Trump's war on the environment

[Odin]

(03-01-2017, 05:46 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

That Thing the Standing Rock Protesters Were Afraid of Just Happened
176,000 gallons of oil spilling into a nearby creek.
BEC CREW 14 DEC 2016



A faulty pipeline has leaked 176,000 gallons of crude oil into a creek and the surrounding countryside 2.5 hours away from the Standing Rock protests in North Dakota.

The spill, which went undetected by the pipeline owners until a local stumbled on it, has spread almost 7 km (5.4 miles) from the site of the leak, and at this stage, it’s not clear what caused the pipe to rupture, or how long it’s been leaking.

According to CNN, an estimated 4,200 barrels of crude oil leaked from the Belle Fourche Pipeline in Billings County, 150 miles (241 km) from Cannon Ball in North Dakota, where protesters have been fighting the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

For months, opponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline have been expressing fears that it would affect local drinking water, because it was to be built under the Missouri River near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation - the primary water source of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe.

Last week, the US Department of the Army announced that it would not approve the crossing of the pipeline under the Missouri River.

The massive nearby spill - which was discovered on the same day that the Dakota Access Pipeline construction permit was denied - might have just proved the protesters' point.

As Derek Hawkins reports for The Washington Post, the Belle Fourche Pipeline Co., which owns the leaky pipeline in Billings Country, estimates that 130,200 gallons of oil spilled into the Little Missouri River last week, and another 46,200 gallons leaked onto a hillside.

The North Dakota Department of Health confirmed that the spill had taken place on December 5, and then again yesterday.

"Due to potentially unstable soil conditions at the point of release, the cause of the incident is not yet known," the Department of Health announced.

"The section of pipeline where the leak occurred has been isolated, and the spill has been contained."


According to Bill Suess, an environmental scientist with the North Dakota Department of Health, 37,000 gallons of oil had been recovered as of Monday, but there’s still a whole lot more to go.

"It’s going to take some time," Suess told the Associated Press. "Obviously there will be some component of the cleanup that will go toward spring."

And while local drinking water will not be affected, at least two cows have been confirmed dead in the area, but a definitive connection between their deaths and the oil spill has not been made.

It’s also not clear how the pipeline ruptured in the first place, but Belle Fourche Pipeline spokesperson, Wendy Owen, told the Associated Press that it might have occurred when the hillside slumped due to increased snowfall.

"That is our number one theory, but nothing is definitive," she said. "We have several working theories and the investigation is ongoing."

Perhaps even more concerning than a freak accident splitting the pipe is the fact that electronic monitoring equipment failed to detect the leak - something that would have prevented the pipe from spilling so much oil out into the countryside.

While there's no guarantee that a leak like this would happen at the Dakota Access Pipeline, this kind of thing is not exactly rare in the area.

As Hawkins reports for The Washington Post, True Companies, which owns Belle Fourche Pipeline Co, has a history of oil leaks in the region, reporting more than 30 spills totalling 320,000 gallons of oil since 2006.

"The Poplar Pipeline, operated by a True Companies subsidiary, leaked about 30,000 gallons of crude oil into the Yellowstone River in eastern Montana in 2015, prompting a town to shut down its drinking water service to 6,000 residents," he adds.

Belle Fourche Pipeline Co. has reported 10 oil spills since 2011.

So while none of that means the Dakota Access Pipeline is necessarily a risk, the Billings County leak is making the protesters' point for them: it's clear we need to do a better job at ensuring the structural integrity of those pipes.

http://www.sciencealert.com/that-thing-t...t-happened

Bismarck is a shit-hole. People there whine about how much they hate the government, yet the only reason it's not a one-horse railroad town is because it's the state capital.

[Eric the Green]

Trump’s review of car fuel standards could lead to fight with California, environmentalists
By Steven Overly March 15 at 6:25 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inno...fe169b1b28


President Trump opened the door Wednesday to rolling back fuel efficiency standards that were adopted during the Obama administration, a move that could lead to a legal fight with state regulators and environmental groups in the coming years.

In January, the Environmental Protection Agency reaffirmed that automakers must achieve an average 54.4 mpg across their fleets by 2025. But Trump pledged Wednesday to review those standards in a speech at the American Center for Mobility in Ypsilanti, Mich. He told auto plant workers there that his administration will ensure the regulations do not lead to job losses and factory closures.

“Were going to work on the [fuel] standards so you can make cars in America again,” Trump said. “We’re going to help the companies and they’re going to help you.”

The announcement does not change existing regulations, but Democrats and environmentalists fear it signals the administration’s desire to weaken rules they view as critical to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

They also worry the administration could eventually target an EPA waiver that allows California and a dozen other states to set stricter emissions standards than the federal government. Automakers will still be compelled to produce more fuel efficient cars so long as the regulations in California, the country’s largest car market, remain in place.

“Making this U-turn on fuel economy is the wrong way to go for our security, economy and environment,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement Wednesday. “Undoing the fuel economy standards will also lead to costly litigation and create needless uncertainty for the auto industry, threatening the economic and employment gains automakers have made in recent years.”


