Trump Administration Prepares a Major Weakening of Mercury Emissions Rules (nytimes.com) 266
The Trump administration has completed a detailed legal proposal to dramatically weaken a major environmental regulation covering mercury, a toxic chemical emitted from coal-burning power plants, The New York Times reports, citing a person familiar with the matter. From the report: The proposal would not eliminate the mercury regulation entirely, but it is designed to put in place the legal justification for the Trump administration to weaken it and several other pollution rules, while setting the stage for a possible full repeal of the rule. Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist who is now the acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is expected in the coming days to send the proposal to the White House for approval. The move is the latest, and one of the most significant, in the Trump administration's steady march of rollbacks of Obama-era health and environmental regulations on polluting industries, particularly coal. The weakening of the mercury rule -- which the E.P.A. considers the most expensive clean air regulation ever put forth in terms of annual cost to industry -- would represent a major victory for the coal industry. Mercury is known to damage the nervous systems of children and fetuses.
do I just hang out on lefty sites (Score:5, Insightful)
*COUGH* (Score:5, Interesting)
From Wikipedia: [wikipedia.org]
Arendt's subtitle famously introduced the phrase "the banality of evil," which also serves as the final words of the book. In part, at least, the phrase refers to Eichmann's deportment at the trial as the man displayed neither guilt for his actions nor hatred for those trying him, claiming he bore no responsibility because he was simply "doing his job" ("He did his duty...; he not only obeyed orders, he also obeyed the law." p. 135).
Re:*COUGH* (Score:4, Insightful)
This is sooo vital to point out. Especially in the West (a Judeo/Christian society), we are taught and culturally have a very specific notion of what "evil" is, such that we have trouble seeing it when it actually is staring us in the face. I think of serial killer neighbors "He was such a good neighbor" or as mentioned in the book about those who perpetrated the Holocaust. "How could they seem so normal". Because many were imaging pitchforks and tails and hooves and got company men who were "doing his job" and "following the law" and "serving their country" etc....
I am not drawing any conclusions about anyone in particular here, just noting that evil is often missed and not what we think it is....
Re:*COUGH* (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing is, Eichmann is correct. That is why neither "orders" nor "the law" are in any form useful to determine the morality of actions. Many people do not understand that at all. The law is primarily a tool to make people behave in the way those in power want them to behave, no moral aspects involved beyond some window-dressing and PR cover-stories. The US also has discovered "the law" as an economic factor in a truly immoral act via the prison industry, where profits raise when more people are incarcerated.
And "orders"? That is just a more strict implementation of the same thing.
Re:do I just hang out on lefty sites (Score:5, Interesting)
"What further need have we of witnesses?"
Re: do I just hang out on lefty sites (Score:1)
Children with mercury-damaged brains grow up and vote GOP. The plan is sheer elegance in its simplicity.
He's not evil, he just doesn't give a shit (Score:5, Insightful)
He's 72, so before any of the shit hits the fan with any force he'll probably be dead so what does he care? He'll just make sure his cronies in the oil and coal industries are happy with their backhanders then he'll retire to his golf course. Meanwhile the world could well be left picking up the pieces of his idiotic enviromental policies for decades to come when he's just a footnote in history books.
Re:He's not evil, he just doesn't give a shit (Score:5, Interesting)
I strongly suspect that he won't be a footnote.
Trump's presidency represents a turning point for western democracy. Do we reject amoral crony capitalism and move back towards the social compact that first brought us to prosperity, or do we embrace the post-truth, post-compassion world and descend into a new age of feudalism?
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Agreed this is a turning point. We're at that question mark
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed. If you think the orange guy is merely a fluke, just remember how close Mrs. Palin came to being in power, considering McCain's uncertain health.
As I mentioned before on slashdot, roughly 40% of the country are Yosemite Sams who put fellow Sams in office. If enough voters sit out an election over email drama or the like, then the Sams rule.
