PDA

View Full Version : US Presidant Trump cuts EPA


Trivium
March 17th, 2017, 11:57 PM
I jwas just reading an article explaining that US President Trump is abolishing the EPA ( Environmental Protection Agency). It went on to detail exactly what that means and what it will affect.

Although I am from Ireland, this still concerns me. I am niether pro nor anti Trump. Just a lover of animals, nature and the environmental

mattsmith48
March 18th, 2017, 09:55 AM
From the outside its kinda fun to see everything in the US goint to shit, until we get to the evironment, the US is one of the most populting countries on the planet with China and India and their evironmental policies affects everyone in the world.

Beauregard
March 18th, 2017, 11:46 PM
It's sad to see how Trump destroys a those things other people tried to build over the years. Nobody rseems to realise the price we all will pay for that rampage in the future.

I mean even China knows that environmental pollution cannot go on like it does now since it poisons and kills it's own people. And what the US is trying to revive industries that have died for good and increase pollution.
It will effect the whole world but nobody sees here until late it is too late.

Dmaxd123
March 19th, 2017, 11:01 AM
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-trumps-budget-would-really-mean-for-the-epa-2017-3

yes it's a huge cut but doesn't get rid of the EPA.

I think a lot of the pollution stuff would be picked up by the state agencies, which could be a good thing then when a company is fine for pollution that money stays more local vs going to the feds to be split up

also a lot of this I think we will see Trump throwing out a low-ball offer, congress throwing a higher offer everyone meeting in the middle.

also will be good to see cuts across the board, the citizens have to live within our means and the government should too

Voice_Of_Unreason
March 19th, 2017, 11:38 AM
The EPA is not being abolished, but reduced. I personally would like to see that with all federal agencies, so I am not complaining.

The EPA actually does not do as much as you might think. Federal agencies like National Parks, Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife, plus local and state agencies handle most of the environmental issues. The EPA is really only focused on pollution. And given the current situation, I have a feeling that state agencies should be able to more effectively handle the EPA's duties.

Beauregard
March 19th, 2017, 11:46 AM
The EPA is not being abolished, but reduced. I personally would like to see that with all federal agencies, so I am not complaining.

The EPA actually does not do as much as you might think. Federal agencies like National Parks, Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife, plus local and state agencies handle most of the environmental issues. The EPA is really only focused on pollution. And given the current situation, I have a feeling that state agencies should be able to more effectively handle the EPA's duties.

But you forget that all the planned budget cuts will affect those Federal agencies, too. So I'm not sure how much will be left when you look at how much money there will be left. My uncle works for such a federal agency and he says if things develop like it looks now the future looks not very bright for nature and wildlife.

Professional Russian
March 19th, 2017, 02:04 PM
thank god now we can make the big block great again

Trivium
March 19th, 2017, 02:15 PM
From the outside its kinda fun to see everything in the US goint to shit, until we get to the evironment, the US is one of the most populting countries on the planet with China and India and their evironmental policies affects everyone in the world.

I wouldn't say it's fun to watch. It's disheartening but interesting.

bentheplayer
March 24th, 2017, 11:00 AM
Lol its absolutely hilarious to watch how the US political "elite" are treating their own people.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/trump-cuts-epa-noaa-environmental-science-climate-change-impacts/#close
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/politics/trump-environmental-protection-agency-budget-cuts.html?_r=0
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-budget-epa-idUSKBN16N0E1

All these talk about making things better when in reality they are denying people of clean water and ignoring/reducing public health response capabilities. Isn't it reminiscent of the hunger games? It is quite unlikely that states will be able to step in and even if they did, it will be more costly due to less economies of scale.

Porpoise101
March 25th, 2017, 10:51 AM
The EPA is really only focused on pollution. And given the current situation, I have a feeling that state agencies should be able to more effectively handle the EPA's duties. A federal agency is better because it can dedicate national resources to big problems. The Superfund program is a good example of this. They also help conduct research and publish standardized information about pollution in the pubic interest. That's a difficult thing to do between all of the states.

