Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Trump's war on the environment
#1
Trump's Top Environmental Adviser Says Pesticides Aren't Bad for You

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2...pesticides

In addition to not believing in climate change, Myron Ebell has several other lovely qualities.
TOM PHILPOTTNOV. 16, 2016 6:00 AM


[Image: crop-duster2000.jpg]

Like pesticides? Trump's got the right man for you. Dave Martin/AP Photo

To lead the transition of the Environmental Protection Agency, President-elect Donald Trump settled on notorious climate change denier Myron Ebell. The decision rattled climate activists—see Julia Lurie's interview with Bill McKibben andDavid Roberts and Brad Plumer on Vox. But it isn't just greenhouse gas emissions that are likely to get a free ride under an Ebell-influenced EPA. Farm chemicals, too, would likely flow unabated if Ebell's agenda comes to dominate Trump's EPA.

Ebell's group dismisses the well-established existence of endocrine-disrupting chemicals as a myth conjured by "anti-chemical activists."

Ebell directs the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The group runs a  website,SafeChemicalPolicy.org, that exists to downplay the health and ecological impacts of chemicals.If the incoming EPA takes its cues from Ebell's group, the agency's coming decisions on some widely used farm chemicals won't be hard to predict........
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#2
We will pay with cancers. But profits for pesticides, relatively inexpensive substances to produce in bulk are more noble than human lives.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#3
(11-18-2016, 01:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump's Top Environmental Adviser Says Pesticides Aren't Bad for You

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2...pesticides

In addition to not believing in climate change, Myron Ebell has several other lovely qualities.  ....

But, but endocrine disruptors don't know the bounds of wealth or ZIP code. Say hello to Mr. TCDD, he's

[Image: Dioxin-3D-vdW.png]





bad, bad, he's nation wide, [even the Whitehouse is not immune to his visit. ]
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#4
Two benzene rings and four chlorine atoms... that looks like a very ugly chemical.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#5
(11-19-2016, 01:28 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Two benzene rings and four chlorine atoms... that looks like a very ugly chemical.

Wow, I'm proud of you.  For real.  That chemical is indeed very ugly.  It's   TCDD .  It's more familiar name is "dioxin". Cool

Pthalates are another whole batch of ugly chemicals. 


[Image: 249px-Phthalates.svg.png]
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#6
President-elect Donald J. Trump has selected Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general and a close ally of the fossil fuel industry, to run the Environmental Protection Agency
Reply
#7
Profit will be the only recognized virtue under Donald Trump in the nastiest Evil Empire since Stalin's Soviet Union.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#8
(12-08-2016, 01:35 AM)gabrielle Wrote: President-elect Donald J. Trump has selected Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general and a close ally of the fossil fuel industry, to run the Environmental Protection Agency

We're fucked...
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#9
After Trump and perhaps Pence, "Make America GOOD Again" will be a heroic effort.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#10
(12-08-2016, 07:56 AM)Odin Wrote:
(12-08-2016, 01:35 AM)gabrielle Wrote: President-elect Donald J. Trump has selected Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general and a close ally of the fossil fuel industry, to run the Environmental Protection Agency

We're fucked...
Not if the Senate minority filibusters this appointment. The nomination is egregious enough that it may be a battle worth fighting.
Reply
#11
(12-09-2016, 12:39 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:
(12-08-2016, 07:56 AM)Odin Wrote:
(12-08-2016, 01:35 AM)gabrielle Wrote: President-elect Donald J. Trump has selected Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general and a close ally of the fossil fuel industry, to run the Environmental Protection Agency

We're fucked...

Not if the Senate minority filibusters this appointment.  The nomination is egregious enough that it may be a battle worth fighting.

I'm more than a bit baffled by the Democrats plan for the next Congress.  The GOP made it clear from the day BHO was first elected that they would oppose everything, and got very well rewarded for the effort.  The Dems, on the other hand, want to be the good guys (again) and join the Kumbaya circle.  I don't see them standing tall unless some core GOP members lead the way.

