EPA

[red321]

Think we need a thread to document the "activities" of Scott Pruitt and the EPA

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/20/trump-administration-to-decline-to-renew-dozens-of-scientists-for-key-epa-advisory-board/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.d5e4e4ec6e85

 

First up...complete the purging of scientists from the Scientific Advisory Board to ensure there is enough space to add lobbyists from various industries

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/07/us/politics/epa-dismisses-members-of-major-scientific-review-board.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

A spokesman for the E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, said he would consider replacing the academic scientists with representatives from industries whose pollution the agency is supposed to regulate, as part of the wide net it plans to cast. “The administrator believes we should have people on this board who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community,” said the spokesman, J. P. Freire.

 

[mtangelsfan]

Maybe a mix of both would be better.

[red321]

Why would you have non scientists on the scientific advisory board?

[mtangelsfan]

Because you should have at least one person on there who represents the businesses those folks threaten.

[red321]

wouldn't that be the business advisory board?

[mtangelsfan]

There should be a scientist on that one too.  

[Adam]

The problem with these agencies far outweigh their benefits in my opinion. They're just vehicles for crony bullshit at the end of the day.

[Blarg]

20 hours ago, red321 said:

Why would you have non scientists on the scientific advisory board?

See NASA 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

On 6/21/2017 at 0:44 PM, mtangelsfan said:

Maybe a mix of both would be better.

We ain't havin' none of that compromise stuff. One way or the other.

[halomatt]

This should be a good thread.  Thanks for starting it. 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

On 6/22/2017 at 9:38 AM, Adam said:

The problem with these agencies far outweigh their benefits in my opinion. They're just vehicles for crony bullshit at the end of the day.

When you can't drink the water or breathe the air, you may have a different opinion.

[Adam]

May I?

[Lou]

1 hour ago, Adam said:

May I?

Yes. But until then . . . 

[Lhalo]

Here's hoping there is no EPA in the near future.

[Glen]

On 6/22/2017 at 9:38 AM, Adam said:

The problem with these agencies far outweigh their benefits in my opinion. They're just vehicles for crony bullshit at the end of the day.

I remember back in the 70s and 80s, driving south on the 138 to get to San Bernardino and the dirty brown halo that surrounded the valley. It used to make me a bit ill. It's so much better now.

Yeah, but fuck the EPA. We don't need potable water or breathable air.

[Glen]

As with most government agencies, absolutely it could use some cleaning up. But to get rid of it entirely would be folly.

[Lhalo]

We didn't have potable water before the EPA? Good to know.

[krAbs]

4 minutes ago, Lawrence said:

We didn't have potable water before the EPA? Good to know.

Isn't the idea CLEAN water, rather than potable water in general? Like, I guess if you're cool with not setting a limit on the mg/L of fecal coliform in water, then that's...fine...though maybe a LITTLE strange...

[Lhalo]

1 hour ago, krAbs said:

Isn't the idea CLEAN water, rather than potable water in general? Like, I guess if you're cool with not setting a limit on the mg/L of fecal coliform in water, then that's...fine...though maybe a LITTLE strange...

Clean water can still flow without the EPA. I promise.

[krAbs]

4 minutes ago, Lawrence said:

Clean water can still flow without the EPA. I promise.

As a civil engineer, trust me, it would not. We don't do shit unless we absolutely have to, and even then, we try to sneak stuff by.

[Glen]

24 minutes ago, krAbs said:

As a civil engineer, trust me, it would not. We don't do shit unless we absolutely have to, and even then, we try to sneak stuff by.

What do you know about it? Lawrence says we'll be okay.

[mtangelsfan]

3 minutes ago, Glen said:

What do you know about it? Lawrence says we'll be okay.

One "I'm in the business" post and you are convinced?

[krAbs]

Okay, that was a low shot, but still -  economics dictates that the cheapest path will win out. That's WHY we like it. This isn't just civil engineering, this is life. So, what mechanism would keep the water clean here? The people being upset? Kinda like how that is working so well in Flint? Or like how its working in Mexico? I'm honestly a bit curious why someone would think that water would stay clean with 0 enforcement of regulation.

[Adam]

3 hours ago, Glen said:

I remember back in the 70s and 80s, driving south on the 138 to get to San Bernardino and the dirty brown halo that surrounded the valley. It used to make me a bit ill. It's so much better now.

Yeah, but fuck the EPA. We don't need potable water or breathable air.

"Fuck the EPA" is exactly what I said. 

[mtangelsfan]

36 minutes ago, krAbs said:

Okay, that was a low shot, but still -  economics dictates that the cheapest path will win out. That's WHY we like it. This isn't just civil engineering, this is life. So, what mechanism would keep the water clean here? The people being upset? Kinda like how that is working so well in Flint? Or like how its working in Mexico? I'm honestly a bit curious why someone would think that water would stay clean with 0 enforcement of regulation.

The states and the courts