:This whole administration (Score:5, Insightful)
is mentally ill.
That is the point. Mercury is a neurotoxin. It makes you dumb. By loosening the standard, this will make people in critical swing states that have a lot of coal mining, such as Pennsylvania, dumber and more like to vote for Trump in 2020.
Trump won Pennsylvania by less than 1% in 2016. Obama carried it by 5.4% in 2012.
Republicans have been pushing anti-intellectualism for a long time. I would not be remotely surprised if various republican operatives are okay with dumbing down their population. They certainly are okay with lying about everything and destroying the credibility of the fourth estate if it helps them. What makes this basically treasonous, is they know making the population easier to manipulate means that any sufficiently powerful group can manipulate them. They are perfectly happy to promote this.
In short they promote a stronger military (as if we needed a stronger military), but fail to defend where we truly are weak, and that is holding up standards of truth, honor, and decency. They push propaganda, rather than fighting against it, and tell people the propaganda is truth and the truth is propaganda. If that is not actual Evil, then I'm not sure what Evil is. The ends don't justify the means. They never did.
How is publishing the scientific data anti-intelle (Score:4, Insightful)
Just curious, how is having the EPA publish their scientific data, as already required by law, anti-intellectual?
The court ruled when the Obama EPA lumped totally unrelated things together in a deliberate effort to obscure the results their study, that was hiding the scientific facts. To me, that's what seems anti-intellectual.
Unless you mean anti pseudo-intellectual?
Re: How is publishing the scientific data anti-int (Score:2)
The problem is that this would prevent the EPA from using public health studies in drafting regulations unless the study authors release data that would identify individuals' health issues.
You're thinking of a different issue (Score:4, Informative)
What you are referring to is a different issue entirely.
This isn't about personal data.
In this case, someone at the White House asked the EPA to put forth some new regulations on coal that would be hard to comply with. Reducing mercury levels by another 90% would be difficult and expensive ($10 billion / year, according to the EPA under Obama), so that's what the White House person asked the EPA to do. Before making that rule, the EPA is legally required to release the results of their analysis of the costs and benefits of mercury reduction at those levels.
It turns out, the EPA analysis found that further mercury reduction wasn't the best way to improve public health - not by a long shot. It would be far better to reduce the levels of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates, the EPA analysis found. That presented a problem for the EPA. Particulates can be reduced with a simple passive filter - they are literally particles. That wasn't what the White House VIP* wanted, but if the EPA released their analysis about mercury levels as required it would make their new regulation look stupid. So the EPA had a problem - release their study and look stupid, or not issue the regulation and piss off White House VIP.
Their solution was to draft an analysis of the cost of mercury reduction and the benefits of reducing particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. Less than 10% of the expected benefits were from reducing mercury, which was what the new regulation required.
This went to court in 2015 and the court ruled that the law says the EPA has to release their analysis of mercury levels. They aren't allowed to obscure the facts they came up with by mixing in benefits if particulates were also reduced, and sulfur dioxide, etc. When they issue a regulation saying mercury has to be reduced by 90%, they are legally required to release their analysis of what benefits and costs reduced mercury levels would have.
* If you thought about who in the White House was trying to punish coal-producing states and guessed that White House VIP was expected to become the next president, you've made the same guess a lot of people have.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you thought about who in the White House was trying to punish coal-producing states
No one, you paranoid fuckwit, no one is trying to punish coal producing states.
Natural gas has decimated the demand for coal because it's cheaper to extract and much easier to build efficient plants. And renewables which are early lifecycle are already becoming competitive with coal [*] which is very mature tech.
And finally even if you decide to socialise all the damage of coal and just deregulate, uess what those coal pro
Do you have any citations for any of this? (Score:2)
Based on what I know about mercury (albeit not a huge amount) I'm with Obama on this one. But you seem to be implying Obama intentionally attacked the coal industry for some other reason. That's a pretty big accusation, but with the amount of lobbying going on you never know. Can you
Here's the Supreme Court ruling (Score:4, Informative)
> But you seem to be implying Obama intentionally attacked the coal industry
I don't think White House VIP is Obama. So no, nothing to do with Obama. The identity of VIP isn't publicly known, but probably most people familiar with the evidence in the case think it's Hillary. Doesn't really matter now, what matters is that the government should follow the law they create for the rest of us to follow.
