• We are currently experiencing technical difficulties. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.

Trump on Pollution

Rebound59 said:
The environment is irrelevant to Trump.
29rules have been overturned
  • Flood building standards
  • Proposed ban on a potentially harmful pesticide
  • Freeze on new coal leases on public lands
  • Methane reporting requirement
  • Anti-dumping rule for coal companies
  • Decision on Keystone XL pipeline
  • Decision on Dakota Access pipeline
  • Third-party settlement funds
  • Offshore drilling ban in the Atlantic and Arctic
  • Ban on seismic air gun testing in the Atlantic
  • Northern Bering Sea climate resilience plan
  • Royalty regulations for oil, gas and coal
  • Inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews
  • Permit-issuing process for new infrastructure projects
  • Green Climate Fund contributions
  • Mining restrictions in Bristol Bay, Alaska
  • Endangered species listings
  • Hunting ban on wolves and grizzly bears in Alaska
  • Protections for whales and sea turtles
  • Reusable water bottles rule for national parks
  • National parks climate order
  • Environmental mitigation for federal projects
  • Calculation for “social cost” of carbon
  • Planning rule for public lands
  • Copper filter cake listing as hazardous waste
  • Mine cleanup rule
  • Sewage treatment pollution regulations
  • Ban on use of lead ammunition on federal lands
  • Restrictions on fishing
24rollbacks are
in progress
  • Clean Power Plan
  • Paris climate agreement
  • Wetland and tributary protections
  • Car and truck fuel-efficiency standards
  • Status of 10 national monuments
  • Status of 12 marine areas
  • Limits on toxic discharge from power plants
  • Coal ash discharge regulations
  • Emissions standards for new, modified and reconstructed power plants
  • Emissions rules for power plant start-up and shutdown
  • Sage grouse habitat protections
  • Fracking regulations on public lands
  • Regulations on oil and gas drilling in some national parks
  • Oil rig safety regulations
  • Regulations for offshore oil and gas exploration by floating vessels
  • Drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge
  • Hunting method regulations in Alaska
  • Requirement for tracking emissions on federal highways
  • Emissions standards for trailers and glider kits
  • Limits on methane emissions on public lands
  • Permitting process for air-polluting plants
  • Offshore oil and gas leasing
  • Use of birds in subsistence handicrafts
  • Coal dust rule
7rollbacks are
in limbo
  • Methane emission limits at new oil and gas wells
  • Limits on landfill emissions
  • Mercury emission limits for power plants
  • Hazardous chemical facility regulations
  • Groundwater protections for uranium mines
  • Efficiency standards for federal buildings
  • Rule helping consumers buy fuel-efficient tires
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump-environment-rules-reversed.html
Click to expand...
Without even looking through them, I'll guess that 80+% of those are repeals of new Obama rules/regs. Was the environment in terrible shape when Obama took office?

If Trump wants to repeal "pretty much all pollution regulations", as @7437 says, why isn't Trump pushing for repeal of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act?
 
Rebound59 said:
The environment is irrelevant to Trump.
29rules have been overturned
  • Flood building standards
  • Proposed ban on a potentially harmful pesticide
  • Freeze on new coal leases on public lands
  • Methane reporting requirement
  • Anti-dumping rule for coal companies
  • Decision on Keystone XL pipeline
  • Decision on Dakota Access pipeline
  • Third-party settlement funds
  • Offshore drilling ban in the Atlantic and Arctic
  • Ban on seismic air gun testing in the Atlantic
  • Northern Bering Sea climate resilience plan
  • Royalty regulations for oil, gas and coal
  • Inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews
  • Permit-issuing process for new infrastructure projects
  • Green Climate Fund contributions
  • Mining restrictions in Bristol Bay, Alaska
  • Endangered species listings
  • Hunting ban on wolves and grizzly bears in Alaska
  • Protections for whales and sea turtles
  • Reusable water bottles rule for national parks
  • National parks climate order
  • Environmental mitigation for federal projects
  • Calculation for “social cost” of carbon
  • Planning rule for public lands
  • Copper filter cake listing as hazardous waste
  • Mine cleanup rule
  • Sewage treatment pollution regulations
  • Ban on use of lead ammunition on federal lands
  • Restrictions on fishing
24rollbacks are
in progress
  • Clean Power Plan
  • Paris climate agreement
  • Wetland and tributary protections
  • Car and truck fuel-efficiency standards
  • Status of 10 national monuments
  • Status of 12 marine areas
  • Limits on toxic discharge from power plants
  • Coal ash discharge regulations
  • Emissions standards for new, modified and reconstructed power plants
  • Emissions rules for power plant start-up and shutdown
  • Sage grouse habitat protections
  • Fracking regulations on public lands
  • Regulations on oil and gas drilling in some national parks
  • Oil rig safety regulations
  • Regulations for offshore oil and gas exploration by floating vessels
  • Drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge
  • Hunting method regulations in Alaska
  • Requirement for tracking emissions on federal highways
  • Emissions standards for trailers and glider kits
  • Limits on methane emissions on public lands
  • Permitting process for air-polluting plants
  • Offshore oil and gas leasing
  • Use of birds in subsistence handicrafts
  • Coal dust rule
7rollbacks are
in limbo
  • Methane emission limits at new oil and gas wells
  • Limits on landfill emissions
  • Mercury emission limits for power plants
  • Hazardous chemical facility regulations
  • Groundwater protections for uranium mines
  • Efficiency standards for federal buildings
  • Rule helping consumers buy fuel-efficient tires
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump-environment-rules-reversed.html
Click to expand...