I'd rather have somebody in power who screws up emails than who screws up everything because they personally enjoy chaos (T) and/or hate civilization (Palin).
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't conservatives simply admit they don't like much of civilization. Non-trivial civilizations need taxes, gov't, personal weapon control, and tolerance of multiculturalism to run smoothly. But a good many conservatives think those are either evil, or way over-done.
One doesn't have to put a value judgment on it, just say, "I personally would prefer a corporate Mad-Max style world. It better fits me and my kind". Science/math/logic cannot prove that such a world is "bad". If you like that kind of world
Re: (Score:2)
He himself will probably not even be a footnote, he just is too meaningless as a person. The fact that somebody like him was elected president will indeed be remembered as a turning-point though.
Re: (Score:2)
"Bouncing Betty" was actually used as an example in a software engineering course I took. But you are right, extreme fuckups do get their place in history.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, the situation was analogous to questioning whether an experienced surgeon with some (debatably) questionable decisions on her record should perform the job or be replaced. So then it's...
Re: (Score:2)
Just because someone is "not part of the political establishment" doesn't automatically make them better. That person she's accused of rigging her party's primary against backed her in the general election after the fact. That should tell you something.
Under further investigation it is discovered his business dealings are riddled with bankruptcies, lies, and ripping people off. And then he gets the job.
No, this wasn't under further investigation, his business background was known in advance, and IMHO many people voted for him BECAUSE of this, not in spite of it. I don't mean like they thought he was a crook and thought we needed a crook. I mean because they see people who get away with this kind of shit all the time, and mistake it for skill. Keeping your nose to the grindstone and getting shit done is, for the most part, not remarkable at all. So people notice the person who appears to be rising in s
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The fact is that Hillary should be facing time in federal prison for multiple counts of at a minimum negligent mishandling of classified information, if not the more serious intentional mishandling of classified information. She has a trail of lies and corruption going clear back to being fired from the Watergate investigation
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking of lies... [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
But since then, the economy is rocking, unemployment is low (record lows for minorities) Both mostly due to all the regulations that his administration has cut. We now have a renegotiated trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, NK is still at the bargaining table. The Embassy in Israel is where it belongs decades after congress passed a bill ordering it to be moved to Jerusalem. We have Justice Gorsuch and soon will have Kavanaugh on the court as well. (No corroborating evidence or witnesses).
And there it is. Conservatives don't give a shit about morality or children's health. The ends justify the means.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is claiming he is an angel. But he is not part of the political establishment. His opponent was queen of that corrupt establishment even going so far as to rig her party's primaries to ensure she be ordained the next great leader. Oh but we said Nope to her. He wasn't a great choice, but he was far better than the alternative option (the one that actually had a chance at winning.
See my sig
Re: (Score:2)
He's not evil, he just doesn't give a shit
That's the best definition of evil I have ever seen on this site.
Moustache-twirling, cat-stroking comic-book villains do not exist outside of comic books and movies.
Real life villains are just that - people that don't give a shit.
Re: (Score:2)
If he hasn't retired by age 72, then he's the kind of person who never will. Does it really seem like the guy knows when to stop?
Normal people want to retire early and enjoy family life. They can't relate to what motivates politicians and corporate cronies who have no concept of "enough". That's why the public keeps falling for the sales pitches over and over again, and evil continues to persist. People like Trump are so corrupt, they're almost not even human anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
or is this man truly evil?
Kind of, but it’s more like the definition of what is conservative and right wing has shifted so far to the right into fringe lunatic country that what counted as stuffy, conservative and right of center in the Reagan era has now become the center left. I think John Boehner kind of summed it up: There is no Republican Party, there is only a Trump Party, the Republican Party is off taking a nap somewhere”. I would add that the Trump Party is a lunatic convention, it sure as hell is not kind of ge
Re: (Score:2)
Can't wait until he's on the 20 dollar bill.