> no safe level of mercury exposure. It builds up in the body over time. It's why pregnant women aren't supposed to eat fish.
And yet you're not wearing a biohazard suit to protect yourself from mercury in the world. You've (quite reasonably) decided to expose yourself to mercury and a lot of other much more dangerous things. Pros and cons. You've made a reasonable decision that it's not worth it. You could also spend $50,000 sealing up your house to keep mercury out, but that would be silly because if you were going to spend $50,000 being safer, you'd spend it on a safer car, more smoke detectors, etc. You want to avoid mercury, and you've already done the reasonable things - like not using mercury oral thermometers. Spending half your salary every year to be even safer from mercury would be unreasonable, in your analysis.
> Based on what I know about mercury (albeit not a huge amount) I'm with Obama on this one.
Not knowing much about mercury isn't a problem in this discussion. You can decide this without knowing anything about mercury, because there is no question about mercury up for discussion. The question is whether the government should follow the law and reveal what they know. The EPA knows about mercury, they did a big analysis of studies about mercury. The question a whether they should unlawfully hide that analysis when the results aren't pleasing to White House VIP, whoever that is.
You asked for a citation. To start with, here's the Supreme Court ruling saying what the EPA did was unlawful.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/o... [supremecourt.gov]
The SCOTUS ruling talks a lot about law, and specifically the specific point of law that SCOTUS chose to address, after the trial court and appeals court handled other issues of law. Issues of fact are handled by the trial court. You can use the case title to find the documents from the trial court for further information on the facts.
Nobody is saying the EPA can't regulate mercury emissions. The law says that when they regulate something, they have to release their analysis, which has to at least arguably show three things, all the while giving the EPA the benefit of the doubt (the law assumes the EPA is right if the analysis shows it's debatable). The EPA has to show that:
They considered the benefits of the proposed regulation
The considered the costs
The proposed regulation could be reasonably be expected to accomplish a lawful goal of the agency
After releasing their analysis they then have to have a comment period in which the public may comment on the analysis, pointing out any major flaws such as if it missed the primary costs, pointing better wording that would be more effective, etc. It's illegal for them to put a regulation in place and say "we don't care what the costs are, and we're not going to give anyone a chance to see our analysis or comment on it. Someone from the White House wants this, so they're going to get it - scientific analysis and the law be damned". That's not legal.
Re: (Score:2)
The court ruled when the Obama EPA lumped totally unrelated things together in a deliberate effort to obscure the results their study, that was hiding the scientific facts. To me, that's what seems anti-intellectual.
As near as I can tell the real world implication of what Obummer did saves way more in aggregate healthcare costs borne by OTHERS even when applying a generous 100% discount on intangible cost of human suffering far in excess of some 10 billion spent on scrubbers.
Those arguing against reality seem to be making an entirely pedantic process argument asserting only benefits related specifically to mercury reduction should matter therefore actual reality reflecting actual implications of Obummers changes shoul
Re:In that case, you radically disagree with the E (Score:4, Informative)
You're guessing the benefits are several thousand times higher than what the EPA analysis predicted. Do you have any evidence, any reason to think that?
From EPAs own website:
In 2016, these proposed rules would avoid:
6,800 â" 17,000 premature deaths
4,500 cases of chronic bronchitis
11,000 nonfatal heart attacks
12,200 hospital and emergency room visits
11,000 cases of acute bronchitis
220,000 cases of respiratory symptoms
850,000 days when people miss work
120,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and 5.1 million days when people must restrict their activities
EPA estimates the health benefits associated with reduced exposure to fine particles are $59 billion to $140 billion in 2016 (2007$).
Source:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/prod... [epa.gov]
Doesn't change mercury emissions, you know? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure if you read the summary vs just the clickbait headline, but this makes no changes to mercury emissions. What has changed is that in the future, the EPA will comply with the law, as ordered by court order from 2015 regarding how they document the reasons for their decisions.
The proposed change is that in the future the EPA will publish certain data (as already required by law), rather than obscuring the data by lumping unrelated things together.
The summary hints at what's actually going on when the summary says:
-- ...
