Trump's nominee for head of the EPA....

cawacko said:
Good for him. His actions are what's important
Click to expand...
It is quite understandable that those who wish EPA to enforce actions against polluters to assure that the air we breath and the water we drink is safe to have very real concerns in regards to his appointment.

To say that Mr. Pruitt's record of environmental enforcement, as OK Atty General, is sparse would be an understatement. It's almost non-existent. One of Mr. Pruitt's first acts as OK Atty General was to eliminate the OK Atty Generals office of Environmental enforcement and replacing it with an office of "Federalism" in which the large majority of Mr. Pruitt's environmental actions has been to sue the Federal Government for over reach. Mr. Pruitt has also taken position papers on environmental enforcement from specific petroleum companies and has adopted them, whole cloth, as official State policy.

The problem with Mr. Pruitt's federalism perspective is that pollutants are not static. They migrate. The migration of pollutants discharged in one State often impact environmental quality in other States. Which is why we have Federal environmental laws. This is also why Mr. Pruitt has lost most of his law suits as these laws have been found constitutional under the general welfare and Interstate Commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution. To State that Mr. Pruitt is a lap dog to the very powerful petroleum industry in the State of Oklahoma is to State the obvious.

Having said that, Mr. Trump is well within his rights to nominate whomever he wants to head the USEPA. Congress is also well within their rights to confirm him if they believe him to be competent.

Also, despite all the hand wringing and legitimate concerns in regards to Mr. Pruitt's appointment Mr. Pruitt, just like President Trump, is obligated to enforce the environmental laws which congress has enacted whether he agrees with them or not. In addition if Mr. Pruitt is negligent in his responsibilities we, the people, have certain remedies. We can file suit for enforcement action in our courts and we can also encourage Congress to take action in both oversight and legislation. Ultimately if Mr. Pruitt is both negligent in his responsibilities in enforcing the law and/or takes illegal actions he can be charged by the courts with both criminal and civil charges and he can be impeached by congress. Therefore it is quite unlikely Mr. Pruitt would be a complete renegade determined to undermine all environmental laws.

So take a deep breath folks. This isn't the end of the world.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It is quite understandable that those who wish EPA to enforce actions against polluters to assure that the air we breath and the water we drink is safe to have very real concerns in regards to his appointment.

To say that Mr. Pruitt's record of environmental enforcement, as OK Atty General, is sparse would be an understatement. It's almost non-existent. One of Mr. Pruitt's first acts as OK Atty General was to eliminate the OK Atty Generals office of Environmental enforcement and replacing it with an office of "Federalism" in which the large majority of Mr. Pruitt's environmental actions has been to sue the Federal Government over reach. Mr. Pruitt has also taken position papers on environmental enforcement from specific petroleum companies and has adopted them, whole cloth, as official State policy.

The problem with Mr. Pruitt's federalism perspective is that pollutants are not static. They migrate. The migration of pollutants discharged in one State often impact environmental quality in other States. Which is why we have Federal environmental laws. This is also why Mr. Pruitt has lost most of his law suits as these laws have been found constitutional under the general welfare and Interstate Commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution. To State that Mr. Pruitt is a lap dog to the very powerful petroleum industry in the State of Oklahoma is to State the obvious.

Having said that, Mr. Trump is well within his rights to nominate whomever he wants to head the USEPA. Congress is also well within their rights to confirm him if they believe him to be competent.

Also, despite all the hand wringing and legitimate concerns in regards to Mr. Pruitt's appointment Mr. Pruitt, just like President Trump, is obligated to enforce the environmental laws which congress has enacted whether he agrees with them or not. In addition if Mr. Pruitt is negligent in his responsibilities we, the people, have certain remedies. We can file suit for enforcement action in our courts and we can also encourage Congress to take action in both oversight and legislation. Ultimately if Mr. Pruitt is both negligent in his responsibilities in enforcing the law and/or takes illegal actions he can be charged by the courts with both criminal and civil charges and he can be impeached by congress. Therefore it is quite unlikely Mr. Pruitt would be a complete renegade determined to undermine all environmental laws.

So take a deep breath folks. This isn't the end of the world.
Click to expand...

This is the greatest argument I've ever seen for kicking China's ass.
 
"Global Warming, to an extent, is caused by human activity" Pruett Just said that.
 
Jarod said:
Plenty of people are denying that Global Warming is occurring, including President Trump. He said it was invented by China.
Click to expand...
Yeah he said that and it's pretty stupid but he knows better. Basically he was stating it in a way toothless hillbillies in W. Virginia could understand.
China could give a shit about AGW , they're legitimately more concerned with actual air pollution. They love seeing the West quixotically try to change the weather with economic suffocating regulations. It gives them the advantage.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It is quite understandable that those who wish EPA to enforce actions against polluters to assure that the air we breath and the water we drink is safe to have very real concerns in regards to his appointment.