The three major entities that regulate automobile emissions — the EPA, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and California Air Resources Board — agreed to the fuel economy standards in 2012 and vowed to conduct a review in 2017 and 2018 to determine whether they remained technologically and economically feasible. The current standard is 35.5 mpg.

Last year, the EPA determined the industry was on track to reach the goal and that the standards remained appropriate. After Trump’s election in November, the agency moved to make that judgment final ahead of schedule despite the industry’s request to adhere to the review’s original timeline.

Even before Trump’s announcement, the Auto Alliance, a trade association, challenged the EPA ruling in court, claiming it was “arbitrary and capricious” and exceeded the agency’s legal authority. California filed a motion late Tuesday in support of the EPA’s decision, and other states have indicated they will do the same.

Trump criticized the Obama administration for expediting its review of the standards, and a senior White House official said Tuesday that the EPA ignored “a voluminous record of data” when it reached its conclusion.

The EPA formally rescinded that decision on Wednesday.

“If the standards threatened auto jobs, then common sense changes could have and should have been made,” Trump said.

Prior to the speech, Trump toured a display of vehicles made in the U.S. by a variety of automakers. He then met with auto executives who took turns pitching Trump on the efforts their companies are making to build vehicles in America.

[ Donald Trump tells Detroit auto CEOs that environmental regulations are ‘out of control’ ]

UAW President Dennis Williams, who also attended the meeting, told Trump “we have to deal with the environment and we have to do it in a responsible way.”

Trump nodded and replied that he agreed “100 percent,” adding that he didn’t believe lower standards should prevent automakers from making new cars.

“If it takes an extra thimble of fuel, we don’t want that to stop you,” Trump said.

Automakers eagerly welcomed the announcement. Many contend that the regulations place a financial burden on automobile makers, which is likely to result in either employee layoffs or more expensive cars.

“After all, these decisions impact the more than 7 million Americans dependent on autos for employment, as well as the driving public seeking affordable transportation,” Mitch Bainwol, president and CEO of the Auto Alliance said in a statement.

Rebecca Lindland, senior director at Kelley Blue Book, said that meeting the existing standards will be “extremely challenging,” because sales of electric vehicles have been tepid and Americans are buying large numbers of less-efficient SUVs and trucks.

Automakers “would certainly like this standard to be more closely representative of what consumers are already buying,” Lindland said, adding that she expects the industry will continue to develop vehicles with more efficient combustion engines. “Consumers want the most fuel efficient version of a vehicle they already want to buy.”

[Eric the Green]

Thank the Lord for Bob Ferguson! Blue states must RESIST Drump's roll back of fuel efficiency standards!

I say, the blue states must continue to enforce their own standards, regardless of what the Feds do.


West Coast governors gag at Trump relaxing fuel efficiency standards
BY JOEL CONNELLY, SEATTLEPI.COM Updated 2:42 pm, Thursday, March 16, 2017
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/politics/...007644.php

Govs. Jay Inslee of Washington, Kate Brown of Oregon, protest Trump administration decision to ease fuel efficiency standards for auto manufacturers. "This decision . . . makes America more dependent on oil while putting more lives at risk from pollution and shortchanging consumers at the pump." .

The governors of West Coast states, backed by mayors of major cities, are choking and wheezing at the Trump administration's decision to pull back on car and truck fuel efficiency standards negotiated under the Obama administration.

Fuel efficiency standards "have worked for years to lower consumers' fuel costs while making our air healthier to breathe," said a statement by the governors of Washington and Oregon, joined by mayors and representing a region of 50 million people with a combined GDP of $2.8 trillion.

Gov. Jerry Brown of California was more scathing in a letter to the new Environmental Protection Agency director (and climate-change denier) Scott Pruitt. "President Trump's decision today to weaken emission standards in cars is an unconscionable gift to polluters," wrote Brown. "Once again, you've put the interests of Big Oil ahead of clean air and politics ahead of science."

The fuel efficiency standards, agreed to by automakers, were a condition of the taxpayer bailout of Chrysler and General Motors. They set a timetable for cars and light trucks, so that by 2025, they would reach an average of about 54 miles per gallon. The current average is 36 MPG.

The rules applying cars through 2021 are already in place. A second phase, dictating standards through 2025, was put in place by the Environmental Protection Agency before Donald Trump took office. The industry responded, and Trump announced Wednesday he would reconsider the standards.

"Our job as governors and mayors is to boost our region's economic opportunities and make our cities and states cleaner and healthier for our citizens," said the statement, signed by Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee.

"This (Trump) decision does the exact opposite, making Americans more dependent on oil while putting more lives at risk from pollution and shortchanging consumers at the pump."

Critics say the Trump decision means more greenhouse gas emissions, and a scaled back effort against global warming, but also slows the unveiling of less polluting, more fuel efficient autos on America's highways.

"The U.S. is a technology superpower," added the statement. "Our strong vehicle fuel economy standards are a reflection of that and position the U.S. to remain competitive in the global push toward clean cars."

The mayors of Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and Oakland signed the statement.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has also brought a federal court challenge against the Obama administration rules.