President Trump's new proposal does not repeal the regulation, known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
a key legal justification for the measure. The long-term impact would be significant: It would weaken the ability of the E.P.A. to impose new regulations in the future [without publishing their data regarding the new regulation they made up]
---
Here's what happened. Under the Obama administration, certain people in the White House asked the EPA to put new regulations on coal. By law, when making new regulations, the EPA has to publish an analysis of the week benefits and costs. Their analysis concluded that further reducing mercury emissions would cost $9.6 billion and the benefits would be - minimal. Oops, that's a problem. It would be much more effective to spend $9.6 billion on nutritional education, anti-smoking, or any of many other choices, if you wanted to improve public health. Instead of having the coal plants pay $10 billion for mercury filters, it would have worked a heck a lot better to make them pay $10 billion for other, more effective, health related programs, Obama's EPA found.
But the White House wanted regulations on coal, not breastfeeding related programs or anything else that would have been more effective, get more bang for the buck. So what's the EPA to do? Issue the regulation while attaching their studies showing that their regulation was stupid?
The way the EPA dealt with this problem is they guessed that if they required more mercury reduction, coal plants *might* ALSO make drastic reductions to other emissions, including particulates and many others. The EPA study said that if the plants greatly reduced all of these other things, that would be good for public health. These other possible benefits that have nothing whatsoever to do with mercury would be significant, far greater than the minimal benefit related to mercury. So the EPA published numbers showing a) the cost of mercury reduction and b) the total benefits of greatly reducing particulates, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, etc. They didn't publish their numbers for mercury because they were embarrassingly low.
In 2015 the court ruled that the EPA hadn't followed the law. If they are going to make a regulation on mercury emissions, they have to publish their estimates of the cost and benefits of mercury emissions reduction. They can't hide it by adding in a bunch of unrelated stuff and lumping it all together, the court ruled.
The EPA now proposes to follow the law, as they have been to ordered by the court, and publish their estimates for the costs and benefits of any new regulations - and only for the regulation, not a lump sum assuming a bunch of other new regulations.
Mercury is special (Score:3)
It's not the same kind of pollutant as particulate, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide etc..
It is consumed by animals and travels up the food chain. It is not metabolized nor broken down. It accumulates.
You can do that TOO. Can't hide it (Score:4, Insightful)
They CAN publish ancillary possible benefits that could happen with additional regulation, but they are legally REQUIRED to publish their study of mercury levels. It's *illegal* for them to promulgate a regulation without publishing the data they used for that regulation, in this case their study related to mercury levels. That's why the court ordered them to release it and they eventually did so.
Btw the court records show they knew illegal (Score:5, Informative)
Btw of you read up on the case, you will also find that they *knew* that what they were doing was unlawful and improper, but they did so at the insistence of a White House VIP.
If you really want to argue that the EPA administrators are wrong, that they only thought it was wrong to intentionally obscure legally required disclosures based on political pressure, I suppose you can try to make some logical argument why that's the right thing to do. Until you do so, I'm inclined to believe the people who did it, who should be experts at their job, when they decided this was improper so they should avoid mentioning the name of the White House VIP in any written correspondence. The judge who saw all of the evidence indicated it was not only unlawfully done, but knowingly unlawful.
I'll be happy to read any reasoned argument you have to make to the contrary, or view any evidence. Do you perhaps have some evidence that the court didn't see, suggesting that anyone involved thought that hiding the data was proper or even legal?
I asked this on another thread (Score:2)
Obama certainly wasn't above doing what his donors asked him (his cabinet was chock full of the same Goldman Sach's folks Clinton (Bill) and Bush's were.
That said, I keep saying this but there are _no
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the "White House VIP" was literally Hitler it wouldn't change things now. What is happening now is still wrong.
Also PROTIP you think think of a better name than "White House VIP" because it's too obviously a conspiracy theory. People have learned to spot vague but important sounding bullshit titles.
Re: Doesn't change mercury emissions, you know? (Score:3, Informative)
He's actually 100% correct and you're missing the entire point. The EPA isn't supposed to be able to claim that reducing mercury had X benefits when more than 99% of those benefits had nothing to do with the reduction in mercury.