No, not the 20 dollar bill, the 100 dollar bill is the most counterfeited denomination of U.S. currency and thus the most fitting one to feature Trump's face.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just you (Score:5, Insightful)
or is this man truly evil?
Trump is easily the worst person (competence, morals, decency, empathy, etc - pick your measure) to get to the office of president in my lifetime and I'm old enough to have lived during Nixon's administration. He surrounds himself with people who are somehow if anything worse in a lot of ways. There are prominent republicans who I respect and think could be good presidents even if I don't necessarily agree with their policy positions on a given topic. Trump is not even close to among them. I thought Bush Jr was a terrible president but I'd take him in a heartbeat over Trump. Reagan or Bush Sr would be a huge upgrade. Heck I'd happily take McCain (even with Palin) or Romney who I think were both competent and fundamentally decent people. No I'm not arguing the Democrats were notably better (they weren't) but literally every other president or candidate for either party in the last half centry would be an improvement over Trump.
Re:It's not just you (Score:5, Interesting)
or is this man truly evil?
Trump is easily the worst person (competence, morals, decency, empathy, etc - pick your measure) to get to the office of president in my lifetime and I'm old enough to have lived during Nixon's administration. He surrounds himself with people who are somehow if anything worse in a lot of ways. There are prominent republicans who I respect and think could be good presidents even if I don't necessarily agree with their policy positions on a given topic. Trump is not even close to among them. I thought Bush Jr was a terrible president but I'd take him in a heartbeat over Trump. Reagan or Bush Sr would be a huge upgrade. Heck I'd happily take McCain (even with Palin) or Romney who I think were both competent and fundamentally decent people. No I'm not arguing the Democrats were notably better (they weren't) but literally every other president or candidate for either party in the last half centry would be an improvement over Trump.
Trump is honestly the first President in my lifetime who I do not think is actually doing what they think is best for the country. The Bushes, Clinton, Obama, hell even the losing candidates like McCain, Gore, Kerry, Bill's scarier half, while I didn't agree with all of their policies, I did believe that for the most part they were doing what they thought was good for the country. That's really about all you can ask of a leader. Trump on the other hand, only cares about what's good for Trump, anyone named Trump, and anyone who supports him so long as they continue to support him and their support benefits Trump. It's "Trump, the whole Trump, and nothing but the Trump, so help you Trump."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"- not actually evil, but bad tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That is my thoughts as well. I like to consider myself a moderate (with actually leaning slightly to the right), who really doesn't like to judge politicians just because they have an R or a D representing their party.
However the Trump Administration seems to be reaching into comic book villainy. If an idea seems too stupid to be real, I try to do further fact checking, and I keep on finding that they are really just that stupid.
It seems for me to find a "middle ground" I seem to have to reach to what I c
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, want more mercury in my diet. It's so shiny and pretty. Hmmmmmm.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he is just casually evil, i.e. he does not care about what happens to anybody but himself.
That said, Mercury is one of the nastiest things you can expose humans to.
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy to get upset by many of Trumps cuts, and some of them are politically targeted for sure but he does have to drum up support from constituents. What you have to remember about most of those cuts is that those things
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
or is this man truly evil?
It depends on which man you are talking about.
If it is Trump, then, yes, you just hang out on too many lefty sites. Trump may be evil, but he is not proposing this, Andrew Wheeler, the head of the EPA is proposing this.
If you are talking about Andrew Wheeler, then, it sure would seem he is evil regardless of any lefty sites you hang out at.
Once Trump signs it, you can fairly call him evil over this.
Re:do I just hang out on lefty sites (Score:5, Insightful)
You live in a sick world where you think poisoning people with mercury is a good thingl.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is the worst kind of politician though - the corrupt kind. Plus - anyone who has followed him since the 90s knows as well he's been politically involved - I'm not sure what made him such an outsider except his marketing campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
But you're an Evil Atheist! You want those things too!
