Embattled EPA chief's calendar shows industry had his ear

By Timothy Gardner and Richard Valdmanis

 

FILE PHOTO: Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt speaks during an interview at his office in Washington, U.S., July 10, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt held 25-times more meetings with industry representatives than environmental advocates during his first seven months in office, according to a Reuters analysis of his schedule, reflecting the agency's pro-business approach under his tenure.

 

The newly released record of Pruitt's schedule, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Environmental Integrity Project watchdog group, come as the White House probes allegations against Pruitt. These include his rental of a room in a Washington, D.C. condo owned by the wife of an energy industry lobbyist.

 

The pressure mounted late on Friday as 64 Democratic members of the 435-member House of Representatives called for President Donald Trump to immediately dismiss him over a host of ethics issues and for acting to counter the mission of his agency.

 

Three fellow Republicans in the House have also called on Pruitt to resign, but the EPA chief has widespread support from conservatives.

 

Pruitt, a vocal doubter of mainstream climate change science, has also faced criticism for frequent first-class air travel, spending on costly items in his office - including a $43,000 soundproof telephone booth - and a trip to Morocco where he promoted U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas, something outside the remit of an environmental regulator.

 

PRESIDENTIAL PRAISE

 

President Donald Trump has praised Pruitt for aggressively pursuing his agenda to roll back regulations he sees as unnecessary to pave the way for more oil, gas, and coal production as well as removing environmental hurdles to a revival in domestic manufacturing.

 

Trump on Thursday said Pruitt was doing a "fantastic job," and was well-loved in "coal and energy country." While Trump appears to support Pruitt, the president can change his mind quickly.

 

Last autumn, Trump said he had confidence in Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, even after their relationship was strained over Iran and Russia policy. Trump fired Tillerson last month.

 

Trump's Chief of Staff John Kelly had advocated last week for Trump to fire Pruitt, a White House official said. Trump met with Pruitt early on Friday, said the same official, who declined to say what the meeting concerned.

 

According to the calendar, Pruitt met with representatives of the industries EPA regulates at least 105 times from Feb. 22 to Aug. 10 of last year, making up about 77 percent of his total meetings during that period.

 

About half of those industry meetings were with representatives of the oil, gas, coal and mining industries, according to the records, including executives from companies such as oil major BP Plc <BP.L>, refiner Valero Energy Corp <VLO.N>, coal producer Murray Energy and miner BHP Billiton <BLT.L>.

 

'I PROSECUTE POLLUTERS'

 

Most of the rest of Pruitt's industry meetings were with representatives of agriculture, including farm groups like the National Cattlemen's Association, and biofuels producers like Growth Energy and POET, according to the records.

 

But Pruitt met only four times with environmental groups eager to see the EPA limit pollution from those industries, the records show - Trout Unlimited, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, a nonprofit association of state environmental agency leaders called ECOS, and the Alliance to Restore Our Waterways.

 

Past EPA administrators have been criticized by conservatives for spending too much time with environmental lobbying groups and too little with industry.

 

Pruitt, a former attorney general of Oklahoma, said through a spokesman that he does not spend any time with polluters. "I prosecute polluters. What I'm spending time with are stakeholders who care about outcomes," he said.

 

"It's Washington, D.C.-think to look at folks across the country - from states to citizens to farmers and ranchers, industry in general - and say they are evil or wrong and we’re not going to partner with them," Pruitt said.

 

Liz Purchia Gannon, a spokeswoman for former EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, who served under Democratic President Barack Obama, said the ratio of Pruitt's industry to environmental group meetings was a contrast to the ratio of meetings McCarthy held.

McCarthy met frequently with utility groups while the agency worked to form the Clean Power Plan, Obama's top proposal to curb greenhouse gas emissions, Gannon said.

 

"As head of EPA she always met with environmental and public health groups and industry and business leaders. She believed strongly in meeting regularly with all sides,” said Gannon, who did not provide data on the meetings.

 

Pruitt also held a number of meetings with conservative policy think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, and the Family Research Council, a religious group that argues that homosexual conduct is harmful to society, according to the records.

 

A portion of Pruitt's schedule covering his first few months in office had already been released by the EPA, but the latest batch covers the broadest period so far.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-04-07

Regardless of Pruitt's ideological leanings, a man who holds the American taxpayer in such contempt should not be holding  public office....

A post containing an image with profanity has been removed. 

That's what Trump means with "cleaning the swamp".

Like his boss,  Pruitt is another blowhard 

 

 

source: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/04/07/scott-pruitt-epa-accomplishments-rollback-217834

If anyone doesnt understand the political and social divide that now exists in America - this is one of the best examples to learn what it is and why it has happened. 

