From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 7:25:40 AM UTC-7, slider wrote:

On Fri, 06 Jul 2018 01:32:09 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan
wrote:

Are you really too stupid to realize that that WILL (and is)
having major effects on the environment all over the world.
In every place where we're at a tipping point, his policies are
guaranteed to push us on into the worst possible consequences.

### - bollocks! and is quite the exaggeration too! and because NOT 'pushing' (i.e. necessarily 'adding' to it all) just not 'pulling' or taking 'away' from it all...

That's completely and ridiculously wrong. It's important to know
how wrong that claim is, so I'm going to show you. And you read
ALL of this too, because it was your claim. :)

BAD STUFF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE, IS DOING,
AND IS STILL TRYING TO DO TO THE ENVIRONMENT

(Although they're being fought on many of these fronts)

***

After heavy lobbying by the chemical industry, the EPA under Trump
has scaled back the way the federal government determines health
and safety risks associated with the most dangerous chemicals
on the market.

Under a law passed by Congress during the final year of the Obama administration (an updated Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976),
the E.P.A. was required for the first time to evaluate hundreds
of potentially toxic chemicals and determine if they should face
new restrictions, or even be removed from the market.

The E.P.A. has in most cases decided to EXCLUDE any potential
exposures caused by most substances’ presence in the air,
the ground, or the water.

That approach means that the improper disposal of chemicals — leading
to the contamination of drinking water, for instance — will usually
NOT be a factor in deciding whether to restrict or ban them.
(there are a few exceptions only where many obvious DEATHS occur)

The agency will instead focus only on the possible harm caused
by DIRECT physical contact with a chemical.

This approach is a big victory for the chemical industry.
Nancy B. Beck, the Trump administration’s appointee to oversee
the E.P.A.’s toxic chemical unit, previously worked as an
executive at the American Chemistry Council, one of the
chemical industry’s main lobbying groups.

Three former agency officials, including a former supervisor of
the toxic chemical program, said that the E.P.A.’s approach would
result in a flawed analysis of the threat presented by chemicals.

“It is ridiculous,” said Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, who retired last
year after nearly four decades at the E.P.A., where she ran the
toxic chemical unit. “You can’t determine if there is an
unreasonable risk without doing a comprehensive risk evaluation.”

“Congress worked hard in bipartisan fashion to reform our nation’s
broken chemical safety laws, but Pruitt’s E.P.A. is failing to
put the new law to use as intended,” Senator Tom Udall said in a
statement referring to Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. administrator.

Cumulatively, the approach being taken for the first 10 chemicals
to be evaluated (out of hundreds which need to be evaluated) means
the E.P.A.’s risk analysis will not take into account an estimated
68 million pounds a year of emissions, according to an analysis
by the Environmental Defense Fund.

[Slider, this updated new law was passed, so this work that was
previously intended to be DONE now will not be done. That is
more than "failure to improve". It's actual rollback in scope.]

Specific Examples:

The E.P.A. will examine what harm can be caused to anyone directly
exposed to perchloroethylene — designated by the E.P.A. as a likely carcinogen — during manufacturing or when using it in dry cleaning,
carpet cleaning or handling certain ink-removal products.

But the agency will NOT focus on exposures that occur from traces
of the chemical found in drinking water in 44 states as a result
of improper disposal over decades. The decision conflicts with
a risk assessment plan detailed by the E.P.A. a year ago, which
included drinking water. The agency will also not consider the
hazards of perchloroethylene discharged into streams or lakes,
landfills or the air from dry-cleaning stores or manufacturing.

Similar issues apply to 9 of the first 10 chemicals evaluated.

One is 1,4-dioxane, in antifreeze, deodorants, shampoos and
cosmetics and considered “likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

Another is trichloroethylene, used to make a refrigerant chemical
and remove grease from metal parts and associated with cancers
of the liver, kidneys and blood.

Pruitt's EPA also narrowed the definitions of certain chemicals,
including asbestos. Some asbestos-like fibers will no longer be
included in the risk assessments, nor will the 8.8 million pounds
a year of asbestos deposited in hazardous landfills or the 13.1
million pounds discarded in routine dump sites.