Does that name feel silly now that real evil runs the government? :^P
Re: (Score:2)
Re:do I just hang out on lefty sites (Score:5, Insightful)
Whats next, letting car's take off their catalitic converters so they can double their gas mileage?
Catalytic converters actually have a miniscule effect on gas mileage.
Re: (Score:2)
Chances are removing the catalytic converter may actually reduce your gas mileage on a newer car but on older cars from the early 80s removing the catalytic converter, making sure your exhaust is sealed and the muffler is good, and reseting the timing could give you a boost in fuel economy no where near twice as much but 3-5 MPG.
Re: (Score:3)
Adding 3-5 MPG would double the MPG of the car I owned in the '80s. (Well, not quite, but not that far off)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Here here. The Russians literally got him into office so he can appoint people who want to destroy the world and look good. Just look at the rapist supreme court guy. These guys have no shame. Whats next, letting car's take off their catalitic converters so they can double their gas mileage? Weve really gotta put a stop to this. To TRUMP and the Russians. They are literally trying to poison us with heavy metal now and all thats gonna happen is Slashdot will report on it.
Reporting is a start. Now how about you take this information, draw up some dead easy to understand flyers and go around in a red state and go knock on doors? no....facebook does not count. If you seriously want to fix this that is what has to be done. Get some people who feel the same way to help and knock on even more doors. You may convince 1-in-7 to change their vote, maybe even 1-in-5. some districts are won by as little as 3 votes. First it was the pesticide thing now it's mercury. I'm sure e
Re: (Score:2)
BeauHD, you should probably post with an alt if you don't want the community discarding what you say offhand as a troll given your incredibly public history of being a nutjob.
Re: (Score:2)
And apostrophes aren't a warning: "Look out, here comes an 's' at the end of a word!"
Re: (Score:3)
Consider the similar expression “For God’s sake” or “For heaven’s sake”. In this use the apostrophe denoting the singular possessive is correct, because the context is a language in a monotheistic culture...there’s only one God and one heaven. There’s a second parallel here, since it’s not uncommon for peo
Re: (Score:2)
"The town of about 3,500 is a Superfund site, a federal designation for polluted areas."
So I would think twice about claiming Obama-era regulation reducing the release of lead is the problem.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Perhaps you should actually read the article you linked to. The standard that you claimed tightened the noose was set in 2008. Under Bush.
I read the article, then the comments. I found it most interesting that while the levels of lead are higher than EPA regulations allow, they're lower than what everyone in the US was exposed to before 1995 from leaded gasoline.
Re: (Score:2)
> I found it most interesting that while the levels of lead are higher than EPA regulations allow, they're lower than what everyone in the US was exposed to before 1995 from leaded gasoline.
You know, we used to let people put radium on watch faces without protective gear, re-pointing the tip of the brush by smoothing it with their mouths. We also used to cover the insides of buildings with asbestos. All of that was 100% legal under the laws of the time.
Just because it was like that before and was lega
Re: (Score:2)
> I found it most interesting that while the levels of lead are higher than EPA regulations allow, they're lower than what everyone in the US was exposed to before 1995 from leaded gasoline.
You know, we used to let people put radium on watch faces without protective gear, re-pointing the tip of the brush by smoothing it with their mouths. We also used to cover the insides of buildings with asbestos. All of that was 100% legal under the laws of the time.
Just because it was like that before and was legal doesn't mean it was SAFE.
Why should any of that keep me from finding the article interesting? I learned something today.
I think the thin mint oreos are interesting too. I'm not making a case for or against them, simply noting that their existence is interesting to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I googled "When did the EPA disallow leaded gas?"
First link.
1971: President Richard Nixon signed the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, which restricted the lead content in paint used in housing built with federal dollars and provided funds for states to reduce the amount of lead in paint. Subsequent legislation created the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which effectively banned leaded paint in 1976.