 

On one side was the previous EPA management that were nothing less than 'environmental activists' that used their powers to force their beliefs on the USA people and economy.  By any measure they were not regulators of the environmental laws passed by Congress/Senate. The EPA used their powers to impose their demands on the economy of USA - and any disagreement was met with "you are an environmental terrorists".  Here is one example - they mandated that the average of all new vehicles produced in USA by 2025 must be 50 mpg.  They dont have the power to offer tax incentives or duties offsets/rewards, so they set a mandatory rule. They did this 100s of times through the Executive Powers of the POTUS.  

 

On the other side is the new EPA setup by Trump, whereby they have had their 'activist powers' severely limited, and many of the Obama-era rules and regs they enacted without approval by Congress or Senate, have been overturned or are being overturned. Under Trump the EPA is being sent back to what it was when it was set up (1970) and before the Obama turned it into an activist organisation - Trump is making them (again) the regulator of existing environmental laws as passed by Senate and Congress.

 

That is the core of the political and social divide.  Part of America wants the unelected Govt Departments and Agencies to control and direct all parts of their lives, and the other part who wants to make their own decisions that are within their own rights and within the laws of the country as passed by Congress/Senate. 

 

As another symptom of this political and social divide - there is the reaction of those on each side.  Under Obama the EPA was hated and despised by one side - middle America and Industry - and those people took their disputes to the Press, the Courts and to Congress.  Under Trump the new/old EPA is hated and despised by one side, and they have made deaths threats and taken their disputes to the streets with violence and have engaged with the media who support them.

 

As another symptom of this political and social divide - there is the reaction of the media when the Obama-era EPA imposed 100s of new rules and regs that directly/negatively affected people's lives. 90+% of the media (99% of MSM) agreed with the EPA and anyone disagreeing was an 'environmental terrorist'.  Opposition was shouted down and ridiculed. Under the Trump-era the rules and regs are being wound back so that the EPA again becomes the regulator of laws  (not the creator)  and the media is 90% negative and claiming the world is going to end and the environment is being destroyed by Trump, and that violence is an accepted form of 'resistance'. Go to google and type in 'Trump EPA' - all you will get is links to left-wing media outlets with stories about how Trump is going to destroy the world.  It is that biased - fact. 

 

Essentially the divide is characterized by one simple truth.  When those on the 'right' lose they suck it up and get on with their lives (a few alt-right nutters aside).  But when the 'left' lose they refuse to accept it, and the majority of them become like the alt-right nutters (irrational and violent).

 

 

Edited April 8, 20188 yr by ELVIS123456

9 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

If anyone doesnt understand the political and social divide that now exists in America - this is one of the best examples to learn what it is and why it has happened. 

 

On one side was the previous EPA management that were nothing less than 'environmental activists' that used their powers to force their beliefs on the USA people and economy.  By any measure they were not regulators of the environmental laws passed by Congress/Senate. The EPA used their powers to impose their demands on the economy of USA - and any disagreement was met with "you are an environmental terrorists".  Here is one example - they mandated that the average of all new vehicles produced in USA by 2025 must be 50 mpg.  They dont have the power to offer tax incentives or duties offsets/rewards, so they set a mandatory rule. They did this 100s of times through the Executive Powers of the POTUS.  

 

On the other side is the new EPA setup by Trump, whereby they have had their 'activist powers' severely limited, and many of the Obama-era rules and regs they enacted without approval by Congress or Senate, have been overturned or are being overturned. Under Trump the EPA is being sent back to what it was when it was set up (1970) and before the Obama turned it into an activist organisation - Trump is making them (again) the regulator of existing environmental laws as passed by Senate and Congress.

 

That is the core of the political and social divide.  Part of America wants the unelected Govt Departments and Agencies to control and direct all parts of their lives, and the other part who wants to make their own decisions that are within their own rights and within the laws of the country as passed by Congress/Senate. 

 

As another symptom of this political and social divide - there is the reaction of those on each side.  Under Obama the EPA was hated and despised by one side - middle America and Industry - and those people took their disputes to the Press, the Courts and to Congress.  Under Trump the new/old EPA is hated and despised by one side, and they have made deaths threats and taken their disputes to the streets with violence and have engaged with the media who support them.