More than a dozen environmental and public-health groups
are suing the E.P.A. to challenge changes made to this program.

***

This clown Scott Pruitt who just resigned... he was a real piece
of work. Some of the changes Pruitt sought at the EPA adversely
affect the health of everyday Americans. He had begun reversing
the proposal to ban the neurotoxic pesticide chlorpyrifos, going
against all credible scientific advice. He lifted key controls on
air pollution from major industrial sources. He began rolling back
vehicle efficiency standards, which provide a key way to cut
greenhouse gas emissions.

Pruitt took unprecedented steps to purge members of the EPA’s
science advisory panels, citing conflicts of interest and replaced
these individuals with researchers from industry or states that
have sued the EPA to block its rules.

One of Pruitt’s most impactful strategies at the EPA ultimately
was to slow down or stall its work, seeking years-long delays
for some parts of the agency’s ongoing rule development.

He also backed off the EPA’s pursuit of polluters, issuing far
fewer fines for infractions than any of the last three
administrations in their first year.

Example: Pruitt issued a memo reversing the agency’s position
in an existing enforcement battle with a Michigan-based company
accused of modifying the state’s largest coal-fired power plant
without getting federal permits for a projected rise in pollution.

[Slider, such a strategy involves much more than "not taking away".
When there are anti-science policies, extreme delays, and reduced
enforcement, it actively *encourages* pollution, ensuring MORE,
rather than simply holding steady. Pruitt undermined the mission
of the EPA in *numerous* other ways, but your eyes are probably
glazing over as it is, so I won't elaborate further.]

***

The Trump administration is trying to EXPAND offshore oil drilling.
They are at the same time trying to slash safety regulations related
to drilling. They're attempting to revive a major drilling plan
that Obama had already considered and scrapped.

Obama had us on a path toward curtailing offshore drilling.
Trump has already initiated an expanding of it, and if he could
get away with it, would expand it even more.

Trump's plan proposed opening up nearly ALL US coastal waters to
offshore drilling. That proposal has been met with a striking level
of opposition. Almost 1.5 million public comments have been
registered against the plan. There was bipartisan resistance
from governors in all but one of the coastal states that do not
currently allow offshore drilling. And 12 attorneys general signed
a letter saying they intend to sue the administration if the plan
goes forward.

Inserted in Trump's tax break legislation was a plan to open up
Arctic offshore drilling, ending a previous hold on oil and gas
drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, reversing
wilderness protections Obama had proposed. Environmental Review
has already begun for setting up an oil and gas leasing program
in the refuge’s 1.5-million-acre coastal plain.

This action disregards biological, cultural, and climate impacts
on an already rapidly warming Arctic. It will make things worse.

[Slider, Obama had previously scrapped such plans. Trump is
trying to get as much of it as possible revived and implemented.
That's more than "not acting". There was so much outcry against
this plan in many states that they seem to have backed off of
much of it for now, but they will keep trying.]

***

The Trump administration approved a land swap deal that allows a
road to be constructed through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge.
That action overruled wilderness protections that had previously
kept that area off-limits to vehicles for decades.

***

The Interior Department rescinded a 2015 Obama administration rule
that would have set new environmental limitations on fracking
on public lands.

[Again, limitations on fracking were planned to be implemented.
To roll them back goes beyond simply "not acting" since it
*rescinded* positive actions previously planned.]

***

Trump's EPA has been trying to protect a loophole that allows
vastly more pollution than typically permitted from heavy-duty
commercial vehicles.

The single study the EPA used to try to justify this exemption has
been disavowed as flawed by the University where it was conducted
and two former EPA administrators, a Democrat and a Republican,
are both urging the agency to close the loophole, as Obama intended.

Glider trucks were originally used as a stopgap in trucking fleets
to salvage motors and other components from trucks that were
otherwise worn out or damaged, but they quickly caught on as a
way to sidestep new emissions rules and save money.