17. Removed a number of species from the endangered list
Arguing that they no longer warranted protection, the Trump administration removed a number of species from the endangered and threatened species lists, including the Yellowstone grizzly bear, which the Obama administration had also proposed removing. While Republicans had long pushed to have the bears removed, environmentalists said the population had not yet recovered.

So you disagree with Obama on this one, or?
 
44nutman said:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...over-air-pollution-from-midwest-idUSKBN1EK1BK
8 states suing the EPA.
So either Trump has a rogue Director who he appointed to head the EPA or Trump does not care about pollution. You can chose one. Either Trump is inept or wants to poison the earth, so his rich buddies can make even more money.
Click to expand...

Do people even read anymore? This entire legal battle started in 2013 under the OBAMA administration... so somehow that means that Trump doesn't care about pollution?
 
The Best JG said:
No. U like science? We can talk.
Click to expand...
There's no study showing that 97% of scientists believe in AGWT.

A 2013 study by Cook et al in Environmental Research Letters collected about 12,000 studies whose abstracts mentioned "global climate change" or "global warming" and threw out about 8,000 of them for failing to take a position on AGW.

Then, of the remaining 4,000 or so papers which did take a position, Cook et al found that 97.1% indicated that humans play a role in global warming.

Your statement that "97% of scientists believe in AGWT" is not supported by this study.
 
Last edited:
I personally have a view that protecting the environment shouldn't be a left or right issue. We all know that dumping plastic and other chemicals into the water won't have a good effect on the world. Maybe instead of lowering our pollution controls, we should hold the countries we trade with to our standards. I'm sure there are regulations that need revamped, and I'm fine looking into it. I think anyone that thinks coal and other "fossil" fuels that we use are long term solutions to our power needs is sadly mistaken.

At some point we will run out. We need to be looking for safe alternatives. Letting oil companies rape all the resources is kinda dumb, and we pretty much let them do it for free.

The world belongs to all of us not just the rich, stop letting them tell you other wise. We aren't their slaves and once we fuck this world it's gone. Shouldn't be a left or right issue to take steps to protect it.

Hold up my hippy friends say it's my turn to smoke. BRB.....
 
waiguoren said:
There's no study showing that 97% of scientists believe in AGWT.

A 2013 study by Cook et al in Environmental Research Letters collected about 12,000 studies whose abstracts mentioned "global climate change" or "global warming" and threw out about 8,000 of them for failing to take a position on AGW.

Then, of the remaining 4,000 or so papers which did take a position, the Cook et al found that 97.1% indicated that humans play a role in global warming.

Your statement that "97% of scientists believe in AGWT" is not supported by this study.
Click to expand...
NASA website bro, the people smart enough to go into space:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
 
The Best JG said:
Why would it have to be comparable costs, when one ruins the planet and the other doesnt?

Also, just saying “i win” a discussion doesnt mean you won.

Do you know what a type 2 civilization and a dyson sphere are?
Click to expand...
Nope. I don’t. Stick to commonly used environmental expressions.

But instead of comparable cost and efficiency how about just some information about cost and efficiency of wind farms? You guys seem to think that prioritizing clean energy is the way. Perhaps you can provide some sources in which their usage has been proven to make practical, political and economic sense? Do you realise that Germany has spent $100 bil on solar technology and it supplies less than 1% of their electricity?

No of course you don’t. You guys aren’t interested in facts that oppose your green/nevertrump ideology.
 
How the fuck did taking care of the air that we breath, the water we drink, the land we build our houses upon, etc, become a partisan issue?

If there's one thing we need to come together with it's this.

Fuck it. I'm officially a nihilist. I welcome the apocalypse.
200.gif
 
I think Trump wants to drain the swamp so this obviously means he wants to make the environment better at least for real estate since the land will be more valuable if it is no longer swampland and it will help elevate prices in the real estate bubble which the US Treasury depends on for maintaining increasing tax receipts
 
Last edited:
Bargey said:
Nope. I don’t. Stick to commonly used environmental expressions.

But instead of comparable cost and efficiency how about just some information about cost and efficiency of wind farms? You guys seem to think that prioritizing clean energy is the way. Perhaps you can provide some sources in which their usage has been proven to make practical, political and economic sense? Do you realise that Germany has spent $100 bil on solar technology and it supplies less than 1% of their electricity?

No of course you don’t. You guys aren’t interested in facts that oppose your green/nevertrump ideology.
Click to expand...
A dyson sphere is what we would need to have unlimited energy in our solar system. Its basically a giant solar panel in space that would collect energy from the sun unobstructed by earth’s weather conditions (clouds). We already have the roadmap for what we need to do for the future of our energy collection. Elon Musk is currently investing heavily in space elevators (spacex) so that we will be able to transport materials into space with reasonable effort.

Do you know what the sun is and how it works? It is by far the greatest energy source we will have access to for the next million years unless we find some way to generate energy from gravitational waves (proven to exist in 2015 by LIGO).

Solar energy is the future of humanity, and it is clean energy, already being provided to us in abundance by the sun (let me know if i need to explain to u how the sun works). We just need to harness it.
 
Conservative siding against environmental conservatism isn't new. Corporations and Christians are both threatened (at the bottom line) by knowledge and education. Corporate America has pumped a ton of money into making people believe less in science (effectively making them dumber).
 
The Best JG said:
NASA website bro, the people smart enough to go into space:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Click to expand...

First, the people working on AGW at NASA are not the same people who work on spaceflight.

Second, did you actually follow the footnote link on the NASA website? It links to the same paper I mentioned above, plus a 2016 paper by the same author. Which paper (2013 or 2016) do you think demonstrates your claim that 97% of scientists believe that global climate change is caused by humans?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,199
Messages
58,266,358
Members
175,987
Latest member
tach

Share this page

Back
Top