The attorneys general of California and New York announced Thursday that they are joining the legal defense of the emissions standards.
Along with seven other state AGs, Washington's Attorney General Bob Ferguson signed a statement saying:

"We will vigorously oppose attempts by the Trump Administration to weaken our vehicle emission policies and put our health at risk, and we won't hesitate to stand up for the right of our states to adopt stricter pollution standards that provide critical protections to the health of our residents and our environmental resources."

[Eric the Green]

We Will Fight Trump On Climate Change | Bernie Sanders

[Eric the Green]

From NRDC:

President Trump's frenzy of executive orders continues. This time, he's trying to hand over the keys to some of America's most treasured national monuments... to industrial interests, including his fossil fuel and mining allies.

He just directed Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to begin another sham review process aimed at shrinking — or even eliminating — many national monuments designated over the last two decades by Presidents Obama, Bush and Clinton.

Specific targets include two iconic monuments — the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments in Utah. Others at risk include the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument off Cape Cod.

NRDC fought for years, with extensive public support and involvement, to win strong protection for these national treasures. We are not about to let them be sacrificed to industrial greed. And we're going to need your immediate activism to stop this land grab.

Since Teddy Roosevelt, presidents have used their authority under the Antiquities Act to protect countless natural wonders like the Grand Canyon, New Mexico's Chaco Canyon, California's Muir Woods and Mojave Trails, Utah's Natural Bridges and Washington's San Juan Islands.

But commercial interests like mining and fossil fuel companies, and the ranching and commercial fishing industries, are chomping at the bit to roll back existing national monuments and gut the Antiquities Act. With this executive order, President Trump seems intent on doing their bidding.

National monuments protect our environmental and cultural heritage, and they're also good for our economy. Outdoor recreation generates billions of dollars and millions of jobs every year. In 2016, National Parks saw a record 331 million visits, contributing almost $35 billion to the U.S. economy.

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-01-2017, 11:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-31-2017, 03:46 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: This one might be interesting to debate. How many studies at what confidence intervals, etc:

'Then there's atrazine, perhaps the most controversial pesticide that's used widely on US farm fields. Banned in Europe, it's an endocrine disrupter, a term used for chemicals that mimic hormones and "produce adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in both humans and wildlife," according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.'

While decrying junk science coming from the "Right" the Left need to be careful not to also engage in junk science.

I used to be a big time Greenie (many years ago, before there was even a Green Party here in the US). I found that at least some of the interest groups had lots of non-scientists in them and were really dominated by Gaia worshippers with meager scientific training. Various tin foil notions regarding manufactured substances carried the day. I know in some ideal utopia everything would be organically grown and free range. But that is just not feasible. There is a middle path.

The middle path is the Greenie left path now. The middle path is the path where the facts are, and that path is on the left politically. The partisan alternative is between a livable world and a non-livable world; between old dirty fossil fuels and new green clean high tech. Green tech has advanced quite a bit since it was a pie in the sky ideal in the 1970s. The transition will not be instant. But Republicans have already slowed it down or reversed it whenever they have had the power to do so, and that will continue. The transition would otherwise have been almost complete by now. Now it's being delayed further.

There is no middle ground between the parties on this. Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong. The Republicans don't want any government interference in the market, so that leaves it up to the corporate bosses what happens. That's not a partisan statement; it's just the way the parties are aligned at this time in history. 

We have a choice to make. The world can be powered by solar energy alone; it's a question of ramping it up. Under Trump we do it perhaps too slowly by relying only on the market. Under Hillary we would have had a government that speeded up the process and gave us a better chance for a livable world. We have solar energy available and other alternatives too that give us that chance. There's no excuse for delay.

Talk of the "nuclear option" reminds me of the nuclear energy option. There is some promising new developments in which waste could be used as fuel and safeguards are stronger. Still, I can't support it myself because it's not a renewable resource, and it still might not be safe. But I might not oppose it as a bridge fuel, just as natural gas as been as an alternative to coal. The nuclear fuel bridge option however is much further in the future than gas, although it's a more longer-term option than gas.

There are agricultural options and real food options being developed. Indoor and urban farms are "cropping" up, and may be less vulnerable to pests and add substantially to our food supply. I don't eat all organic myself yet; far from it. I'm not always sure what the truth is about pesticides, but I can't see how they are good to eat. It's better if we develop alternatives.

There are a lot of conspiracy theories and junk science circling around that may not be right wing, but I doubt it could be called left wing either. I guess you can say that such junk just doesn't fly. It doesn't have either wing, IOW. Speaking of flying, concern over "chemtrails" appears to be one such pile of junk that doesn't fly.

1.  I'll take the nuclear option over the use of say coal anytime.  Coal is just so filthy.  Coal has it all.  Mercury, arsenic, radium, uranium, are the outcome of the use of coal. I'd prefer to live "down stream" of a nuclear power plant than a coal plant.  Thorium/uranium are of course are not renewable, but anything is better than emitting toxics all over the place. Earth life has some built in resistance to low level radiation, as like resistance to heavy metal toxics. The dose makes the toxin.  I'll take low level radiation over high level heavy metal poisoning any time.
It's like my mineral collection. I have some uranite that I have no fear to hold in my hand. I also have arsenic/mercury minerals that I'd never eat 'cause those are very toxic.

