Defunding the EPA

[Quintessence]

While trivialities such as wiretap allegations are making front page gossip on news sites, more salient issues are being underreported and overlooked. It's time to dig past some of the nonsense and address a serious issue, and that's the notion of slashing the EPA's budget from $8.1 billion to $5.7 billion for the upcoming fiscal cycle in the United States - the lowest level in... well... ever.

The rationale is that the agency's new administrator wants to return the work of environmental regulation to the state level. This is a terrible idea for several reasons, but perhaps none more relevant than the simple fact that the states do not have the resources to respond quickly to environmental emergencies in many cases. It's also unlikely that they'll be able to afford these resources should this budget cut go through, considering about a third of all state funding for environmental regulations comes from the EPA.

Here's a few different articles you can check out for various takes on this issue:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/...otection-agency-budget-cuts.html?ref=politics
• EPA hit hardest as Trump budget targets regulations
• Trump’s budget envisions a US government that basically does nothing about climate change
• UPDATE: Trump budget would cut EPA funding 31%, eliminate 3,200 jobs

As someone who votes primarily with the environment in mind, things like this are very concerning to me. The environment is not a partisan issue. Nobody wants to have a toxic greenish substance come out of their drinking water and have nobody around to help identify and fix the problem. Nobody wants to see entire towns abandoned because a coal mine got ignited and is smoldering underground (yes, this is a thing - when I learned about it I was horrified). Meanwhile, it is proposed to increase militaristic spending. I don't get it. There are other aspects of the proposed budget that concern me as well, but let's try to keep this thread on the environmental portion of that.

 

[MD]

While trivialities such as wiretap allegations are making front page gossip on news sites, more salient issues are being underreported and overlooked. It's time to dig past some of the nonsense and address a serious issue, and that's the notion of slashing the EPA's budget from $8.1 billion to $5.7 billion for the upcoming fiscal cycle in the United States - the lowest level in... well... ever.

The rationale is that the agency's new administrator wants to return the work of environmental regulation to the state level. This is a terrible idea for several reasons, but perhaps none more relevant than the simple fact that the states do not have the resources to respond quickly to environmental emergencies in many cases. It's also unlikely that they'll be able to afford these resources should this budget cut go through, considering about a third of all state funding for environmental regulations comes from the EPA.

Here's a few different articles you can check out for various takes on this issue:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/...otection-agency-budget-cuts.html?ref=politics
• EPA hit hardest as Trump budget targets regulations
• Trump’s budget envisions a US government that basically does nothing about climate change
• UPDATE: Trump budget would cut EPA funding 31%, eliminate 3,200 jobs

As someone who votes primarily with the environment in mind, things like this are very concerning to me. The environment is not a partisan issue. Nobody wants to have a toxic greenish substance come out of their drinking water and have nobody around to help identify and fix the problem. Nobody wants to see entire towns abandoned because a coal mine got ignited and is smoldering underground (yes, this is a thing - when I learned about it I was horrified). Meanwhile, it is proposed to increase militaristic spending. I don't get it. There are other aspects of the proposed budget that concern me as well, but let's try to keep this thread on the environmental portion of that.

I vote primarily with the environment in mind as well, but it's too late. The environment can only be saved by a totalitarian government that brutally enforces environmental measures, or we enter a horribly dystopian world. The latter is most likely as temperatures continue to rise.

 

[Kemosloby]

The states are so easily bullied that it's almost rediculous to give any power to the states. The federal government just cuts of funding if the states try to step out of line.

 

[Augustus]

Nobody wants to see entire towns abandoned because a coal mine got ignited and is smoldering underground

That's why Trump wants to invest in getting the coal out of the ground so it can be turned into harmless gasses and particles that pose no threat to anybody.

#alternativefacts

 

[Revoltingest]

I vote primarily with the environment in mind as well, but it's too late. The environment can only be saved by a totalitarian government that brutally enforces environmental measures, or we enter a horribly dystopian world. The latter is most likely as temperatures continue to rise.

