Law 22 States sue Trump's EPA over "Dirty Power" Rule

Based on that piece it appears some states do. But again back to that piece they can only legislate and enforce legislation for activities in the state. Can they do anything about air pollution from a neighboring state? Or a river that's source is in another state?

Nothing prevents states from cooperating in absence of federal involvement. The article makes it sound like they don't even try. If the alternative is your getting pollution anyway, thanks to federal inaction, then just do nothing?

To reiterate, the EPA should be an important piece. But the states aren't a bunch of children and I'd like to see more of them force the issue.
 
Nothing prevents states from cooperating in absence of federal involvement. The article makes it sound like they don't even try. If the alternative is your getting pollution anyway, thanks to federal inaction, then just do nothing?

To reiterate, the EPA should be an important piece. But the states aren't a bunch of children and I'd like to see more of them force the issue.

Is West Virginia really going to crackdown on a company because to protect another states citizens when they won't even protect there own?


And it would seem 22 states are working together in suing the Federal Government to do it's job
 
One by one he will tear them all down in favour of corporate lobbyist.

Trump Pushed for Mining Project That Could Destroy Alaska Salmon Ecosystems, Despite EPA Opposition

...
President Donald Trump had personally intervened — after a meeting with Alaska's Republican Governor Mike Dunleavy on Air Force One in June — to withdraw the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) opposition to a gold mining project in the state that the federal government's own scientists have acknowledged would destroy native fisheries and undermine the state's fragile ecosystems.

...
When the internal announcement was made by Trump political appointees that the agency was dropping its opposition, which came one day after the Trump-Dunleavy meeting, sources told CNN it came as a "total shock" to some of the top EPA scientists who were planning to oppose the project on environmental grounds. Sources for the story, the news outlet noted, "asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution."



img.jpg


...
After being told that the decision was made, one EPA inside told CNN, "I was dumbfounded. We were basically told we weren't going to examine anything. We were told to get out of the way and just make it happen."




Maybe the Trump Defense Force in the other thread about this very topic can explain again how Trump isn't responsible for this?
 
Is West Virginia really going to crackdown on a company because to protect another states citizens when they won't even protect there own?


And it would seem 22 states are working together in suing the Federal Government to do it's job

Unless you're arguing that states can't or shouldn't do more then I'm not sure what we're discussing. Your own article described a lack of resolve on the states' part (i.e. they don't wanna spend the money). That tells me they could do more, which is what I'm suggesting.
 
This thread isn't about climate change. It's about pollution particulates that have already been shown to have a direct, devastating effect on our public's health. They increase the rate of pulmonary diseases, and exacerbate those that already exist. They result in early deaths. They cause damage to cars and structures. The result is billions of dollars in damages on both a human and material scale.

The rivers being flooded with oil aren't some future, abstract threat. These are problems we've already encountered in our history. They kill fish. The damage boats. The result in fires which shuts downs ports. Again, this isn't imaginary. These were pitfalls of the industrial revolution our parents and grandparents already encountered. They took measures to curb them. What's your excuse for arguing we shouldn't?

Per climate change, Jakarta is being drowned. They're not the first. It's already happened, and continues to happen to numerous islands that are home to mostly indigent, primitive populations in the Indian ocean. They're just the first urban center getting hit where rich people will start to care. Torrential flash flooding, the kind that puts cities under several feet of water, in coastal cities in certain regions, like South Carolina, have increased from one every several years to ~11 a year. By the time you die that's going to be anywhere from 50-110 a year. Trust me, once Washington D.C.'s summers balloon a half dozen degrees on upswing years, these useless politicians will start to care.

I can't stand the ignorance required to forward a statement like this. Go outside. Read a book.
are you coming on to me?

we don't disagree as much as you think. extreme either way probably is no good. no?
 
No matter what political side you're on, why would anyone not want a cleaner environment that relies more on energy resources that are cleaner and less finite the oil and coal?

Clean energy will create jobs as well.

It doesn't matter if you believe in climate change or not. It's more common sense.
 
Honest question for ppl here, do you actually believe the earth will be doomed if we dont drastically curb co2 in the next 12 years? Ive heard this talking point by the dems and its complete nonsense

the only complete nonsense are your posts in this thread... lol.
 
Last edited:
Honest question for ppl here, do you actually believe the earth will be doomed if we dont drastically curb co2 in the next 12 years? Ive heard this talking point by the dems and its complete nonsense
The Earth will not be doomed. It will carry on its non-sentient journey through the cosmos, and life will continue for many species. The ability of people to live on it in large numbers is the problem. There are some who don't care if 100's of millions of people die while the rest fight each other over scarce resources (and the rich hide in enclaves and suffer little) or don't care that massive numbers of animals, fish, and plants will go extinct. Are you one of them?
 
Maybe the Trump Defense Force in the other thread about this very topic can explain again how Trump isn't responsible for this?

Let us be honest, he literally could shoot someone on fifth avenue, and they'd talk about how Hilary slit Epstein's throat. It's quite instructive watching cult members burrow into the wood like termites.
 
No matter what political side you're on, why would anyone not want a cleaner environment that relies more on energy resources that are cleaner and less finite the oil and coal?

Clean energy will create jobs as well.

It doesn't matter if you believe in climate change or not. It's more common sense.
It is the complete failure of almost everyone who is a "climate change denier" to back this notion that I find the most baffling aspect of the whole topic. @Ripskater believed it perfectly alright to poison his children's water to keep coal miners employed.
 
As long as President Trump is in office, they will say just about anything. The OP is literally blaming hot weather on orange man bad.

You have a reading comprehension problem.

It is already hotter than Satan's Taint outside because of Global Warming.

OP states it is hot as shit due to global warming. Not bad orange man.

I would like to enjoy the outside without having to dress up like Dustin Hoffman in Outbreak due to deregulation.

OP then proceeds to wish that he could enjoy the outdoors without deregulation creating more polluted air - something Trump's EPA is currently doing. This is about air pollution. Not hot weather.

----

you are literally almost illiterate...
 
Last edited:
sticks and stones amigo. also, we've had a pretty wet year and not that hot in tx.

Sticks and stones? No. Thinking and not thinking, that's the metric. Massive extinctions, especially of bugs, increasing trouble with agriculture, death of great barrier reefs, a more acidic and heating ocean absent it's cryosphere in large part, heatwaves getting worse across the Earth.

Then there's the Inhoffe argument which you employed.........
308e617e47f114785d76f56dfa4dba96ea110160.jpeg
 
have you even read any of my posts?

also, i stand by my statement

sticks and stones amigo. also, we've had a pretty wet year and not that hot in tx.

Not that hot? You must live in Dallas. Here in Central Texas it was oppressively hot in July with heat and humidity now we’ve got our month long heat index at 108.
 
Back
Top