1984: The U.S. Senate considered banning the use of lead in gasoline, with Vernon Houk, director
Re: (Score:3)
I...am not sure why you are being confrontational. I'm neither the OP, nor the comment OP - I just noted that I had read the linked article because I was bored, saw an interesting anecdote that the lead levels at the town where the smelter was located weren't any higher than the baby boomer generation was exposed to every day, and googled, "When did the EPA disallow unleaded gasoline?"
Which ... has a pretty clear timeline.
I'm not sure why you're grandstanding, like there's a court of public opinion that yo
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry that you don't like my source?
http://bfy.tw/K9Wp [bfy.tw]
Re: (Score:2)
Pseudo-apologies for my lack of engagement with you. Between your grandstanding and ad hominem directed at a mildly interested bystander, I hope you don't have a career that requires you to engage in other people.
But more specifically, you're a classic example of an invocation of Danth's Law. Incredibly so, with someone who wasn't arguing with you.
Re: (Score:2)
" Danth's Law. "
Yeah.
I looked it up :
"Danth’s Law (sometimes known as Parker’s Law) is an Internet axiom which asserts that if a person has to insist that he or she has won an Internet argument, it is likely the said person has lost."
MAMA (Score:5, Funny)
Make America Mad Again
Mad like a hatter
"Magnificently clean and healthy air"... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-vaxxing is not a left/right wing issue ... that's just a fable some leftist like to tell themselves. California is as much a hotbed of anti-vaxxers as the midwest. As the saying goes, sometimes the left and right cooperate to be stupid and evil.
The only left/right wing divide is on the issue of mandatory vaccinations.
The question is .... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Mercury travels a long way, for example you can see in this infographic [greatlakesecho.org] that a lot of Chinese mercury emissions end up in the USA.
Come to think of it, that's probably what's yanking Trump's chain here - can't have American babies being poisoned by Chinese mercury when they could have good old-fashioned American mercury instead! America first, right?
Re: (Score:2)
conservatives (Score:1)
How will conservatives justify this one? I am eagerly waiting, I know that the human mind knows no bounds.
Re: (Score:3)
No justification needed these days, they'll just twirl their mustaches and cackle maniacally.
Trump has taken the modern businessman's mask off of conservatism and exposed the face of the ancient evil [ucla.edu] underneath.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple: Clean food and air for the rich, and the rest are just slaves to them anyways, and who cares whether some slaves get birth-defects or mental problems because they are eating and breathing poison. Oh, ans slaves of course have to support their masters, no matter what.
The truly sad thing is that a lot of those slaves are actually voting for making their own situation worse, because they understand nothing. Democracy only works if a majority of the voters do understand how things work. That is not the
Re: (Score:2)
"un-necessary burden on our already clean burning coal plants."
LOL! clean burning coal plants. Someone's seriously fucken brainwashed!
State rights? (Score:1, Flamebait)
I'll wager that California and a bunch of other high revenue states will enact laws to counteract this measure, and the hillbillies will get all the mercury pollution and they won't notice any difference because there's not much in their heads to be affected in the first place.
We already have. (Score:1)
I've spent a lot of time talking to people both liberal and conservative, even ones I could have an intelligent conversation on politics with just two decades ago.
Most of them can only parrot what they have heard from their favorite talking head. Few even attempt to verify the facts. Most have devolved into the soft of stereotype I usually reserve for beer guzzling tail gating sports fans who will get into fistfights over whose team is best.
That seems to sum up the 96 percent of Americans available today. I
I am not defending him but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the current limit? Is it reasonable? What is the cost? What is the new limit, it's cost, it's impact?
Discussing this without knowing the specifics is an empty talk about how evil they are. We could have much more environmental friendly products if you are willing to pay 5000 for what now you pay 100 so it's important to establish a reasonable limit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a single post so far tearing at it is anything but an emotional attack.
Yet suggest this might have been over-regulation and you'd get a downmod. Make a minor observation that regulation can be abused for "donations" to back off, and hooo boy.
"That'll learn him for talking about motivations instead of the science!" he said as he clicked the downmod button and then created a 4 paragraph screed at how evil Trump's real motivation was.