I favor a more constitutional approach to environmental protectioni.

 

[MD]

I favor a more constitutional approach to environmental protectioni.

The constitution is run by oligarchs, democracy is an illusion.

 

[Revoltingest]

The constitution is run by oligarchs, democracy is an illusion.

I'm less pessimistic.

 

[Quintessence]

I favor a more constitutional approach to environmental protectioni.

Could you expand upon what you mean by that?

 

[Revoltingest]

Could you expand upon what you mean by that?

I opposed the specific offering of post #2.....

The environment can only be saved by a totalitarian government that brutally enforces environmental measures....

 

[YmirGF]

I opposed the specific offering of post #2.....

Indeed, as you well should.

 

[dust1n]

Ignoring the obvious...

I find the states' rights arguments to be fully crap. Due to the federal government allowing California to basically have it's own regulatory laws (Which of course is much stricter), California is more or less the leader of how all emissions are handled in the country, because no one wants to make a car you can sell in America but not California, where 30% of car sales are happening.

Federal government now wants to get rid of this and issue a stand model for all states in the country. Presumably they don't really like it when states compete all that much, because they tend to lose to other states over and over again-- instead of taking any responsibility for it, their states simply soak and and absorb more federal dollars than they pay back into the system because they can't actually compete.

 

[Revoltingest]

I find the states' rights arguments to be fully crap.

Which ones?

 

[Akivah]

Here's a few different articles you can check out for various takes on this issue:

• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/...otection-agency-budget-cuts.html?ref=politics
• EPA hit hardest as Trump budget targets regulations
• Trump’s budget envisions a US government that basically does nothing about climate change
• UPDATE: Trump budget would cut EPA funding 31%, eliminate 3,200 jobs

There are other aspects of the proposed budget that concern me as well, but let's try to keep this thread on the environmental portion of that.

It sounds like a good start to me.

The Federal government is incredibly bloated, doing all sorts of things that it shouldn't be doing. It's been going on for so long that we just take it for granted that the federal government should do everything. And stopping wasting dollars on the man-made global warming hoax is another good idea. While there may be some short term pain while we transition from bloated federal to more targeted state aspects, I believe it will be for the best.

 

[dust1n]

Which ones?

All the one's that are made by people who actively disregard states' rights when it achieves their own personal policy goals.

States' rights is also more or less BS, because the same people who argue for them are more than happy to use the state government to override local governments (this literally happens all the time in TX when cities like Houston and Austin enact their local regulations, for example, Austin setting their background check policies for ride-sharing companies, to have the TX legislature come back and try to find ways to prevent any city from setting any city regulation for these sort of companies to do business.

Similarly, Denton, TX voted to ban fracking in their entire jurisdiction. State legislature came back to right a law saying no small government could do this basically.

 

[Revoltingest]

All the one's that are made by people who actively disregard states' rights when it achieves their own personal policy goals.

This seems the shotgun approach, leaving nothing specific to discuss.

States' rights is also more or less BS, because the same people who argue for them are more than happy to use the state government to override local governments (this literally happens all the time in TX when cities like Houston and Austin enact their local regulations, for example, Austin setting their background check policies for ride-sharing companies, to have the TX legislature come back and try to find ways to prevent any city from setting any city regulation for these sort of companies to do business.

Are they the same people?
It's easy to believe, but people who support constitutional limits to federal authority over the
states are a diverse bunch. I wouldn't presume we're all the hypocrites you accuse us of being.

Similarly, Denton, TX voted to ban fracking in their entire jurisdiction. State legislature came back to right a law saying no small government could do this basically.

That doesn't address the 10th Amendment rights of states.

 

[sun rise]

Outside of the science deniers in this thread and elsewhere, most people don't want to live in a Chinese-style environment where the air and water are toxic and poison everywhere is considered sound business practice. And people want to see climate change moderated.