In the example the parent gave, which is 100% fact and backed by public records, the EPA could have passed regulations which did not target mercury, but instead targeted things like particulate reduction (among many other things) and still had 99% of the health benefit while costing
We don't, that's the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
That's exactly the problem, we don't get clear air and water.
We get dirtier, more dangerous emissions when the EPA, under political pressure, lies / distorts the facts about which regulations would best provide clean air and water at a given cost.
Had the EPA released the data as required, some environmentalists, such as those working at environmental action groups, would have read the study and seen that the EPA study said X would help the environment, but instead the EPA did Y. They would point this out and many laypersons who care about the environment would then demand that the EPA put in place the regulations that would actually make a significant improvement.
The public doesn't win by lying about which regulations will do a lot of good and which will not.
Okay to violate laws if they're well-established? (Score:3)
So you're suggesting that because it's been the law for a long time, that makes it okay for your favorite president to violate the law? His administration only has to follow *recent" law?
I guess that kind of goes along with his reasoning "since Congress refused to give me the changes to immigration law I wanted, I am therefore empowered to unilaterally make up new laws myself". The EPA / coal thing probably didn't have anything to do with Obama, though. We don't know for sure who "White House VIP" is, but
Re:This whole administration (Score:5, Interesting)
By loosening the standard, this will make people in critical swing states that have a lot of coal mining, such as Pennsylvania, dumber and more like to vote for Trump in 2020.
I know you’re being silly, but there is a nugget of truth there.
Trump promised the coal miners that he’d be bringing lots of coal jobs back - but so far he’s been unable to deliver. His administration has tried other things to kickstart the resurgence of coal, but to no avail. He’s running out of time to fulfill that promise... and he needs those votes in 2020.
Re:This whole administration (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, if I were Pelosi / Schumer, I might offer him the full $5B for the wall, in exchange for him releasing his tax returns. Because of course he wouldn't go for it, but the excuses would be pure gold.
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't need to fulfill the promise, because his whole presidency relies on, "at least he tried". Hence, why he tweets about 50 different issues a day.
Re:This whole administration (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump won by margins of error. Quit talking like it was some tremendous victory
Re:This whole administration (Score:4, Funny)
Plot twist: The agency was silently renamed the "Environmental Pollution Agency" some time ago. Only the media assumes "E.P.A." means the same thing it did before in their reporting.
Re:This whole administration (Score:5, Insightful)
they're not mentally ill.
they are just EVIL AS CAN BE.
Now, now. Be fair. They can be both.
Re: (Score:2)
I fear you may be right. I mean look at all the people leaving this administration because they cannot take it anymore. None of them are peace-loving humanitarians, but the amount of evil they would have to participate in to stay is just too much for them.
Makes one wonder whether Trump's wall is really to ultimately keep the population in, not the "others" out.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: This whole administration (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a reason they call it Trump Derangement Syndrome.
When Mueller is done, Trump will stay in office. You cannot charge a sitting president with anything, you have to impeach him first. There is a chance he is impeached by the House, but there is zero chance he is convicted by the Senate, zero. Senate convictions take 66 votes. And if you are counting on him resigning, I would ask you if that sounds like something he'd do? I don't think so.
The Logan act? For Pete's sake, THAT'S ALL YOU GOT? I'm
Re: This whole administration (Score:3)
Actually, you can't charge the President in state court, but Federal courts have not ruled and there is nothing in the Constitution. Sovereign immunity is more a theory.
However, it's one I'd like to see explicitly eliminated via a constitutional amendment.
Re: This whole administration (Score:4, Interesting)
Federal courts have not ruled and there is nothing in the Constitution.
The president cannot be charged in federal courts while sitting as president, mainly: because the judiciary on its own does not have the power to prosecute a court case, and neither does the legislature --- that is not a judicial power, that is not a legislative power: that is solely an executive power. Guess what the constitution says about where the executive power lies: Article II Section 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. --- The president is immune from arrest by virtue of being in absolute control of the full executive power of the US government; that's why unlike members of congress the president and his cabinet members don't need a specific exemption written into the constitution for protection from arrest - simply because the President and Vice President have absolute authority over the federal police forces, But members of congress DO have a constitutional protection against being arrested while in office.
In other words: Essentially, only someone working for the president can be the prosecutor in a court case against ANYONE.