Show the evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet suggest this might have been over-regulation and you'd get a downmod.
Present some actual evidence to support such a position and maybe you might get some thoughtful consideration. So far every suggestion of "over regulation" is really just an ideological statement rather than an evidence based consideration of the facts. Not all regulation is bad, particularly when it comes to toxic substances. Every bit of evidence points to this mostly being a needless handout to various industries (most notably coal) for financial gain of a few at the expense of the health and welfare of the many.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not all regulation is bad, particularly when it comes to toxic substances. Every bit of evidence points to this mostly being a needless handout to various industries (most notably coal) for financial gain of a few at the expense of the health and welfare of the many.
I work in IT for one of the most heavily over-regulated industries in this country, the medical laboratory. No one is giving our industry any easement of the regulation on us, and frankly we don't want it. We *thrive* on our regulation. It's good for us. There is almost no corner of our industry that doesn't have some regulation hanging over it, and even the industries we contract with to service our industry are also themselves heavily regulated. It gives a nice high cost threshold to any company trying to
Profit motives are dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
I work in IT for one of the most heavily over-regulated industries in this country, the medical laboratory.
I've worked in labs in years past and my wife is a laboratory director of a pathology lab. I disagree that medical labs are "heavily over regulated". Labs are regulated to the degree they are for VERY good reasons and we've seen what happens when they aren't. The data they produce and the means they use to produce it has to be as reliable as we can make and market pressures are demonstrably inadequate to make that happen. The regulations that are in place ensure corners are not cut that should not be cut. That's not an argument that every regulation is a good one but just an observation that labs that are well run mostly are already doing the things that the regulations require anyway aside from a bit of extra documentation to prove it. But without this requirement the temptation of profit motives would rapidly overwhelm some people and we would all suffer in the long run as a result.
We see our regulation as a challenge, not a burden. Why can't the coal industry?
Because they have made a crap ton of money being comparatively unregulated and would like to continue to make more and there is no mechanism for accountability. In a medical lab if you screw up a specimen, that error is generally immediately traceable back to the lab and liability follows. But without regulation the volume of corner cutting would rapidly overwhelm the ability of the legal system to deal with the problem. Not to mention that liability is a post-hoc solution which doesn't help people already injured. There is no such feedback mechanism in place for the coal industry generally speaking and putting them in place makes them FAR less financially competitive than they are now. (that's probably a good thing but they obviously don't see it that way) They've gotten a free ride [wikipedia.org] for years not having to pay for the full cost of the pollution they generate so it's hardly shocking that it's a real life tragedy of the commons [wikipedia.org].
Re:Show the evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
Coal can be shifted away from with the correct political will......Coal is a dying industry and they know it.
"My grandpappy was a coal miner, my daddy was a coal miner, I'm a coal miner, and dammit, my children will be coal miners even if it kills 'em....which between mine accidents, black lung disease, and general lifestyle it probably will!"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And aside from that, it's halfway through the article that the word "could" is introduced, showing that the article is based on speculation about something that "could" happen if this proposal goes through.
If the Trump administration does something that causes a "major weakening" of something the Obama administration put into place, then that means the Obama administration did a "major strengthening" of it -- which is apparent right in the summary: "which the E.P.A. considers the most expensive clean air re
Re:I am not defending him but ... (Score:5, Informative)
If you wanted specifics, you'd have read the article rather than posting questions that imply that this could be the right thing to do. A new limit isn't what's being proposed.
This legislation forces any cost/benefit analysis to be done using only the benefit of the reduction in mercury output without considering the additional benefits from the reduction in soot and nitrogen oxide that the emission controls produce.
Any analysis done would also have to ignore the cost of emission controls that would have to be put in place to keep soot and nitrogen oxide levels under legal limits, forcing any study to justify the cost of the emission controls based on the benefits of reducing mercury emissions alone.