The current regime on the other hand, is full of science deniers who don't care what happens to people because they put political ideology ahead of facts and truth.

We used to decry this when it happened in the Soviet Union and other totalitarian nations and now we're fighting the exact same thing here.

 

[dust1n]

This seems the shotgun approach, leaving nothing specific to discuss.

Except the specific examples.

Are they the same people?
It's easy to believe, but people who support constitutional limits to federal authority over the
states are a diverse bunch. I wouldn't presume we're all the hypocrites you accuse us of being.

In TX? Yes, they are quite literally most of the same legislatures.

That doesn't address the 10th Amendment rights of states.

I'm of the opinion that the federal government should no longer exist. I really find no use is the federal government going "here, you are allowed to do this and that." I see no value in the US Constitution, specifically, seeing how I except the body supposedly governed by the constitution to stop existing.

 

[Quintessence]

The Federal government is incredibly bloated, doing all sorts of things that it shouldn't be doing.

Wait... are you're saying that clean air, water, and soil isn't something that is a national concern? National concerns strike me as something that need to be on the list of things the Federal government should be doing. Environmental issues are absolutely on that list. Air doesn't respect state boundaries, and neither does water. Nor do the products created on the land, which are shipped both nationally and internationally to various markets. Were you around during the days when lakes could be set on fire due to pollution problems? Or have you at least heard the stories? Have you heard the stories like this one (5 Recent Underreported Environmental Disasters), and this one (4 states confirm water pollution from drilling), and this one (Water scare affects 400,000-plus in Toledo, Ohio - CNN.com)? Are you really telling me you want more of these kinds of things to happen because we don't have a national agency that can respond to these sorts of things with the necessary expertise?

And stopping wasting dollars on the man-made global warming hoax is another good idea.

Setting aside the irrational denialism, you do realize the lion's share of the EPA's responsibility don't have much to do with climate change issues, right?

 

[Revoltingest]

Except the specific examples.

What examples?

In TX? Yes, they are quite literally most of the same legislatures.

But are they the same legislators?
So far, it looks like a very broad brush there.

I'm of the opinion that the federal government should no longer exist. I really find no use is the federal government going "here, you are allowed to do this and that." I see no value in the US Constitution, specifically, seeing how I except the body supposedly governed by the constitution to stop existing.

So long as government exists, & the Constitution is the law of the land, I'll stick with it.
To give government power limited only by its own judgement is a very bad idea.
Remember that government won't come to you for direction....the government
you'd give free rein, unencumbered by constitutional limitation, is run by Donald Trump.

 

[dust1n]

What examples?

TX Leg regarding fracking in Denton.
TX Leg regarding ridesharing in TX cities.

But are they the same legislators?
So far, it looks like a very broad brush there.

Yes..... the TX legislature doesn't change that much, and when it does, they replace states' rights loving GOP members with the same...

"Saying Texas needs to avoid a “patchwork of local regulations” that threaten oil and gas production, Gov. Greg Abbott on Monday signed legislation that would pre-empt local efforts to regulate a wide variety of drilling-related activities."

Curbing Local Control, Abbott Signs "Denton Fracking Bill"

"A pair of state senators are pushing measures that would take the regulation of ridesharing companies out of the hands of Texas cities. One would hand the authority over to the state government. The other would effectively get the government out of the regulatory business."

http://watchdog.org/285613/texas-lawmakers-look-overhaul-ridesharing-regulations/

So long as government exists, & the Constitution is the law of the land, I'll stick with it.

And I'll ignore it.

To give government power limited only by its own judgement is a very bad idea.
Remember that government won't come to you for direction....the government
you'd give free rein, unencumbered by constitutional limitation, is run by Donald Trump.

I don't necessarily disagree with the premise. I'm saying specifically the federal government of America should cease to exist, not that any government that exists should be limited only by its own judgment.