2. Big Ag: So, y'all want a dose of hormones [endocrine disruptors] , nervous system poisons, mono cropping, etc.
Eric is correct here. Urban gardens, home gardens will go far in keeping famine at bay. Big Ag suffers from a lot single points of failure. That is one reason I have a garden, it saves a ton of money and the plants I grow are "organic" in that they produce viable seeds I can save.  Monsanto, et. al. deliberately make plants that don't make seeds.  It's an evil plan to make folks dependent on self same seed makers.

3. Chem trails is stupid, period.


4. So,... I'm with you there XY_MOX_4AD.  I'm also a middle ground sort of person. If science has some sort of ideas on the relative risks, I'll take the lesser of 2 evils. Perfection does not exist in my universe, man.

[Ragnarök_62]

(02-01-2017, 11:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-31-2017, 03:46 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: This one might be interesting to debate. How many studies at what confidence intervals, etc:

'Then there's atrazine, perhaps the most controversial pesticide that's used widely on US farm fields. Banned in Europe, it's an endocrine disrupter, a term used for chemicals that mimic hormones and "produce adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in both humans and wildlife," according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.'

While decrying junk science coming from the "Right" the Left need to be careful not to also engage in junk science.

I used to be a big time Greenie (many years ago, before there was even a Green Party here in the US). I found that at least some of the interest groups had lots of non-scientists in them and were really dominated by Gaia worshippers with meager scientific training. Various tin foil notions regarding manufactured substances carried the day. I know in some ideal utopia everything would be organically grown and free range. But that is just not feasible. There is a middle path.

The middle path is the Greenie left path now. The middle path is the path where the facts are, and that path is on the left politically. The partisan alternative is between a livable world and a non-livable world; between old dirty fossil fuels and new green clean high tech. Green tech has advanced quite a bit since it was a pie in the sky ideal in the 1970s. The transition will not be instant. But Republicans have already slowed it down or reversed it whenever they have had the power to do so, and that will continue. The transition would otherwise have been almost complete by now. Now it's being delayed further.

There is no middle ground between the parties on this. Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong. The Republicans don't want any government interference in the market, so that leaves it up to the corporate bosses what happens. That's not a partisan statement; it's just the way the parties are aligned at this time in history. 

We have a choice to make. The world can be powered by solar energy alone; it's a question of ramping it up. Under Trump we do it perhaps too slowly by relying only on the market. Under Hillary we would have had a government that speeded up the process and gave us a better chance for a livable world. We have solar energy available and other alternatives too that give us that chance. There's no excuse for delay.

Talk of the "nuclear option" reminds me of the nuclear energy option. There is some promising new developments in which waste could be used as fuel and safeguards are stronger. Still, I can't support it myself because it's not a renewable resource, and it still might not be safe. But I might not oppose it as a bridge fuel, just as natural gas as been as an alternative to coal. The nuclear fuel bridge option however is much further in the future than gas, although it's a more longer-term option than gas.

There are agricultural options and real food options being developed. Indoor and urban farms are "cropping" up, and may be less vulnerable to pests and add substantially to our food supply. I don't eat all organic myself yet; far from it. I'm not always sure what the truth is about pesticides, but I can't see how they are good to eat. It's better if we develop alternatives.

There are a lot of conspiracy theories and junk science circling around that may not be right wing, but I doubt it could be called left wing either. I guess you can say that such junk just doesn't fly. It doesn't have either wing, IOW. Speaking of flying, concern over "chemtrails" appears to be one such pile of junk that doesn't fly.

1.  I'll take the nuclear option over the use of say coal anytime.  Coal is just so filthy.  Coal has it all.  Mercury, arsenic, radium, uranium, are the outcome of the use of coal. I'd prefer to live "down stream" of a nuclear power plant than a coal plant.  Thorium/uranium are of course are not renewable, but anything is better than emitting toxics all over the place. Earth life has some built in resistance to low level radiation, as like resistance to heavy metal toxics. The dose makes the toxin.  I'll take low level radiation over high level heavy metal poisoning any time.
It's like my mineral collection. I have some uranite that I have no fear to hold in my hand. I also have arsenic/mercury minerals that I'd never eat 'cause those are very toxic.  

2. Big Ag: So, y'all want a dose of hormones [endocrine disruptors] , nervous system poisons, mono cropping, etc.
Eric is correct here. Urban gardens, home gardens will go far in keeping famine at bay. Big Ag suffers from a lot single points of failure. That is one reason I have a garden, it saves a ton of money and the plants I grow are "organic" in that they produce viable seeds I can save.  Monsanto, et. al. deliberately make plants that don't make seeds.  It's an evil plan to make folks dependent on self same seed makers.

3. Chem trails is stupid, period.


4. So,... I'm with you there XY_MOX_4AD.  I'm also a middle ground sort of person. If science has some sort of ideas on the relative risks, I'll take the lesser of 2 evils. Perfection does not exist in my universe, man.