 

As another symptom of this political and social divide - there is the reaction of the media when the Obama-era EPA imposed 100s of new rules and regs that directly/negatively affected people's lives. 90+% of the media (99% of MSM) agreed with the EPA and anyone disagreeing was an 'environmental terrorist'.  Opposition was shouted down and ridiculed. Under the Trump-era the rules and regs are being wound back so that the EPA again becomes the regulator of laws  (not the creator)  and the media is 90% negative and claiming the world is going to end and the environment is being destroyed by Trump, and that violence is an accepted form of 'resistance'. Go to google and type in 'Trump EPA' - all you will get is links to left-wing media outlets with stories about how Trump is going to destroy the world.  It is that biased - fact. 

 

Essentially the divide is characterized by one simple truth.  When those on the 'right' lose they suck it up and get on with their lives (a few alt-right nutters aside).  But when the 'left' lose they refuse to accept it, and the majority of them become like the alt-right nutters (irrational and violent).

 

Example of the divide:

 

James Woods‏Verified account @RealJamesWoods

James Woods Retweeted Jeffrey Guterman

Maybe you should take up arson, since the destruction of property and the inevitable concomitant destruction of lives excites you so. #InsanityOfDemocrats @SecretService @jack

James Woods added,

 

Jeffrey GutermanVerified account @JeffreyGuterman

I got excited when I heard there was a fire at Trump Tower while also hoping there were no injuries. So what. I am human. These #tRump supporters need to get a grip. I am less excited now, but still glad. Hoping there is major damage.

 

 

1 hour ago, ELVIS123456 said:

If anyone doesnt understand the political and social divide that now exists in America - this is one of the best examples to learn what it is and why it has happened. 

 

On one side was the previous EPA management that were nothing less than 'environmental activists' that used their powers to force their beliefs on the USA people and economy.  By any measure they were not regulators of the environmental laws passed by Congress/Senate. The EPA used their powers to impose their demands on the economy of USA - and any disagreement was met with "you are an environmental terrorists".  Here is one example - they mandated that the average of all new vehicles produced in USA by 2025 must be 50 mpg.  They dont have the power to offer tax incentives or duties offsets/rewards, so they set a mandatory rule. They did this 100s of times through the Executive Powers of the POTUS.  

 

On the other side is the new EPA setup by Trump, whereby they have had their 'activist powers' severely limited, and many of the Obama-era rules and regs they enacted without approval by Congress or Senate, have been overturned or are being overturned. Under Trump the EPA is being sent back to what it was when it was set up (1970) and before the Obama turned it into an activist organisation - Trump is making them (again) the regulator of existing environmental laws as passed by Senate and Congress.

 

That is the core of the political and social divide.  Part of America wants the unelected Govt Departments and Agencies to control and direct all parts of their lives, and the other part who wants to make their own decisions that are within their own rights and within the laws of the country as passed by Congress/Senate. 

 

As another symptom of this political and social divide - there is the reaction of those on each side.  Under Obama the EPA was hated and despised by one side - middle America and Industry - and those people took their disputes to the Press, the Courts and to Congress.  Under Trump the new/old EPA is hated and despised by one side, and they have made deaths threats and taken their disputes to the streets with violence and have engaged with the media who support them.

 

As another symptom of this political and social divide - there is the reaction of the media when the Obama-era EPA imposed 100s of new rules and regs that directly/negatively affected people's lives. 90+% of the media (99% of MSM) agreed with the EPA and anyone disagreeing was an 'environmental terrorist'.  Opposition was shouted down and ridiculed. Under the Trump-era the rules and regs are being wound back so that the EPA again becomes the regulator of laws  (not the creator)  and the media is 90% negative and claiming the world is going to end and the environment is being destroyed by Trump, and that violence is an accepted form of 'resistance'. Go to google and type in 'Trump EPA' - all you will get is links to left-wing media outlets with stories about how Trump is going to destroy the world.  It is that biased - fact. 

 

Essentially the divide is characterized by one simple truth.  When those on the 'right' lose they suck it up and get on with their lives (a few alt-right nutters aside).  But when the 'left' lose they refuse to accept it, and the majority of them become like the alt-right nutters (irrational and violent).

 

 

When you confuse facts with beliefs you have no credibility.

7 hours ago, ChidlomDweller said:

That's what Trump means with "cleaning the swamp".

Cleaning the swamp is awfully different from appointing creatues found in swamps to high office.

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

When you confuse facts with beliefs you have no credibility.

Exactly my point. You should tell CNN and the other liberal MSM that 

 

5 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

If anyone doesnt understand the political and social divide that now exists in America - this is one of the best examples to learn what it is and why it has happened. 

