Trump rolls back US water pollution controls

Sakurabaism said:
Guy's a piece of shit. Since the EPA no longer protects seasonal streams and millions of acres of wetlands, my State may not have the funding to monitor the streams that are located on federal lands.
Click to expand...

What state is that?
 
AnGrYcRoW said:
None of the articles you have linked paint this as a good thing quite the opposite , from your first link :
Under the rule, farmers using land near streams and wetlands were restricted from doing certain kinds of plowing and from planting certain crops, and would have been required to obtain E.P.A. permits in order to use chemical pesticides and fertilizers that could have run off into those bodies of water. Those restrictions will now be lifted.

From your second link

"The rewrite comes over the objections of the EPA’s own scientific advisers — mostly Trump administration appointees — who said last month that the proposed rule is “in conflict with established science … and the objectives of the Clean Water Act.”

You went in and cherry picked quotes from the articles from Trump officials and completely ignored the overall intent of the authors .

Very strange.
Click to expand...

Cherry picked? ...k....and all of those restrictions were still permitted as long as you had a permit. Again my point is that this isn’t an environmental apocalypse now or in the long run. The water will be fine, you’ll be fine, everything will be fine. Or we can freak out now and think we’re turning into China I guess
 
This doesn't benefit Trump, he has no particular reason to do it. My feeling is there are a lot of sycophants from the republican party around him, who know which buttons to press to get what they want. He's a narcissistic and that makes him vulnerable to flattery.
 
Renard said:
This doesn't benefit Trump, he has no particular reason to do it. My feeling is there are a lot of sycophants from the republican party around him, who know which buttons to press to get what they want. He's a narcissistic and that makes him vulnerable to flattery.
Click to expand...
It's either being done to upset libs, and or make his rich friends and donors more money and that's what will make the swamp nice and dry.
 
Overpressure said:
The new right: anything to upset the other side.

Brilliant leadership and fuck the environment, rich people need to be richer.
Click to expand...

It's just what happens when someone (or a group of people) complains about everything to the same hyperbolic level.

Eventually, you just tune them out.

And I'm not saying it's a good thing. Waterways need to be protected.

But the left is going to treat this change, and the fact Trump had two scoops of ice cream as if they are equally afwul offenses, so you get to a point where you just ignore them.

Trump's greatest trick has been getting the left so wound up that even when he does something potentially damaging lile this, the people who speak out about it have already destroyed their own credibility with the Russiagate hoax and the impeachment hoax etc.
 
Renard said:
This doesn't benefit Trump, he has no particular reason to do it. My feeling is there are a lot of sycophants from the republican party around him, who know which buttons to press to get what they want. He's a narcissistic and that makes him vulnerable to flattery.
Click to expand...

Hello Renard,

it doesn't have to literally put dollars in the pocket of the POTUS. i mean, that's a very high bar to clear, no?

i'd say it benefits some folks who might be voting and writing campaign checks next year. just follow the money;

...farmers and farmland already are exempt from most of the regulatory hurdles on behalf of wetlands that the Trump administration is targeting. Because of that, environmental groups long have argued that builders, oil and gas drillers and other industry owners would be the big winners if the government adopts the pending rollback, making it easier to fill in bogs, creeks and streams for plowing, drilling, mining or building.

Government numbers released last month support that argument.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...ctions-one-of-the-most-ridiculous-regulations

- IGIT
 
Last edited:
IGIT said:
hiya Cyrano200,

here is how it was reported in the Washington Times (a right leaning newspaper);

The changes had been sought by industry, developers and farmers, but opposed by environmental advocates and public health officials. They say the changes would make it harder to maintain a clean water supply for the American public and would threaten habitat and wildlife.

The administration says the changes would allow farmers to plow their fields without fear of unintentionally straying over the banks of a federally protected dry creek, bog or ditch. But the government’s own figures show it is real estate developers and those in other nonfarm business sectors that take out the most permits for impinging on wetlands and waterways, and stand to reap the biggest regulatory and financial relief.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/22/trumps-rollback-of-us-water-protections-nears-comp/

so, it seems like a pro-business move, if you happen to be a real estate developer. on the other hand, according to public health officials, its going to make our clean water less clean - and it will make some endangered species more endangered.

*muses*

its stuff like this, apparently, that makes America great.

- IGIT
Click to expand...

*muses*

Makes America Great while making everyones ole pal Aegon grind his teeth until they crack.
 
AlexDB9 said:
Cherry picked? ...k....and all of those restrictions were still permitted as long as you had a permit. Again my point is that this isn’t an environmental apocalypse now or in the long run. The water will be fine, you’ll be fine, everything will be fine. Or we can freak out now and think we’re turning into China I guess
Click to expand...
I never said it was an " apocalypse " nor am I " freaking out " and I never said I " think we're turning into China " Sheesh

I think rolling back environmental protections is short sighted and stupid , it benefits the few at the cost of the many , we shouldn't be downloading our shit onto future generations .

Edit: and yes you did cherry pick the articles you linked .
 
AlexDB9 said:
While it looks like the troop will auto bot like this post....and while I know a truth crusader like fogie would never ever ever lie to me I’ll hold off until I read more information

I know as an owner of multiple properties I needed a law to tell me “hey you can’t poison the water supply guy!”
Click to expand...
Rivers used to catch on fire in this country. Unfortunately not everyone is as ecominded as you. For a corporation that reports to shareholders, if there is a legal option to save a lot of money by putting chemicals down the drain, they gon take it
 
AnGrYcRoW said:
I never said it was an " apocalypse " nor am I " freaking out " and I never said I " think we're turning into China " Sheesh

I think rolling back environmental protections is short sighted and stupid , it benefits the few at the cost of the many , we shouldn't be downloading our shit onto future generations .
Click to expand...

Did I say you did?

Too late though seems like it’s all but a forgone conclusion
 
Clean drinking water is for puzzy socialist cucks!!!!!
 
Sohei said:
Clean drinking water is for puzzy socialist cucks!!!!!
Click to expand...

ahoy Sohei,

aye.

deregulating clean water safeguards = owning libs

therefore, its a good thing.

- IGIT
 
Maybe there will be something in our new water that will counteract the lead fluoride and atrazine that's making us all gay
 
ocean size said:
Rivers used to catch on fire in this country. Unfortunately not everyone is as ecominded as you. For a corporation that reports to shareholders, if there is a legal option to save a lot of money by putting chemicals down the
drain, they gon take it
Click to expand...

Sigh....no wonder climate change alarmists make bank off you people. There’s no middle ground
 
AlexDB9 said:
Sigh....no wonder climate change alarmists make bank off you people. There’s no middle ground
Click to expand...

My previous comment was specifically in the context of you saying since you are a property owner and won't put chemicals in the drain. Completely moot point.


but anyway, when your standard for whether this is a bad thing is if this will be an apocalypse, you are the dummy. Not the person saying 'this objectively will be bad for the environment'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,419
Messages
55,418,972
Members
174,765
Latest member
durbanik916

Share this page

Back
Top