State agencies have the issue of being less credible than the Federal ones in many states. Places with shoddy state governments like Michigan and Illinois rely on the credibility and reliability of the Federal level. Take what happened in Flint, MI, where the state gov didn't even listen to evidence that there's lead in the water. In theory, state governments are more accountable, but the fact is that people don't really put much faith or hold state government to the same level of accountability as the federal one when time comes to vote. As special interests and incumbent politicians have entrenched themselves in the state legislatures across the nation, it makes sense that we would need a strong federal government to reign them in. As the EPA recedes, there's going to be an ugly transition phase.

The state governments have less resources to work with as well, because many aren't constitutionally allowed to go into debt to invest in projects, for example. Places with weak environmental protection institutions would therefore find it harder to build them up after the EPA leaves a 'gap' in regulations. This would pretty much ruin Western states' environmental quality.

Dmaxd123
March 26th, 2017, 06:20 AM
interesting as in the north east generally the state does a better job than the EPA

i also find absolutely ZERO problem with telling anyone "you can't spend over your budget" our nation has more than enough debt where if company X causes it, they need to be the ones responsible not the tax payers

ethan-s
March 26th, 2017, 11:39 AM
The president's proposed budget carries no wieght.

Oh and by the way, for all of the winer's who hate trump, now you know what we felt like for the last eight years :). Seriously, get over it.

Porpoise101
March 26th, 2017, 04:20 PM
interesting as in the north east generally the state does a better job than the EPAThe north east and the West coast typically have stricter environmental regulations than the federal government. This is fine, and the EPA does not really stop state governments from being better than the federal level. What it does do is set a minimum standard so the many states that have bad state agencies will at least have some competent regulation. Even in the northeastern states, the state level relies on the EPA for the research and national policy directives, because many of the states are too small to do things on their own.
i also find absolutely ZERO problem with telling anyone "you can't spend over your budget" our nation has more than enough debt where if company X causes it, they need to be the ones responsible not the tax payers Sure, that is fine in theory. Debt is actually a productive thing when used responsibly, and can be a great tool for the expansion of anything really. Just as a business will take out a loan to make production more efficient, governments take loans when they want to undertake big projects that will cut costs in the long run.

While it is true that at the federal level borrowing has been abused, debt still has a purpose. Because states cannot easily expand their environmental agencies (they have other more pressing responsibilities, like education and infrastructure), the federal government's ability to borrow makes it easier to build a high-quality agency with the newest advancements (think digitization for example). This saves costs in both the state taxes that would have had to been paid in rich states and in the environmental damages that would have occurred with weaker state agencies in poorer states.

ethan-s While you are correct for the most part, the proposed budget does give a pretty good idea of the priorities of our president and it also helps guide Congress considering the House of Representatives is of his party.

Uniquemind
March 29th, 2017, 11:19 PM
interesting as in the north east generally the state does a better job than the EPA

i also find absolutely ZERO problem with telling anyone "you can't spend over your budget" our nation has more than enough debt where if company X causes it, they need to be the ones responsible not the tax payers

Unless the company files for bankruptcy, writes off the environmental disaster against taxes (adding it to the federal debt), and then walking away from the incident, leaving many neighborhood environment destroyed.


You go back in time and witness all those farmers whose land got polluted by the coal or other kind of industrial company, and you'll see where mankind drops the ball here but smooth talks all the marketing about how "great" company x,Y, Z. Did for the nation.


I'm of a fair mind, that if you want to talk about the good, you better also acknowledged the human suffering and hypocrisy of what it took to get there, which means people got leveraged and taken advantage of here.

To some degree there's a workman's Stockholm syndrome going on in this nation regarding mental links to pride preventing people from being comfortable with re-educating themselves for a modern world in new industries.

ProudThread598
April 12th, 2017, 02:28 AM
The EPA mostly educates people (and barely anyone listens) instead of taking action. Have you seen the EPA do anything except tell schools what to do and spend money trying to pass bills? I feel the EPA should be weakened (like it has) and instead replace it with multiple state or even private agencies. SpaceX is an example of a private company who have succeeded, they're about to send people to space!!!! I'm pro-environment, but the government is way too inefficient with their spending. I feel that the power could be spread across multiple companies, making protecting the environment a higher priority.