 

On one side was the previous EPA management that were nothing less than 'environmental activists' that used their powers to force their beliefs on the USA people and economy.  By any measure they were not regulators of the environmental laws passed by Congress/Senate. The EPA used their powers to impose their demands on the economy of USA - and any disagreement was met with "you are an environmental terrorists".  Here is one example - they mandated that the average of all new vehicles produced in USA by 2025 must be 50 mpg.  They dont have the power to offer tax incentives or duties offsets/rewards, so they set a mandatory rule. They did this 100s of times through the Executive Powers of the POTUS.  

 

On the other side is the new EPA setup by Trump, whereby they have had their 'activist powers' severely limited, and many of the Obama-era rules and regs they enacted without approval by Congress or Senate, have been overturned or are being overturned. Under Trump the EPA is being sent back to what it was when it was set up (1970) and before the Obama turned it into an activist organisation - Trump is making them (again) the regulator of existing environmental laws as passed by Senate and Congress.

 

That is the core of the political and social divide.  Part of America wants the unelected Govt Departments and Agencies to control and direct all parts of their lives, and the other part who wants to make their own decisions that are within their own rights and within the laws of the country as passed by Congress/Senate. 

 

As another symptom of this political and social divide - there is the reaction of those on each side.  Under Obama the EPA was hated and despised by one side - middle America and Industry - and those people took their disputes to the Press, the Courts and to Congress.  Under Trump the new/old EPA is hated and despised by one side, and they have made deaths threats and taken their disputes to the streets with violence and have engaged with the media who support them.

 

As another symptom of this political and social divide - there is the reaction of the media when the Obama-era EPA imposed 100s of new rules and regs that directly/negatively affected people's lives. 90+% of the media (99% of MSM) agreed with the EPA and anyone disagreeing was an 'environmental terrorist'.  Opposition was shouted down and ridiculed. Under the Trump-era the rules and regs are being wound back so that the EPA again becomes the regulator of laws  (not the creator)  and the media is 90% negative and claiming the world is going to end and the environment is being destroyed by Trump, and that violence is an accepted form of 'resistance'. Go to google and type in 'Trump EPA' - all you will get is links to left-wing media outlets with stories about how Trump is going to destroy the world.  It is that biased - fact. 

 

Essentially the divide is characterized by one simple truth.  When those on the 'right' lose they suck it up and get on with their lives (a few alt-right nutters aside).  But when the 'left' lose they refuse to accept it, and the majority of them become like the alt-right nutters (irrational and violent).

 

 

Congress has specifically authorized the EPA to create regulations. It's simply untrue that they're usurping congress' functions.,

And Pruitt is trashing science. He has prohibited scientists who take EPA funding to be on committies evalulating regulations but he allows industry representatives on them. In addition, he has prohibited the use of any scientific studies that use confidential data. Since vierually all medical studies ensure the anonymity of patients whose data is used, all those studies would be off limits according to him.

On 4/7/2018 at 10:09 AM, rooster59 said:

About half of those industry meetings were with representatives of the oil, gas, coal and mining industries, according to the records, including executives from companies such as oil major BP Plc <BP.L>...

.................

Pruitt, a former attorney general of Oklahoma, said through a spokesman that he does not spend any time with polluters. "I prosecute polluters. What I'm spending time with are stakeholders who care about outcomes," he said.

 

Wow, is Pruitt trying to outdo Trump as the most bald-faced liar in Washington?

 

Quote

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill (also referred to as the BP oil spill, the BP oil disaster, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and the Macondo blowout) is an industrial disaster that began on 20 April 2010, in the Gulf of Mexico on the BP-operated Macondo Prospect,^[6][7][8][9] considered to be the largest marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry and estimated to be 8% to 31% larger in volume than the previous largest, the Ixtoc I oil spill. The U.S. government estimated the total discharge at 4.9 million barrels (210 million US gal; 780,000 m³).^[3] After several failed efforts to contain the flow, the well was declared sealed on 19 September 2010.^[10] Reports in early 2012 indicated that the well site was still leaking.^[11][12]

 

and

 

Quote

 

Numerous investigations explored the causes of the explosion and record-setting spill. The U.S. government September 2011 report pointed to defective cement on the well, faulting mostly BP, but also rig operator Transocean and contractor Halliburton.^[21][22]Earlier in 2011, a White House commission likewise blamed BP and its partners for a series of cost-cutting decisions and an inadequate safety system, but also concluded that the spill resulted from "systemic" root causes and "absent significant reform in both industry practices and government policies, might well recur".^[23]
 

In November 2012, BP and the United States Department of Justice settled federal criminal charges with BP pleading guilty to 11 counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress. BP also agreed to four years of government monitoring of its safety practices and ethics, and the Environmental Protection Agency announced that BP would be temporarily banned from new contracts with the US government. BP and the Department of Justice agreed to a record-setting $4.525 billion in fines and other payments.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill

 

The news media does a dis-service to the public and to their profession when they let public officials make such outrageous lies as the one Pruitt has put forward here, and not last least recount the facts in the public record that show what the real truth is.