I just don't see any coherent, or even quirky, effort to thwart the Donald.  The Dems are neutering themselves, and the electorate is already shunning them as losers.  The GOP stalwarts will pick few fights, this NOT being one of them.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#12
Quote:The Department of Energy is refusing the Trump transition team's request to name those who have worked on climate change within the department, because of concerns about what the incoming administration will do with the names. President-elect Donald Trump has denied climate change is real.

NPR's Jennifer Ludden tells our Newscast unit the request of such names was included in a 74-question document distributed to the agency's workforce. Jennifer says, "The Trump team wants the names of career employees and contractors who have attended U.N. climate talks over the past five years. It also wants emails about those meetings."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...ge-workers
Reply
#13
(12-14-2016, 12:13 AM)gabrielle Wrote:
Quote:The Department of Energy is refusing the Trump transition team's request to name those who have worked on climate change within the department, because of concerns about what the incoming administration will do with the names. President-elect Donald Trump has denied climate change is real.

NPR's Jennifer Ludden tells our Newscast unit the request of such names was included in a 74-question document distributed to the agency's workforce. Jennifer says, "The Trump team wants the names of career employees and contractors who have attended U.N. climate talks over the past five years. It also wants emails about those meetings."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2...ge-workers

Another GOP witch hunt.  How nice!  Let's exhume Tail-Gunner Joe and sit his bones in a chair for all the meetings.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#14
The "Trump Team" must not get them. Donald Trump can nullify scientific truth as much as he wants in public statements, but those who have sought and promoted truth as they understand it must have some protection from persecution -- even if those people are wrong.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#15
https://armoryoftherevolution.wordpress....te-change/
Heart  Bernie/Tulsi 2020    Heart
Reply
#16
(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.

Insert joke about "known to cause cancer by the State of California" warning. Big Grin
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#17
(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.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#18
(12-13-2016, 10:38 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(12-09-2016, 12:39 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:
(12-08-2016, 07:56 AM)Odin Wrote:
(12-08-2016, 01:35 AM)gabrielle Wrote: President-elect Donald J. Trump has selected Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general and a close ally of the fossil fuel industry, to run the Environmental Protection Agency

We're fucked...

Not if the Senate minority filibusters this appointment.  The nomination is egregious enough that it may be a battle worth fighting.

I'm more than a bit baffled by the Democrats plan for the next Congress.  The GOP made it clear from the day BHO was first elected that they would oppose everything, and got very well rewarded for the effort.  The Dems, on the other hand, want to be the good guys (again) and join the Kumbaya circle.  I don't see them standing tall unless some core GOP members lead the way.

I just don't see any coherent, or even quirky, effort to thwart the Donald.  The Dems are neutering themselves, and the electorate is already shunning them as losers.  The GOP stalwarts will pick few fights, this NOT being one of them.

Every Trump nominee is egregious enough that it's a battle worth fighting. The Democrats don't have the spine to fight every battle. A report by Nina Totenberg says that the constituents of Democratic Senators are more angry about his appointments (especially now the Supreme one) than the Senators themselves are, and the Senators are furious. But the Democrats might not realize that victory can only be accomplished by standing strong against the Republicans. Caving in has not and will not win them any points with the people, no matter how many establishment pundits it pleases. The Republicans always win when they stand for their own ideas and block everything else. The Democrats seem to think it won't work for them, too often. They'd better learn. 

Maybe they need to read up on S&H and our double rhythm theory so they know where we are in history. We need Abraham Lincolns now, not Benedict Arnolds.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#19
The battle for the environment is a battle for votes too.

[Image: Pledges.png]

http://www.environmentalvoter.org/blog/c...M.facebook
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#20
[Image: reminder-that-dapl-was-re-routed-through...661081.png]

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

[Image: oil-standing_1024.jpg]

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
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)