The point of all this is to make it much harder to justify the cost of lower emission level limits by limiting health benefits that you can consider. That will make it easier to overturn the previous rules in court, which will let the Trump administration to allow corporations to harm even more people in the name of higher profits.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Past a certain level if you want to reduce some contaminants the increase in cost can be exponential. So before having an opinion I would like to know is:
What is the current limit? Is it reasonable? What is the cost? What is the new limit, it's cost, it's impact?
Discussing this without knowing the specifics is an empty talk about how evil they are. We could have much more environmental friendly products if you are willing to pay 5000 for what now you pay 100 so it's important to establish a reasonable limit.
I'm sorry, the name "Trump" has been uttered, so reasonableness is not permitted. He can only be eeeeeeevil.
I've lived through this all before. Reagan "was" simultaneously a drooling idiot and an evil genius, etc. The same kind of hyperventilating, all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is some good info for you: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/def... [nrdc.org]
Hint: None of it is cheap, but cheaper than other pollution control measures. (for things like NOx, particulates, etc) I've personally worked on one that was utilizing activated carbon injected into the flue gas prior to the ESP (Electrostatic Precipitator, particulate control). I don't, however, know how effective it actually proved to be. I left the company before they were able to study the results.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be fine except that Mercury stays in the environment and travels up the food chain. By changing the limits all you are doing is modifying the rate that it accumulates at the top of the food chain, us and other top predators.
Re: (Score:3)
The Obama era limitation amounted to no more than 6 grams (0.013 pounds) per gigawatt-hour. There, feel enlightened?
Why did they set that particular limit?
At the time the mercury limits were set (2011), there was considerable uncertainty about the exact impact in the population, although there was good reason to suspect mercury emissions were a problem. Mercury and mercury compounds found in combustion by-products are potent neurotoxins and can have a very long half-lives in the human body, in some cases
Re: (Score:2)
reducing mercury brings up to $6 million annually in health benefits....
an additional $80 billion in health benefits from the additional reduction in soot and nitrogen oxide....
So, just re-label the regulations as soot/NOx reduction. To be honest, $6 million in benefits is a drop in the bucket. We'd be better off economically to just drop the rules and deal with a few more window-lickers. But $80 billion in benefits for $9.6 billion in costs is worth pursuing on its own. Proceed.
Quick: build a power station ... (Score:2)
next to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, will Trump have any of the concern of the effect of mercury on Barron [wikipedia.org] ? Maybe he will pronounce the reported effects of mercury on children as fake news.
I wish Barron no harm at all. But what is good enough for the rest of us should also be good enough for him.
I guess now that it is inevitable (Score:4, Insightful)
new rules like:
"Lead, it makes paint better, and your car happier.'
'Asbestos, high in fiber and fire retardants."
Wait... This explains it... (Score:1)
Coal vs Natural Gas (Score:2)
From an economic perspective is coal better than natural gas in any way? Is is even better than frakking, which US has already developed very well?
Or the more important question: is keeping coal subsidized gives benefit anyone other than coal mine owners in the long run? Even the workers would be better off switching to another profession, like solar panel installers. Is it as "manly"? No, However is is manly to die of cancer at young age? And solar installation also pays better as a bonus (it is kind of a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here in DFW the ground regularly shifts and destroys foundations on homes because of fraking.
That happens in Texas anyhow because of drought vs non-drought years, combined with already poorly-built foundations that don't reach down to rock. It's been happening since long before fracking was invented. I suspect that someone told you it was because of fracking (or you decided it on your own), and you simply believed it.
Re: (Score:2)
a twenty year plan (Score:4, Interesting)
This must be part of a twenty year plan to grow a new batch of Trump-style electors: people who confuse their tribe—and the size of its roar—with their political interests.
I tend to see the recent political era as the ascendancy of people who can't explain anything.
Trump has actually admitted an error or two. But he's still never explained a single physical or political mechanism with more than two moving parts.