If such person were to attempt to prosecute the president in court; the president could simply order them to drop the case, or fire them, and that individual would no longer be able to represent the US government.
Once upon a time Congress thought they had the power to prevent the president from firing an official the Senate had confirmed.
The supreme court smacked them down appropriately for that in Myers v. United States [wikipedia.org].
Also, if the president were sitting in office, the general law enforcement cannot raid his office and attempt to arrest him --- the president as cmdr. in chief can direct the secret service and the military to thwart any such attempt.
The president can also write up a pardon for himself --- since he has the full executive authority to grant even pardons; the only adverse act he cannot prevent is the legislative act of impeachment as provided for by the constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't matter if someone believes Trump acts suggesting he may have mental conditions --- so long as he is capable of discharging the powers and duties of his office:
It's more about the emotional reactions and rash courses of action he maybe inclined to take whilst under the influence of the disorder.
the president stays in control. People disliking or thinking his mannerisms strange, or disapproving of his decisions does not constitute inability to discharge the powers and duties of the office.
Well that the thing really, who is in control. They exist on a spectrum and some world leaders are more or less susceptible to manipulation. Putin, for example, who is an "ex"-KGB agent who are trained in techniques to manipulate those people.
The standard the Constitution sets is Trump stays in control for his term, unless someone persuades Trump to voluntarily step down,
I don't think it would be constructive to pursue ending his term. Though the problem might be getting rid of him considering his d
Logan Act LOL (Score:2)
That would be the first prosecution In nearly 200 years. The act is likely unconstitutional as well.
Re: (Score:3)
When you go "off the top of your head" you're just spewing crap you heard on AM radio.
John Kerry was negotiating on behalf of the United States Government. It is literally impossible for that to be a Logan Act violation.
The Clinton Foundation is a legit, grade A charity, and it is legal for charities to accept donations from Russia or from Russian people. In fact, you'll even find Russian products for sale in the supermarket. Odd that you think any sort of relationship with Russians is illegal. And even wei
Par for the course... (Score:2, Interesting)
Does it? (Score:5, Insightful)
President Trump's new proposal does not repeal the regulation, known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, but it would lay the groundwork for doing so by weakening a key legal justification for the measure. The long-term impact would be significant: It would weaken the ability of the E.P.A. to impose new regulations in the future by adjusting the way the agency measures the benefits of curbing pollutants, giving less weight to the potential health gains.
Either the headline is incorrect or the summary is wrong. Either way, once again I'll simply suggest that this is a good reason why bureaucracy shouldn't govern and that Congress should ultimately put forth all laws. Anything less is ultimately too susceptible to change and puts far too much power into the hands of the administration. We did away with kings for a reason.
Given the shear complexity of things (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, you should start to question why you're so deeply opposed to bureaucracy. Why the word has such a negative connotation. Specifically, what has a bureaucrat done to you? The cop who gave you that ticket is not a bureaucrat. The clerk who made you wait at the DMV isn't the one who
There is no question (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, you should start to question why you're so deeply opposed to bureaucracy. Why the word has such a negative connotation.
Start to question? This is from years of learned experience pal.
Specifically, what has a bureaucrat done to you? The cop who gave you that ticket is not a bureaucrat.
Here I'll help you understand: The cop was not a bureaucrat. But the people who set the speed limit deliberately much lower than traffic was. The people who mandated the cops had to get a certain number of tickets at the end of the month were.
The clerk who made you wait at the DMV isn't the one who decided how many clerks they'd be. That's your state legislature.
Wrong. They merely set budget - it's again bureaucrats who decide they are better off getting a nice large paycheck rather than adding more front line DMV personnel...
Unseen: The countless ways bureaucrats have hurt you very much indeed by preventing things that might have been.
California solved that easily (Score:5, Interesting)
And it wasn't a bureaucrat who created the speed trap, it was, again, a politician. Specifically one who didn't want to pay his taxes so he used speeding tickets from folks outside his district to pay for maintaining police, fire dept, etc.
Again, your anger is misplaced. And that's not by accident. Somebody is working really hard to make you distrust government (while making sure to use gov't for their own benefit). Think harder. You can figure this out. I know you can. And when you do you can join us in making the world better for real. I mean that.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody is working really hard to make you distrust government
And it looks like SOMEBODY is working really hard to make you trust government.