 

 

Edited April 8, 20188 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK

On 4/7/2018 at 10:09 AM, rooster59 said:

Pruit as head of the agency has a difficult task to save money by eliminating or restructuring many costly regulations,costing billions of dollars.Surly to achieve goals to save billions will take extreme measures.

 

 

The main objective of The EPA  - "The agenda set out in this plan has three over-arching goals which reflect the Administrator's core philosophies: (1) refocus the agency back to its core mission; (2) restore power to the states through cooperative federalism; and (3) lead the agency through improved processes and adhere to the rule of law".    .

 https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan

 

"Core Mission: Deliver real results to provide Americans with clean air, land, and water, and ensure chemical safety".

"Cooperative Federalism: Rebalance the power between Washington and the states to create tangible environmental results for the American people".

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-02/documents/fy-2018-2022-epa-strategic-plan.pdf

 

1."The Clean Power Plan requires reductions of carbon dioxide levels by 32 percent and is estimated to cost $366 billion, resulting in double-digit increases in Americans' energy bills and pricing out the creation of new coal power plants. 

2.The EPA revised the ozone standard at 70 ppb, which will result in pushing "hundreds of communities out of compliance, and force states to devise plans to limit industrial activity and transportation projects, as well as replace existing emissions control equipment with more advanced (and costly) systems," $ 1.4 billion n compliance costs according to The Heritage Foundation". 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/12043/here-are-obamas-11-worst-regulations-aaron-bandler

 

 

On 4/7/2018 at 10:09 AM, rooster59 said:

"Past EPA administrators have been criticized by conservatives for spending too much time with environmental lobbying groups and too little with industry".

"The pressure mounted late on Friday as 64 Democratic members of the 435-member House of Representatives called for President Donald Trump to immediately dismiss him over a host of ethics issues and for acting to counter the mission of his agency".

 

Edited April 8, 20188 yr by riclag

12 minutes ago, riclag said:

 

Nice quoting.

 

What is your post?

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Nice quoting.

 

What is your post?

Anything that's not in quotes. Quotes are from sources. 

8 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

If anyone doesnt understand the political and social divide that now exists in America - this is one of the best examples to learn what it is and why it has happened. 

 

On one side was the previous EPA management that were nothing less than 'environmental activists' that used their powers to force their beliefs on the USA people and economy.  By any measure they were not regulators of the environmental laws passed by Congress/Senate. The EPA used their powers to impose their demands on the economy of USA - and any disagreement was met with "you are an environmental terrorists".  Here is one example - they mandated that the average of all new vehicles produced in USA by 2025 must be 50 mpg.  They dont have the power to offer tax incentives or duties offsets/rewards, so they set a mandatory rule. They did this 100s of times through the Executive Powers of the POTUS.  

 

On the other side is the new EPA setup by Trump, whereby they have had their 'activist powers' severely limited, and many of the Obama-era rules and regs they enacted without approval by Congress or Senate, have been overturned or are being overturned. Under Trump the EPA is being sent back to what it was when it was set up (1970) and before the Obama turned it into an activist organisation - Trump is making them (again) the regulator of existing environmental laws as passed by Senate and Congress.

 

That is the core of the political and social divide.  Part of America wants the unelected Govt Departments and Agencies to control and direct all parts of their lives, and the other part who wants to make their own decisions that are within their own rights and within the laws of the country as passed by Congress/Senate. 

 

As another symptom of this political and social divide - there is the reaction of those on each side.  Under Obama the EPA was hated and despised by one side - middle America and Industry - and those people took their disputes to the Press, the Courts and to Congress.  Under Trump the new/old EPA is hated and despised by one side, and they have made deaths threats and taken their disputes to the streets with violence and have engaged with the media who support them.

 

As another symptom of this political and social divide - there is the reaction of the media when the Obama-era EPA imposed 100s of new rules and regs that directly/negatively affected people's lives. 90+% of the media (99% of MSM) agreed with the EPA and anyone disagreeing was an 'environmental terrorist'.  Opposition was shouted down and ridiculed. Under the Trump-era the rules and regs are being wound back so that the EPA again becomes the regulator of laws  (not the creator)  and the media is 90% negative and claiming the world is going to end and the environment is being destroyed by Trump, and that violence is an accepted form of 'resistance'. Go to google and type in 'Trump EPA' - all you will get is links to left-wing media outlets with stories about how Trump is going to destroy the world.  It is that biased - fact. 