This is why Bannon was on Maher the other day suggesting that Bernie would have been more effective if his style was more like Michael Avenatti (which pot/kettle was this suggestion most intended to blacken by association?), and then immediately followed up on this by suggesting that maybe Oprah was the kind of person who could carry the Democratic nomination in the near future.
Yeah, great: another person in bright glare of the media business, who's consistently light on explanation as a matter of personal style.
Obama numbers don't add up (Score:2)
The Obama administration estimated that it would cost the electric utility industry an estimated $9.6 billion a year to install that mercury control technology, making it the most expensive clean air regulation ever put forth by the federal government. It found that reducing mercury brings up to $6 million annually in health benefits â" a high number, but not as high as the cost to industry. However, it further justified the regulation by citing an additional $80 billion in health benefits from the additional reduction in soot and nitrogen oxide that occur as a side effect of controlling mercury.
Got that? $9.6BN/to save $6M in direct health costs, a 0.0625% return on investment, but wait! Then they 'projected' a convenient $80BN savings for related reasons... per year. That's a little less than half the health care budget of the VA ($196BN/yr), or about $240/per us citizen ($80BN/320M citizens).
The numbers are pure fantasy.
Has anyone else noticed.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is how things have worked for a long time. News organizations during President Obama's terms did the same thing, attributing things to "the Obama Administration". Largely in cases such as this it is justified; a change like this is pretty obviously being driven by the political appointees, not the administrative (non-political... or "deep state" if you will) long-term employees.
Re: (Score:1)
Instead, however, we have seven or eight billion -- who can count, they keep multiplying so quickly -- humans on Earth, most of which are below 90 IQ points.
You should look up how IQ points work. By definition the median IQ score is 100, So half of the population scores 100 or better.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, however, we have seven or eight billion -- who can count, they keep multiplying so quickly -- humans on Earth, most of which are below 90 IQ points.
You should look up how IQ points work. By definition the median IQ score is 100, So half of the population scores 100 or better.
Indeed. But the OP seems to be decidedly below that median. Probably thinks he is a "stable genius" or something like that though.
End fundamentalism, practice critical thinking (Score:1)
Environmentalism consists of a set of rules by which we can keep our modern lifestyle and reckless expansion of our population but apply "band-aids" like buying green products, driving Priuses, hampering our industry with regulation, and having turn-out-the-lights days.
Obviously moral superiority is the answer.
Deep ecology says that we have to change how we live, and focus on the big problem, which is land overuse. If 50% of the land out there in every area was wild, we would not have pollution problems at all; nature would absorb our excess.
There is nothing like a gross over simplification to stop people thinking about issues.
Instead, however, we have seven or eight billion -- who can count, they keep multiplying so quickly -- humans on Earth, most of which are below 90 IQ points. We are not growing better; we are a dying species reproducing recklessly in a last-ditch bid to save itself.
This is a normal thing to think when you hang onto an ideology that doesn't know how to change. How hopeless and depressing your basic lack of faith in the capability of the human race is, however what is worse is it is a diguise for how terrified of change you are as you try to convince everyone else to be terrified. I do believe you are a Young fogey.
Regulations tie up industry and make it unable to compete, which then causes it to slow down and eventually die. That will not lead us to safer environmental practices, only a back-and-forth where one side writes a whole bunch of laws, and then the other side undoes them because those laws strangled jobs and communities.
So you would supp
Re: (Score:2)
This is interesting, if the alt-right starts supporting depopulation, or real anti-illegal-immigration measures (like employer-side checks and liability), the ownership class will switch from collaborating with or at least tolerating them, to throwing them under the bus and organizing opposition to them. The world's economies demand infinite growth in a finite world and that is incompatible with anything but infinite population growth.
Also this argument can't be taken seriously from an environmental/ecologi
Re: (Score:1)
So now you've embraced genocide?
Look at what you're becoming.
Re: (Score:2)
You are a fool and an ass as well as a coward.