To say that Mr. Pruitt's record of environmental enforcement, as OK Atty General, is sparse would be an understatement. It's almost non-existent. One of Mr. Pruitt's first acts as OK Atty General was to eliminate the OK Atty Generals office of Environmental enforcement and replacing it with an office of "Federalism" in which the large majority of Mr. Pruitt's environmental actions has been to sue the Federal Government for over reach. Mr. Pruitt has also taken position papers on environmental enforcement from specific petroleum companies and has adopted them, whole cloth, as official State policy.

The problem with Mr. Pruitt's federalism perspective is that pollutants are not static. They migrate. The migration of pollutants discharged in one State often impact environmental quality in other States. Which is why we have Federal environmental laws. This is also why Mr. Pruitt has lost most of his law suits as these laws have been found constitutional under the general welfare and Interstate Commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution. To State that Mr. Pruitt is a lap dog to the very powerful petroleum industry in the State of Oklahoma is to State the obvious.

Having said that, Mr. Trump is well within his rights to nominate whomever he wants to head the USEPA. Congress is also well within their rights to confirm him if they believe him to be competent.

Also, despite all the hand wringing and legitimate concerns in regards to Mr. Pruitt's appointment Mr. Pruitt, just like President Trump, is obligated to enforce the environmental laws which congress has enacted whether he agrees with them or not. In addition if Mr. Pruitt is negligent in his responsibilities we, the people, have certain remedies. We can file suit for enforcement action in our courts and we can also encourage Congress to take action in both oversight and legislation. Ultimately if Mr. Pruitt is both negligent in his responsibilities in enforcing the law and/or takes illegal actions he can be charged by the courts with both criminal and civil charges and he can be impeached by congress. Therefore it is quite unlikely Mr. Pruitt would be a complete renegade determined to undermine all environmental laws.

So take a deep breath folks. This isn't the end of the world.
Click to expand...
good post. But i think SCOTUS usually rules in favor of the regulatory body's purview under the Clean air/Water Act.

The EPA like a lot of federal agencies reflect the will of the scope of enforcement of the POTUS
 
aloysious said:
Yeah he said that and it's pretty stupid but he knows better. Basically he was stating it in a way toothless hillbillies in W. Virginia could understand.
China could give a shit about AGW , they're legitimately more concerned with actual air pollution. They love seeing the West quixotically try to change the weather with economic suffocating regulations. It gives them the advantage.
Click to expand...
You are wrong
https://www.google.com/amp/www.usne...inst-climate-change?context=amp?client=safari

China has powerful incentives to reduce coal use due to local air pollution. As anyone who has recently visited almost any large city in China will tell you, the air quality is frequently abysmal and constitutes a serious health, economic, and political threat. Because of the congruence between reducing coal use and greenhouse gas emissions, China would be likely to make substantial efforts to shift to lower emissions technologies over the next decade whether they cared about global emissions or not.

And the Chinese do care about emissions. Unlike the incoming American leadership, the Chinese leadership knows that global warming is not a concept created by their predecessors, as Donald Trump famously tweeted, and they have said as much.

Rather, with nearly 1.4 billion people crammed into a relatively small area, the Chinese leadership correctly views global warming as a real threat.



 
anatta said:
good post. But i think SCOTUS usually rules in favor of the regulatory body's purview under the Clean air/Water Act.

The EPA like a lot of federal agencies reflect the will of the scope of enforcement of the POTUS
Click to expand...
If you are a generator of pollution are you going to take the risk that a particular POTUS is not going to pursue enforcement action on existing law or that the courts would rule in your favor if you do not comply? Considering the consequences of enforcement for violation of the law...probably not. The wiser course would be to comply and then lobby to change existing law. Just the threat of enforcement, even if a friendly executive branch is not inclined to pursue enforcement, is enough to drive compliance with existing law.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
If you are a generator of pollution are you going to take the risk that a particular POTUS is not going to pursue enforcement action on existing law or that the courts would rule in your favor if you do not comply? Considering the consequences of enforcement for violation of the law...probably not. The wiser course would be to comply and then lobby to change existing law. Just the threat of enforcement, even if a friendly executive branch is not inclined to pursue enforcement, is enough to drive compliance with existing law.
Click to expand...

True. Sucks we have to do it this way but Mott is right.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
If you are a generator of pollution are you going to take the risk that a particular POTUS is not going to pursue enforcement action on existing law or that the courts would rule in your favor if you do not comply? Considering the consequences of enforcement for violation of the law...probably not. The wiser course would be to comply and then lobby to change existing law. Just the threat of enforcement, even if a friendly executive branch is not inclined to pursue enforcement, is enough to drive compliance with existing law.
Click to expand...
well sure. but the enforcement varies by whom's in charge -some of the marginal issues should swing back to "federalism"
( no matter how goofy Pruitt describes it) .

More interesting is Michigan vs the EPA where SCOTUS did finally rule that costs need to be considered by the EPA
-not just pure science https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-46_10n2.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top