 

Essentially the divide is characterized by one simple truth.  When those on the 'right' lose they suck it up and get on with their lives (a few alt-right nutters aside).  But when the 'left' lose they refuse to accept it, and the majority of them become like the alt-right nutters (irrational and violent).

 

 

Reading your first sentence I actually thought "ok give him a chance and read it". I was mistaken, just more blah blah blah diatribe. You start off saying 'hey this is why the divide exists' and then go on to prove WHY there is a divide when you are absolutely unable to make any comment without displaying the "them and us" bolleux that is continually present here. 'Republicans are right, Dems are wrong and we (Republicans) do everything for Americans and the people and always co-operate and all Dems are liberals who are violent and want the US to fail". The smell of male bovine faeces is totally overwhelming.

 

Pruitt is just PART of the problem  - he is the match as it were, the fuel is the supporter base that do not seem to be able to think with the slightest bit of rationale at all. Your post just consolidates that idea. There can be no solution to the divide in the USA until the current generations of mentally poisoned people die off.

 

We also have this:

 

1 hour ago, riclag said:

1."The Clean Power Plan requires reductions of carbon dioxide levels by 32 percent and is estimated to cost $366 billion, resulting in double-digit increases in Americans' energy bills and pricing out the creation of new coal power plants. 

Well you know what, when our great great grandkids are looking back at us whilst living on a planet no longer able to sustain them due to hostile natural changes and events they will wonder whole heartedly why we didn't love them enough to pay a double digit increase in our energy bills so that we could at least try and save the very fragile set of inhabitable conditions we have enjoyed on this planet for 100 thousand years. But most extreme right wingers (Trump supporters) are the same - Save the planet - but don't affect my life or expect me to make adjustments, have gun control but don't involve me or my guns, have strict immigration but don't stop my Eastern European bride coming in illegally, start wars but don't expect us to take any care of the millions of innocent people that will be displaced.

 

Maybe at the end of the day it would be better for nature to reboot and reset anyway as this particular attempt at civilisation is a resounding failure. Do your worst Pruitt, why prolong the agony.

Edited April 8, 20188 yr by Andaman Al

47 minutes ago, riclag said:

Anything that's not in quotes. Quotes are from sources. 

Try to post under your name, not under the quotes,

 

This is not readable.

 

26 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

(Trump supporters)

  Costly EPA regulation on compliance has nothing to do with supporting PT.   Supporting  less Government control and spending,while keeping common sense rules and laws, that each state can enforce and regulate is a necessity for the future of America

17 minutes ago, riclag said:

 

  Costly EPA regulation on compliance has nothing to do with supporting PT.   Supporting  less Government control and spending,while keeping common sense rules and laws, that each state can enforce and regulate is a necessity for the future of America

WH quietly issues report to Congress showing benefits of regulations

 

The White House on Friday quietly released its annual draft report to Congress on the costs and benefits of regulations and the results show that major rulemakings over the past decade have yielded great benefits.

The findings are at odds with an administration that's pushing federal agencies to cut rules and ease excessive regulatory burdens it says were imposed by the previous administration.   

The Trump administration report says that from fiscal 2007 through 2016 the annual economic benefits of major rulemakings reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) were estimated to be between $287 billion and $911 billion.

http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/375684-wh-quietly-issues-report-to-congress-showing-benefits-of

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Congress on the costs and benefits of regulations and the results show that major rulemakings over the past decade have yielded great benefits.

“We are issuing this report after a change in administration, and therefore would like to clarify that OMB’s reporting of the results of these [regulatory impact analyses] does not imply an endorsement by the current Administration of all of the assumptions made and analyses conducted at the time these regulations were finalized,” OMB said in the report".Draft

 

http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/375684-wh-quietly-issues-report-to-congress-showing-benefits-of

Edited April 8, 20188 yr by riclag

1 hour ago, riclag said:

 

  Costly EPA regulation on compliance has nothing to do with supporting PT.   Supporting  less Government control and spending,while keeping common sense rules and laws, that each state can enforce and regulate is a necessity for the future of America

The Government is not spending less and it makes NO common sense to deregulate everything that is designed to give our resources AND environment sustainability. There is a LOT more people to come after you riclag and the environmental issues are nothing to do with the future of America, they are to do with the future of the planet.