[Eric the Green]

Our natural heritage is under assault. Those of us who care for our Earth, are feeling hurt and concerned, because we value our environment. We know that we depend on it, and we know it gives us life and inspires us with its glory. Climate change is being denied, despite the evidence. Our public lands are being taken over by industry for destruction. Our wilderness, parks and national monuments are being opened to mining and drilling without regard to the consequences to the land and wildlife. Our air and water are being degraded, and we're going back to the time when we heedlessly exploited and abused our planet and its life for our own gain, and when we turned everything into a trash heap. This is called "making America great again."

It is being blamed on Donald Trump, and we are being asked to tell Donald Trump to stop destroying our environment. And rightly so. But Donald Trump was put into office by people who voted for him, and most of them still support him. These voters are also responsible for what's happening to our heritage. And many of those same voters also decided to put Republican Senators into office in states where Democrats had a chance. The Republican House and the new Republican Senate are also dedicated to destroying our environment. Their decades-long record is already abysmal. We can't blame Trump alone. Every Trump voter, every Republican voter, and every Republican office holder, is responsible for what is happening to our Earth. When we march to deliver a message to Trump, we are also marching to deliver a message to them.

Many Americans need to realize what they have done, and to admit and take responsibility for this error on Nov. 8 2016. You knowingly or heedlessly created this ongoing crime against Nature. How long will it take for you guys to realize your mistake, question your beliefs, and reverse course? Do you have the courage and the wisdom somewhere inside to do so? Where there is life and spirit, there is hope. It is there inside you now. May the light shine within you, and someday, may you awaken to the Truth.

And I hasten to add, now that our government has been turned over to a few greedy and heedless corporate CEOs, by the decision of the voters, those of us who care need to act on our own and in our groups to continue to build the new sustainable and compassionate world. We need to start or continue to change the way we use energy as individuals and groups. We need to watch what we buy. We need to support organizations working on Earth's behalf. We need to question the authority of the big business interests and their free-market ideology of greed. We need to keep speaking out, and keep on praying and/or envisioning for the life we want.

[pbrower2a]

We will need to align ourselves -- feminism, environmental protection, minority rights, LGBT rights, labor rights -- all for one, one for all! Divide and conquer is one technique of the would-be tyrant.

[Eric the Green]

(04-27-2017, 02:19 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The thing we all need to understand about Trump is his gut level skill of knowing how to rile up certain market segments. He has a peculiar skill of showmanship. He has identified a collection of disparate market segments, each of which, alone, would be merely a marginalized fragment. But he has mastered the art of juggling between all these segments (e.g. throwing each one of them bones) and thereby cements his coalition of odd outs. Any time he tweets something, or even pursues something real, be thinking - who is he really throwing a bone to? It's more about the immediacy of his presence and maintaining his position in the media stream than doing anything substantial involving the main stream establishment.

If anything, when you see him doing something more normal, that is him being cowed by the establishment, to the chagrin of his die hard believers.

Although it's tempting to interpret this or that outrage as Trump+the establishment clawing back progressive gains, in reality its more likely Trump doing things to maintain support of the various odd outs.

Well, except that those odd-outs he is throwing bones to, now that he's president, pretty-much all turn out to be extreme right-wing wackos of one sort or another. It's a coalition of wackos, including those in the Establishment. And his particular media skill is undeniable.

[Eric the Green]

Trump’s 100-day war on the environment demands this response.



Greenpeace

Eric,

Power the Resistance!

Donate today!
Stand in solidarity with the Peoples Climate March to fight Trump's anti-climate agenda!

Today marks 100 days in office for Trump — and 100 days of relentless attacks on clean air and water, the EPA, climate progress, science, communities, public lands and waters, and national monuments.

The media is calling the Trump presidency a joke1, but the devastating impacts of Trump’s actions are no joking matter. They have deadly, serious consequences if people don’t stand up to his fossil fuel agenda. But we have and we will continue to fight him and his oil cronies every step of the way to protect clean air, water, climate, jobs, and justice.

That’s why the Peoples Climate March today and your Greenpeace support are absolutely critical. Please give now to help power our resistance to the destructive Trump agenda and all our work protecting the planet.

Trump and his administration isn’t letting up, but neither will we. The deadline to reach our $180,000 funding goal is tonight. We need our whole movement coming together, wherever you are, in a massive show of unity and resolve — to defend communities and the planet.

We’ve defeated formidable opponents and the polluter agenda before. We can do it again, but only if every member of the Greenpeace community is in it 100%. So if you haven’t already, please power the resistance and all Greenpeace’s work to save the planet with your donation by midnight tonight.

The climate can’t wait another four years until Trump is out of office. We must take action now to secure the future.

Thanks in advance for your support,

Mary Nicol
Climate Campaigner, Greenpeace USA

P.S. If you’re marching for the climate today, thank you! If not, you can resist alongside Greenpeace wherever you are, by making your donation now. Together we will prevail.

[Odin]

This administration is basically a bunch of Captain Planet villains at this point.