The mix-and-match trucks end up polluting 40 to 55 times more than
new trucks. Since gliders contain refurbished engines, they
aren’t held to the same pollution control standards as new trucks.

They are becoming a much more significant source of pollution.
If their emissions are unchecked, they would by 2025 generate a
third of the truck fleet’s emissions of nitrogen oxides, gases
that contribute to smog and acid rain.

The Obama administration tried to close this loophole, introducing
new standards for glider trucks and capping their production at
300 per year per manufacturer starting in January this year.
But now Trump’s EPA is trying to repeal these new standards.

Fitzgerald, the glider kit company, hosted a campaign event for
President Trump. The company also met directly with EPA
Administrator Scott Pruitt and donated $225,000 to Rep. Diane
Black’s (R-TN) gubernatorial campaign.

Manufacturers like Volvo have written to the EPA to oppose
this exemption, arguing that new truck manufacturers have worked
hard to comply with stricter pollution controls.

The EPA is still weighing a decision, but a dozen states have sued
to block the exemption for glider trucks. “Simply put, gliders are
a pollution menace that, unless properly regulated, threaten to
undermine the entire national program to reduce harmful emissions
from heavy duty vehicles and engines,” according to a legal document
filed by the attorneys general of California, New York, Connecticut,
Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington.

[Trump's EPA is trying to PROTECT a loophole Obama was closing.
That's more than just "doing nothing to help". It's yet another
actively harmful attempt to permit more pollution.]

***

The Interior Department rolled back an Obama-era policy protecting
migratory birds, stating that it will no longer prosecute oil and
gas, wind, and solar operators that accidentally kill birds.

[They REMOVED a policy that was protecting birds. Many more will die.]

***

The Trump administration has moved to renew leases for a copper
and nickel mining operation on the border of Minnesota’s Boundary
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, reversing a decision made in the
final weeks of Barack Obama’s tenure.

[The Canadian side of this same area is where I took two
wilderness canoe trips when I was in high-school. They are
endangering the area for mining profit. Obama protected it.]

***

The Trump administration introduced an attempt to repeal a BLM
rule restricting methane emissions from drilling on public lands.
The Senate narrowly voted that measure down.

[They're TRYING to do even more bad shit. Some is being prevented.]

***

Trump drastically scaled back the Bears Ears and Grand
Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah. It was the
largest reduction of public-lands protection in U.S. history.

[That's not "inaction". They're actively REDUCING public-lands,
a practice seldom done, in order to open more land to business
and industry, which of course means... more pollution and less
preservation. By the way, we've been in that area fairly recently.
It's gorgeous, containing many thousands of archeological sites
that most people wanted to see protected.]

***

Trump's EPA has decided to reconsider (and possibly cancel)
hundreds of Obama-era pollution guidelines and standards for
electric power plants, which were regulated under the Clean Water Act.

[Their rollbacks of existing guidelines and standards goes beyond
merely doing nothing to further control.]

***

Trump's EPA attempted to eliminate Obama-era controls on methane
but an appeals court ruling put those Obama-era methane standards
back in effect. Trump's EPA is now finalizing a different proposal
attempting to POSTPONE those standards for 2 years.

[Postponing the methane standards for 2 years would obviously
release a lot more methane into the atmosphere. It is questionable
that they will succeed, but this is yet another harmful thing
they're trying to do.]

***

The Trump administration has very recently (like... yesterday)
drafted a new proposal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from
coal-fired power plants, one that is far less stringent than the
climate plan finalized in 2015 by former President Obama.

The new proposal recommends regulating the emissions of
individual coal plants using modest upgrades, such as improving
efficiency or substituting fuel. That contrasts with the more
ambitious goals of the Clean Power Plan, which encouraged
utilities to make broader systemic changes to cut emissions,
such as switching from coal to natural gas or renewable power.

The E.P.A.'s new plan would technically regulate carbon dioxide
without forcing major changes on the industry. It would also
give states significant leeway in enforcing the rules.

[Thus, Trump has undermined Obama's Clean Power Plan,

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)