 

The US had the ideal platform to guide the world and apply never ending pressure to other countries to confirm to sensible, common sense actions. But now it has no credibility to do so as nobody will listen any longer to  the US. Make no mistake China WILL step in and cut America off at the knees economically as the US has all but abdicated it's responsibility and position as World Leader. We all know that teams and organisations flounder when they are leaderless. With Trump at the helm you have given up your position of leadership and someone else MUST step in. Left in isolation the US rustbelt will spread across the country like the sahara across Africa. The writing is on the wall and it is breathtaking you cannot read it. When it is mandatory for US citizens to go work in the fields as they did in Russia 50 years ago, because you have to feed the population (which will be very large without planned parenthood) then you will realise the error of Trumps ways (and his family won't be working in the fields - hopefully because they will all still be behind bars), and yours for supporting him.

 

Attitudes are contagious - is your's worth catching - America's are not any more and there will be a price for us all to pay. America's allies supported 100% the necessary rise of the US as world leader and you crap all over them now. Time for the team to pick a more competent and deserving leader.

5 minutes ago, riclag said:

“We are issuing this report after a change in administration, and therefore would like to clarify that OMB’s reporting of the results of these [regulatory impact analyses] does not imply an endorsement by the current Administration of all of the assumptions made and analyses conducted at the time these regulations were finalized,” OMB said in the report".Draft

 

http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/375684-wh-quietly-issues-report-to-congress-showing-benefits-of

Well why would anyone expect this administration to admit it was wrong?

 Elvis123456 post #16

"On one side was the previous EPA management that were nothing less than 'environmental activists' that used their powers to force their beliefs on the USA people and economy.  By any measure they were not regulators of the environmental laws passed by Congress/Senate. The EPA used their powers to impose their demands on the economy of USA - and any disagreement was met with "you are an environmental terrorists".  Here is one example - they mandated that the average of all new vehicles produced in USA by 2025 must be 50 mpg.  They dont have the power to offer tax incentives or duties offsets/rewards, so they set a mandatory rule. They did this 100s of times through the Executive Powers of the POTUS".  

 

 in response to Andalmann :I can't say it any better then Elvis123456

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) said Democrats view the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as their “pet project” to “dictate and direct egregious actions against the American people”. He also said, “This one’s the last pet project that they had total control over, in which they directed and did everything that had no scientific basis.”

 

Gosar listed what he described as Pruitt’s achievements, thus far. He said, “For example, he’s finalized 22 deregulatory items saving the constituents and the taxpayers a billion dollars in the year. He put an end to sue-and-settle, an egregious action in which environmental groups and special interest groups would sue the government and then settle without going to court. He’s done tons of great things in regards to reeling back the EPA to a jurisdiction where it should be.”

 

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/04/07/exclusive-paul-gosar-defends-pruitt-democrats-think-epa-is-pet-project-they-have-total-control-over/

 

Funny thing is - I cannot find this viewpoint on CNN, NBC, ABC or any liberal media outlet. All I could find was headlines like this:  "EPA chief Scott Pruitt's long list of controversies". 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, riclag said:

 Elvis123456 post #16

"On one side was the previous EPA management that were nothing less than 'environmental activists' that used their powers to force their beliefs on the USA people and economy.  By any measure they were not regulators of the environmental laws passed by Congress/Senate. The EPA used their powers to impose their demands on the economy of USA - and any disagreement was met with "you are an environmental terrorists".  Here is one example - they mandated that the average of all new vehicles produced in USA by 2025 must be 50 mpg.  They dont have the power to offer tax incentives or duties offsets/rewards, so they set a mandatory rule. They did this 100s of times through the Executive Powers of the POTUS".  

 

 in response to Andalmann :I can't say it any better then Elvis123456

 

 

Quote

in response to Andalmann :I can't say it any better then Elvis123456

I wouldn't have expected that you could.

 

The statement from Elvis is not only factually incorrect it is embellished hugely to try and make his non-point.

 

By the way tell me what is wrong with aiming for 50 mpg from vehicles when we know that the worlds supply of oil is decreasing? Almost all car manufacturers have that technology anyway and it is likely only the US manufacturers that need to get a grip and deliver that performance level. But I forgot you will agree with it as long as it does not affect you having 5 liter engines that do 12 MPG. The technology is there easily to provide 50 MPG and still have huge power but I guess America was great when the 5-8 liter engine was popular with 12 mpg when gas was as cheap as water. Well that won't happen again.

13 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/04/07/exclusive-paul-gosar-defends-pruitt-democrats-think-epa-is-pet-project-they-have-total-control-over/

 

Funny thing is - I cannot find this viewpoint on CNN, NBC, ABC or any liberal media outlet. All I could find was headlines like this:  "EPA chief Scott Pruitt's long list of controversies". 

Funny thing is -  you find it on breitbart.   