[David Horn]

(04-27-2017, 10:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-27-2017, 02:19 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The thing we all need to understand about Trump is his gut level skill of knowing how to rile up certain market segments. He has a peculiar skill of showmanship. He has identified a collection of disparate market segments, each of which, alone, would be merely a marginalized fragment. But he has mastered the art of juggling between all these segments (e.g. throwing each one of them bones) and thereby cements his coalition of odd outs. Any time he tweets something, or even pursues something real, be thinking - who is he really throwing a bone to? It's more about the immediacy of his presence and maintaining his position in the media stream than doing anything substantial involving the main stream establishment.

If anything, when you see him doing something more normal, that is him being cowed by the establishment, to the chagrin of his die hard believers.

Although it's tempting to interpret this or that outrage as Trump+the establishment clawing back progressive gains, in reality its more likely Trump doing things to maintain support of the various odd outs.

Well, except that those odd-outs he is throwing bones to, now that he's president, pretty-much all turn out to be extreme right-wing wackos of one sort or another. It's a coalition of wackos, including those in the Establishment. And his particular media skill is undeniable.

I have to disagree with this.  Most Trump supporters are not wackos of any sort, and that's why Hillary's use of the word "deplorables" rankled.  Most of the people backing Trump see him as the last opportunity they expect to see, because the mainstream pols all screw them consistently.  It's either Trump or the dump, and they've seen plenty of the latter.

Eventually, Trump will disappoint too, but for now, he's got 50 miles of rope to run on.

[pbrower2a]

(05-01-2017, 02:24 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-27-2017, 10:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-27-2017, 02:19 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The thing we all need to understand about Trump is his gut level skill of knowing how to rile up certain market segments. He has a peculiar skill of showmanship. He has identified a collection of disparate market segments, each of which, alone, would be merely a marginalized fragment. But he has mastered the art of juggling between all these segments (e.g. throwing each one of them bones) and thereby cements his coalition of odd outs. Any time he tweets something, or even pursues something real, be thinking - who is he really throwing a bone to? It's more about the immediacy of his presence and maintaining his position in the media stream than doing anything substantial involving the main stream establishment.

If anything, when you see him doing something more normal, that is him being cowed by the establishment, to the chagrin of his die hard believers.

Although it's tempting to interpret this or that outrage as Trump+the establishment clawing back progressive gains, in reality its more likely Trump doing things to maintain support of the various odd outs.

Well, except that those odd-outs he is throwing bones to, now that he's president, pretty-much all turn out to be extreme right-wing wackos of one sort or another. It's a coalition of wackos, including those in the Establishment. And his particular media skill is undeniable.

I have to disagree with this.  Most Trump supporters are not wackos of any sort, and that's why Hillary's use of the word "deplorables" rankled.  Most of the people backing Trump see him as the last opportunity they expect to see, because the mainstream pols all screw them consistently.  It's either Trump or the dump, and they've seen plenty of the latter.

Eventually, Trump will disappoint too, but for now, he's got 50 miles of rope to run on.

If Trump's voters weren't wackos, his political appointments are often such.

That's not good for accomplishing much, and that's not good for strengthening one's Party in a midterm election or winning re-election.

[Eric the Green]

(05-01-2017, 02:24 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-27-2017, 10:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-27-2017, 02:19 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The thing we all need to understand about Trump is his gut level skill of knowing how to rile up certain market segments. He has a peculiar skill of showmanship. He has identified a collection of disparate market segments, each of which, alone, would be merely a marginalized fragment. But he has mastered the art of juggling between all these segments (e.g. throwing each one of them bones) and thereby cements his coalition of odd outs. Any time he tweets something, or even pursues something real, be thinking - who is he really throwing a bone to? It's more about the immediacy of his presence and maintaining his position in the media stream than doing anything substantial involving the main stream establishment.

If anything, when you see him doing something more normal, that is him being cowed by the establishment, to the chagrin of his die hard believers.

Although it's tempting to interpret this or that outrage as Trump+the establishment clawing back progressive gains, in reality its more likely Trump doing things to maintain support of the various odd outs.

Well, except that those odd-outs he is throwing bones to, now that he's president, pretty-much all turn out to be extreme right-wing wackos of one sort or another. It's a coalition of wackos, including those in the Establishment. And his particular media skill is undeniable.

I have to disagree with this.  Most Trump supporters are not wackos of any sort, and that's why Hillary's use of the word "deplorables" rankled.  Most of the people backing Trump see him as the last opportunity they expect to see, because the mainstream pols all screw them consistently.  It's either Trump or the dump, and they've seen plenty of the latter.

Eventually, Trump will disappoint too, but for now, he's got 50 miles of rope to run on.

I think what we were referring to by those Trump "throws bones to," are those who are benefitting from his policies, rather than those who voted for him, or even those he refers to in his rhetoric as his clientele.

Those are quite two different groups, although they may overlap at times. His policies, aka his bone-throwing, are pretty-much so far, policies that benefit the upper class, not those who are feeling economically deprived. Trump used rhetoric that appealed to white people feeling down and out. But he has been throwing bones only to the upper 1% of the country. 