Here's a funny: about 4 decades ago, a common joke about government was: "If you hear someone say, 'I'm from the government and here to help you', you turn and run like hell." So The Evil Anti-Gov People have been busy for a long, long time, not just the last few years.
Like usual, (**I** think) government is all coordination, not control. For one thing, it's much easier to find and get your hands around the neck of your gov
Wrong again (Score:3)
And it wasn't a bureaucrat who created the speed trap, it was, again, a politician
No, the people that dictate what police do with their days are the bureaucrats that run the police force.
Again, your anger is misplaced.
I am puzzled you think there is anger involved. I am simply telling you how the world works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, you should start to question why you're so deeply opposed to bureaucracy.
Are you going to question why you think it's such a good thing? Did someone, somewhere invest a lot of time and effort into eliciting
Re: (Score:2)
The clerk who made you wait at the DMV isn't the one who decided how many clerks they'd be.
The solution to long lines at the DMV is not "more clerks". It is to move most of the services to a website so there is less need to go to the DMV in the first place. Services provided on premises could be done through automated kiosks rather than through a window staffed by a clerk.
Who is blocking the streamlining and modernization of the DMV? Since it would involve no new funding, and would actually save money, it is not the legislature. It is bureaucrats, trying to preserve their jobs.
Re:Given the shear complexity of things (Score:5, Insightful)
Hah, hah. Very funny. Here is CA, the long lines at the DMV are due to Federal "Real-ID" requirements, which do require that you actually interact, face-to-face with a real clerk. You can do most other transactions online. If you don't want a Real-ID compliant driver license, you don't typically need to go in to renew your license.
Re:Given the shear complexity of things (Score:4, Informative)
Here in Canada, every time I go to the equivalent of the DMV, usually to get by drivers license renewed, there's less then a couple of people in front of me and I'm seeing someone in minutes, in and out in about 10 minutes.
I think the problem is the voters voting in people who believe government is bad and do their best to make it true.
Re: (Score:2)
New rules that alter low cost US energy production will get more review and consideration.
Re: (Score:2)
parent is a shill.
if you think the past rules will stay as is, you are deluded or a liar.
if the past rules would stay as-is, why make any change, then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I repeat, you are dishonest or a shill.
why do you make excuses for this admin's bad behavior?
do you just like to troll? trolling or shilling, you are not adding value, here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically named, it seems (Score:3)
Why is an agency whose very name explicitly suggests its entire reason for existence is to *protect* the environment be making a rule that allows people to pollute *more* than they do right now?
If they are no longer doing that, then the agency should be discontinued.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is getting a free pass to pollute *more*..
Future laws and rules will get more consideration as any government can do as they are in government.
Re: (Score:2)
Emphasis mine.
Care to explain how "more" isn't really "more"?
Re: (Score:3)
So much for protection (Score:2, Flamebait)
Reading comprehension (Score:4, Insightful)
Topic: Rule change that would let power plants release more toxic pollution.
Content: Rule change that doesn't let power plants release any more toxic pollution.
Comments: Trump is letting plants release more toxic pollution.
TDS in action.
I don't know, seemed spot on to me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Also:
If this proposal is adopted the very next step is to allow more mercury in the air. So yeah, the proposal would let power plants release more toxic pollution. That's because the original executive order relies on indirect economic befits to exist and without considering those benefits can and will be struck down.
Just because it's a->b->c to to get to c (more toxins) doesn't mean b isn't important. Especially when c doesn't happen without b.
Oh, one more thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Article says it's down 80% since the rule went into place, and I'll remind you that there is no safe level of mercury exposure. It builds up over time. Buddy of mine found that out the hard way getting mercury poisoning from tuna...
Once again, we've got our priorities ass backwards.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
That is literally the opposite of what TFA says.
Also there is always a safe level of exposure for everything in life. Even VX. Your TDS is making you make extremely stupid statements. Bioaccumulation does not mean that there's not a safe dose. It simply means that this particular toxic bioaccumulates through some mechanism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um... Trump is doing exactly what you think he is (Score:2, Informative)
The reason Trump hasn't done more damage is folks have been fighting again
I don't think he cares one way or the other (Score:2)
That said, the folks around him (especially Pence, who's a Christian Dominionist [wikipedia.org]) absolutely want that, and it's scary as hell to me at least. During the campaign Trump asked "What do you got to lose" but as soon as he picked Pence we got the answer: Separation to church and state.