15 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) said Democrats view the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as their “pet project” to “dictate and direct egregious actions against the American people”. He also said, “This one’s the last pet project that they had total control over, in which they directed and did everything that had no scientific basis.”

 

Gosar listed what he described as Pruitt’s achievements, thus far. He said, “For example, he’s finalized 22 deregulatory items saving the constituents and the taxpayers a billion dollars in the year. He put an end to sue-and-settle, an egregious action in which environmental groups and special interest groups would sue the government and then settle without going to court. He’s done tons of great things in regards to reeling back the EPA to a jurisdiction where it should be.”

 

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/04/07/exclusive-paul-gosar-defends-pruitt-democrats-think-epa-is-pet-project-they-have-total-control-over/

 

Funny thing is - I cannot find this viewpoint on CNN, NBC, ABC or any liberal media outlet. All I could find was headlines like this:  "EPA chief Scott Pruitt's long list of controversies".

 

I presume he believes in god?

10 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

If anyone doesnt understand the political and social divide that now exists in America - this is one of the best examples to learn what it is and why it has happened. 

 

On one side was the previous EPA management that were nothing less than 'environmental activists' that used their powers to force their beliefs on the USA people and economy.  By any measure they were not regulators of the environmental laws passed by Congress/Senate. The EPA used their powers to impose their demands on the economy of USA - and any disagreement was met with "you are an environmental terrorists".  Here is one example - they mandated that the average of all new vehicles produced in USA by 2025 must be 50 mpg.  They dont have the power to offer tax incentives or duties offsets/rewards, so they set a mandatory rule. They did this 100s of times through the Executive Powers of the POTUS.  

 

On the other side is the new EPA setup by Trump, whereby they have had their 'activist powers' severely limited, and many of the Obama-era rules and regs they enacted without approval by Congress or Senate, have been overturned or are being overturned. Under Trump the EPA is being sent back to what it was when it was set up (1970) and before the Obama turned it into an activist organisation - Trump is making them (again) the regulator of existing environmental laws as passed by Senate and Congress.

 

That is the core of the political and social divide.  Part of America wants the unelected Govt Departments and Agencies to control and direct all parts of their lives, and the other part who wants to make their own decisions that are within their own rights and within the laws of the country as passed by Congress/Senate. 

 

As another symptom of this political and social divide - there is the reaction of those on each side.  Under Obama the EPA was hated and despised by one side - middle America and Industry - and those people took their disputes to the Press, the Courts and to Congress.  Under Trump the new/old EPA is hated and despised by one side, and they have made deaths threats and taken their disputes to the streets with violence and have engaged with the media who support them.

 

As another symptom of this political and social divide - there is the reaction of the media when the Obama-era EPA imposed 100s of new rules and regs that directly/negatively affected people's lives. 90+% of the media (99% of MSM) agreed with the EPA and anyone disagreeing was an 'environmental terrorist'.  Opposition was shouted down and ridiculed. Under the Trump-era the rules and regs are being wound back so that the EPA again becomes the regulator of laws  (not the creator)  and the media is 90% negative and claiming the world is going to end and the environment is being destroyed by Trump, and that violence is an accepted form of 'resistance'. Go to google and type in 'Trump EPA' - all you will get is links to left-wing media outlets with stories about how Trump is going to destroy the world.  It is that biased - fact. 

 

Essentially the divide is characterized by one simple truth.  When those on the 'right' lose they suck it up and get on with their lives (a few alt-right nutters aside).  But when the 'left' lose they refuse to accept it, and the majority of them become like the alt-right nutters (irrational and violent).

 

 

Astonishing naivety 

1 hour ago, riclag said:

“We are issuing this report after a change in administration, and therefore would like to clarify that OMB’s reporting of the results of these [regulatory impact analyses] does not imply an endorsement by the current Administration of all of the assumptions made and analyses conducted at the time these regulations were finalized,” OMB said in the report".Draft

 

http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/375684-wh-quietly-issues-report-to-congress-showing-benefits-of

Here's another one showing how industry consistently exaggerates, sometimes by an order of 10 or more, the cost of regulations. And this paper just shows the costs, not the benefits of these regulations:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2015/05/industry/government_regulation_costs_lower_benefits_greater_than_industry_estimates.pdf

18 hours ago, Grouse said:

Astonishing naivety 

Yes it is isn't it - to think like a liberal is totally naive - and it is selfish. 

I think this sums it all up best;

 

“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

― P.J. O'Rourke, Give War a Chance: Eyewitness Accounts of Mankind's Struggle Against Tyranny, Injustice, and Alcohol-Free Beer