It's true that many of those still backing him see Drump as an opportunity to rebel against the "mainstream" or unseat the Establishment. But this is called deception, which is exactly what the American people have been the victim of for 40 years now. Deception is all it is. Trump IS a key member of the Establishment, and that's all he is, whereas Hillary was the rebel girl. But, many voters did not correctly see this fact; that's true.

Maybe Trump will start to change his tune. He is making noises about breaking up the banks and restoring Glass-Steagall. I don't think he has a clue about how to proceed yet, though. He's good at making noise. All he seems capable of so far, however, is issuing executive orders that benefit the wealthy few and hurt the people, as well as turn different groups against one another.

[David Horn]

(05-02-2017, 10:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: ... It's true that many of those still backing him see Drump as an opportunity to rebel against the "mainstream" or unseat the Establishment. But this is called deception, which is exactly what the American people have been the victim of for 40 years now. Deception is all it is. Trump IS a key member of the Establishment, and that's all he is, whereas Hillary was the rebel girl. But, many voters did not correctly see this fact; that's true.

Maybe Trump will start to change his tune. He is making noises about breaking up the banks and restoring Glass-Steagall. I don't think he has a clue about how to proceed yet, though. He's good at making noise. All he seems capable of so far, however, is issuing executive orders that benefit the wealthy few and hurt the people, as well as turn different groups against one another.

Understand this: Trump is in way over his head.  Anytime that occurs in a critical position, and POTUS is about as critical as they come, bizarre things are going to happen.  Trump had no idea what he was going to face in this job, and its starting to show.  I should also note that Hillary would have been a disaster too, just not on this scale.  Her problem is Trump's opposite: she's insular and cautious, even though somethings have to be addressed with less than perfect knowledge.  So the choice was too much and too random versus too little and too slow.

[Eric the Green]

23 Environmental Rules Rolled Back in Trump’s First 100 Days
By NADJA POPOVICH and TATIANA SCHLOSSBERG MAY 2, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017...d=fb-share

President Trump, with help from his administration and Republicans in Congress, has reversed course on nearly two dozen environmental rules, regulations and other Obama-era policies during his first 100 days in office.

Citing federal overreach and burdensome regulations, Mr. Trump has prioritized domestic fossil fuel interests and undone measures aimed at protecting the environment and limiting global warming.

OVERTURNED

1. Approved the Dakota Access pipeline. Feb. 7
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Republicans in Congress criticized President Barack Obama for delaying construction of the pipeline — which they argued would create jobs and stimulate the economy — after protests led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Mr. Trump ordered an expedited review of the pipeline, and the Army approved it.

2. Revoked a rule that prevented coal mining companies from dumping debris into local streams. Feb. 16
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? The coal industry said the rule was overly burdensome, calling it part of the war on coal. Congress passed a bill revoking the rule, which Mr. Trump signed into law.

3. Canceled a requirement for reporting methane emissions. March 2
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Republican officials from 11 states wrote a letter to Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, saying the rule added costs and paperwork for oil and gas companies. The next day, Mr. Pruitt revoked the rule.

4. Approved the Keystone XL pipeline. March 24
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Republicans, along with oil, gas and steel industry groups, opposed Mr. Obama's decision to block the pipeline, arguing that the project would create jobs and support North American energy independence. After the pipeline company reapplied for a permit, the Trump administration approved it.

5. Revoked an update to public land use planning process. March 27
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Republicans and fossil fuel industry groups opposed the updated planning rule for public lands, arguing that it gave the federal government too much power at the expense of local and business interests. Congress passed a bill revoking the rule, which Mr. Trump signed into law.

6. Lifted a freeze on new coal leases on public lands. March 29
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Coal companies weren't thrilled about the Obama administration’s three-year freeze on new leases on public lands pending an environmental review. Ryan Zinke, the interior secretary, revoked the freeze and review, though he promised to set up a new advisory committee to review coal royalties.

7. Rejected a ban on a potentially harmful insecticide. March 29
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? The company that sells the insecticide, Dow Agrosciences, strongly opposed a risk analysis by the Obama-era E.P.A., which found that the insecticide Chlorpyrifos poses a risk to fetal brain and nervous system development. Mr. Pruitt rejected the E.P.A.’s previous analysis and denied the ban, saying that the chemical needed further study.

8. Overturned a ban on the hunting of predators in Alaskan wildlife refuges. April 3
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Alaskan politicians opposed the law, which prevented hunters from shooting wolves and grizzly bears on wildlife refuges, arguing that the state, not the federal government, has authority over those lands. Congress passed a bill revoking the rule, which Mr. Trump signed into law.

9. Withdrew guidance for federal agencies to include greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews. April 5
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Republicans in Congress opposed the guidelines, which advised federal agencies to account for greenhouse gas emissions and potential climate effects in environmental impact reviews. They argued that the government lacked the authority to make such recommendations, and that it would be impossible to plan for the uncertain effects of climate change.

UNDER REVIEW

10. Ordered review and "elimination" of rule that protected tributaries and wetlands under the Clean Water Act. Feb. 28
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Farmers, real estate developers, golf course owners and many Republicans opposed this clarification of the Clean Water Act, arguing that it created regulatory burdens. Mr. Trump called it a "massive power grab" by the federal government and instructed the E.P.A. and the Army to conduct a review.