Re: (Score:2)
The scariest thing about Trump is the next one might truly be evil. As you say, Trump seems to be mostly amoral but he has shown how to con the population enough to get quite a bit of power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I admit it doesn't say what topic says, but it might lead to less regulation to lighten them further, therefore it does actually allow for more mercury in the air.
Because math is for nerds and everyone knows that "greater" is the exact same thing as "lesser."
More TDS in action. When a nerd on a site for nerds can't even comprehend that "greater" is not the same thing as "lesser", it's one hell of a sizable cognitive dissonance.
You're one crazy motherfucker.
Re: Reading comprehension (Score:2)
I mentioned this on another thread (Score:4, Informative)
This rule change says that only direct savings can be considered, which throws out $80 billion in savings from better health.
The next step will be to declare that the cost of the program relative to it's benefit is too high and eliminate it, which in turn will allow the EPA to overturn the Obama era ruling.
The reason for doing this is so when they're inevitably sued by environmental watchdogs they can win in court.
Re: Reading comprehension (Score:5, Interesting)
if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, its very likely a duck.
this administration has been hell-bent on reversing every obama era decision and policy. they have also been doing all they can to side with the polluters and against any kind of environmental protection. pruitt was ousted but allowed IN, in the first place, and out kicked out when it became too much for even the R's to bear.
so, any change that trump makes has to be assumed to be that of a Bad Actor, and this is no exception. if he's signing his name to something, it will be bad for people and only good for his pay-masters.
anyone, here, saying that its not going to hurt us is a fucking shill, full stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Not subtle, sounds many alarms and protests all over, not likely to be successful at enacting your agenda.
Make small, subtle changes over a longer period of time, that seemingly have little if any direct effect
It's called 'playing the long game'.
This is just Step #1 in a process of deregulating power plant emissions. Thankfully, there are enough intelligent people around who can think far enough ahead to see the implications.
TDS in action
Ah, I see: A Trump supporter, no d
Re: (Score:2)
This is why TDS is so harmful to people. It makes you imagine horrible things about Trump's actions that are patently not there. Just like it made whoever wrote the TFA imagine the topic which is literally debunked in TFA.
Re: (Score:2)
Headline is wrong (Score:5, Informative)
If you read the article, you'll see that slashdot's and the NYT's headline is false and misleading. The proposed change does not allow the release of more mercury or repeal existing regulations. It makes it harder for the EPA to implement more regulations beyond what already exists:
"It would weaken the ability of the E.P.A. to impose new regulations in the future by adjusting the way the agency measures the benefits of curbing pollutants, giving less weight to the potential health gains."
I'm sure the NYT knows this and is purposely being misleading or maybe they are brain dead enough to not understand what they are printing. Regardless this is exactly the kind of crap that makes people distrust the media. An argument on whether it's worth the economic costs to further reduce mercury emissions beyond the 80% reduction that has already occurred by wiping out the remaining coal plants is worth having, but it isn't possible to do that when the media is falsely reporting stuff like this and people don't take the time to carefully read and understand what is being said.
Re:Headline is wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe you should learn to read." President Trump's new proposal does not repeal the regulation, known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, but it would lay the groundwork for doing so by weakening a key legal justification for the measure"
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you should learn to read." President Trump's new proposal does not repeal the regulation, known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, but it would lay the groundwork for doing so by weakening a key legal justification for the measure"
Because it literally WAS NOT Trump that did this. He, nor his people, purposed this. It was court ordered after the last administration overstepped their bounds by ordering the EPA to do something they didn't have the legal authority to do.
IF you don't like the law, lobby congress to get it changed. Until it's changed, can we follow the law please? That's how this country is supposed to work you know.
Its not like they run them at night (Score:5, Interesting)
Years ago when I worked those types of jobs they would shut them off at night especially if it was raining. You could always tell when a precipitator went offline. Its not just power plants that do this. Paper mills will also power off their pollution control devices. Even if they are more passive systems like a baghouse.