11. Reopened a review of fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. March 15
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Automakers said it would be difficult and costly to meet fuel economy goals they had agreed upon with the Obama administration and noted rising consumer demand for sport utility vehicles and trucks. A standards review had been completed by the Obama administration before Mr. Trump took office, but the auto industry argued that it was rushed. The E.P.A. and Department of Transportation have reopened the review.

12. Ordered "immediate re-evaluation" of the Clean Power Plan. March 28
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Coal companies and Republican officials in many states strongly opposed the plan, which set strict limits for carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal- and gas-fired power plants. Republicans argued the plan — Mr. Obama’s signature climate change policy — posed a threat to the coal industry, and had mounted a legal challenge. Mr. Trump signed an executive order instructing the E.P.A. to review and re-evaluate the rule. An appeals court recently approved the Trump administration’s request to put the lawsuit on hold during the review process.

13. Rolled back limits on toxic discharge from power plants into public waterways. April 12
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Utility and fossil fuel industry groups opposed the rule, which limited the amount of toxic metals — arsenic, lead, and mercury, among others — power plants could release into public waterways. Industry representatives said complying with the guidelines would be extremely expensive. The E.P.A. has delayed compliance deadlines while it reconsiders the rule, which had been challenged in court.

14. Ordered review of rule limiting methane emissions at new oil and gas drilling sites. April 18
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Lobbyists for the oil and gas industries petitioned Mr. Pruitt to reconsider the rule, which went into effect last August, limiting emissions of methane, smog-forming compounds and other toxic pollutants from new and modified oil and gas wells. They argued the rule was technologically infeasible.

15. Ordered review of national monuments created since 1996. April 26
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Congressional Republicans said the Antiquities Act, which allows presidents to designate national monuments on federal land, had been abused by previous administrations. Mr. Obama used the law to set aside more than 4 million acres of land and several million square miles of ocean for protection.

16. Ordered review of offshore drilling policies and regulations. April 28
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Lobbyists for the oil industry were opposed to Mr. Obama’s use of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently ban offshore drilling along the Atlantic coast and much of the ocean around Alaska, as well as regulations around oil rig safety.

IN LIMBO

17. Withdrew a rule that would help consumers buy more fuel-efficient tires. Jan. 26
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? The rule required tire manufacturers and retailers to provide consumers with information about replacement car tires. The tire industry opposed several aspects of the rule, but had been working with the government to refine it. The Trump administration withdrew the proposed rule from consideration, but has not confirmed whether it may be reinstated.

18. Voted to revoke limits on methane emissions on public lands. Feb. 3
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? The oil and gas industry said that the rule, which required companies to control methane emissions on federal or tribal land by capturing rather than burning or venting excess gas, would have curbed energy development. The House voted to revoke the rule under the Congressional Review Act, and Senate Republicans have until May 8 to take action.

19. Postponed changes to how oil, gas and coal from federal lands are priced. Feb. 22
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry said the changes, meant to ensure fair pricing on oil, gas and coal on federal or tribal land and to reduce costs, were redundant since the government already has the power to impose penalties. They also argued that it created a lot of uncertainty in the market.

20. Delayed a rule aiming to increase safety at facilities that use hazardous chemicals. March 13
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Chemical, agricultural and power industry groups said that the new rule, a response to a 2013 explosion at a fertilizer plant that killed 15 people, did not increase safety and would have undermined oversight. The rule is delayed until June 19, and industry groups have said that they may sue.

21. Delayed rules increasing energy efficiency standards for some appliances and some federal buildings. March 15
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Republicans in Congress opposed the rules, which applied to ceiling fans, heating and cooling appliances and other devices, as well as residential buildings owned by the federal government, saying that they would place an unfair cost on consumers.

22. Delayed rules modernizing the federal highway system, including environmental standards. March 15
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? The trucking industry supported the changes for bridge and pavement condition guidelines, but strongly opposed measures aimed at environmental sustainability and mitigating climate change.

23. Delayed a lawsuit over a rule regulating airborne mercury emissions from power plants. April 27
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Coal companies, along with Republican officials in several states, sued the government over this rule, which regulated the amount of mercury and other toxic pollutants that fossil fuel-fired power plants can emit into the air. They argued that the rule helped shutter coal plants, many of which are already compliant. Oral arguments in the case have been delayed while the E.P.A. reviews the rule.

Any regulations we missed? Tweet @nytclimate.

Sources: Federal Register; Environmental Protection Agency; White House; Columbia Law School’s Climate Deregulation Tracker

[Eric the Green]

Let's Make Earth Great Again.

[Bob Butler 54]

CNN is reporting that the Environmental Protection Agency is firing scientists.  They mention that these are technical positions rather than political positions, thus it is not traditional to fire and replace them on a presidential change of power.

[Warren Dew]

(05-08-2017, 01:13 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: CNN is reporting that the Environmental Protection Agency is firing scientists.  They mention that these are technical positions rather than political positions, thus it is not traditional to fire and replace them on a presidential change of power.

Actually, these aren't employees at all; they're consultants.