Yet... (Score:2)
Re:Yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, Natural Gas is killing Coal and Nuclear power in the USA. It's just soooo cheap here.
Not Obama's (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
EVs? You mean Electric Vehicles? With Natural Gas so cheap?
I seriously doubt EV's are posed to be deployed in numbers enough to reduce our fossil fuel usage here in the USA. There is no way they can become cheap enough to take over a significant portion of the private vehicle fleet in the USA, especially with fossil fuel prices where they are for the foreseeable future (With oil prices in the dumpster and Natural Gas prices heading that way).
Electric cars will remain a niche market for now. They are to
Re: (Score:2)
OK, you just showed how ignorant you are and why people should simply ignore your posts.
EV batteries (apart from early Leafs) last far longer than "a couple of years". In fact, it looks like typical lifetime for Tesla batteries is going to
Quite a slanted article (Score:3, Insightful)
So no mention that this rule was originally passed without a cost-benefit analysis?
Nor a mention that the cost is over $9 Billion dollars, but the actual benefit from mercury reduction is $4 - $6 Million?
Nothing about the Supreme Court kicking it back and saying an analysis has to be done?
Or that the benefits calculated in the new analysis is a sham? Where 99% of the benefits are "co-benefits" and are a by-product of mercury reduction?
If the government wants to regulate and achieve those co-benefits, then that's what they should say. Otherwise, if they say they're regulating X, but 99% of the benefits are not because of the regulation of X specifically, then that's not transparent. That's something that is easily manipulated. That's not accountable. That's not how government should operate.
Aside from transparency and accountability, we shouldn't want government passing health and safety regulations regardless of the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Only in the captive market is everything be about cost. The real cost is the lives of the people harmed by the pollution itself. The Darwinian nature of corporations is that they eventually resemble despotic regimes. Another accurate way of describing them is Psychopathic. This guarantees that they will care less about the harm they do than the bottom line. The truth is that this lack of concern with lives and a undefendable focus on cost is slowly turning this country in to a 'third world country'.
Hmmm (Score:2)
Is there amything in the UN UDHR that covers deliberate poisoning of the population?
The scales (Score:3, Interesting)
The more time passes, the more apparent it is that MAGA simply means the more (poor) people die, the better.
The less (rich) people remain, the more resources per capita are available.
Voila, you (few) are great again!
Re: (Score:2)
He'll blame it on "Obamacare"
Re: (Score:2)
You're actually not far off. I saw this same story on a very heavily right-leaning, pro-Republican news site earlier today. Their headline is "EPA targets Obama crackdown on mercury from coal plants."
If you want a Republican readership to oppose anything, just claim Obama was in favor.
Re: (Score:2)
that's what the kids, today, call 'stigginit'.
sticking it - to anyone who is not conservative. even if it hurts your own people, as long as the D's get some pain, the R team feels good about themselves.
yes, its that bad. this is why the country is tearing itself apart. we just barely get along (the two sides) and with the fucking russians meddling, it just pours gas on the fire.
but keep stigginit, guys. that will SURELY help.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like what people used to call 'cutting off your nose to spite your face.'
If you regard politics as a team sport, Democrats vs Republicans, then anything that hurts the opposing team is automatically a win for your own.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the spirit of fact-checking myself, I found the annual hidden costs of coal to be $345 Billion [reuters.com], which is not just limited to health concerns
Glad I didn't let my earlier statement stand unchallenged
Re: (Score:2)
You know, as extremely stupid that would be, I cannot find it to be inconsistent with the available facts.
Re: (Score:2)
The wall will still be needed. Remember how the former USSR and "colonies" needed a wall to keep their population in?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Trump card one but about stopping sewage from Tijuana. You think the wall is good to be sewage proof?
Fuck you, AC troll (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
... it's a Trump'ish way of helping "big industry", "big coal", "big oil", etc.
No it's not. This is complying with a court order... Where the EPA must justify it's regulations using real science and facts. What happened is the EPA was ordered by the LAST administration to violate the law and now that mistake is being corrected.
That it benefits these other industries is not why this is being done, but it's being done to comply with the law as written and interpreted by the courts.
So this isn't anything more than what happens when you live in a country of laws and courts.... OR ar