A Jaw-Dropping List of All the Terrible Things Trump Has Done to Mother Earth

WilliamSeger

Philosopher
WilliamSeger
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
5,092
At least one part of the Republican agenda isn't being hampered by Trump's ignorance, indifference and incompetence.

http://www.motherjones.com/environm...rrible-things-trump-has-done-to-mother-earth/

Mother Jones said:
Goodbye regulations designed to protect the environment and public health.

Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the Paris climate deal may have followed months of anguished division among his closest advisers, but his administration has proceeded with quiet efficiency in its dismantling of other major environmental policies.

The White House, Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency have dovetailed to engineer a dizzying reversal of clean air and water regulations implemented by Barack Obama’s administration.

Unlike the travel ban or healthcare, Trump has faced few obstacles in sweeping away what he has called “job-killing” environmental rules that address problems such as climate change, water pollution and smoggy air.

“I’ve been very concerned by what I’ve seen—this is about people’s health,” said Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican who was the EPA administrator under George W Bush, and also served as governor of New Jersey. “They are undermining science and people’s respect for science. They don’t seem to care.”
Click to expand...
 
I know that conservatives are much more likely to reject anthropogenic climate change, but I also got the impression that they were very concerned about air and water contaminants. I'm always seeing a lot of water purifier stuff for sale on right-wing sites and a huge amount of obsessing over mercury and lead exposure. Are they just okay with this since Trump's doing it?
 
Gee, what a Great & Powerful Wizard he must be to actually do terrible things to Mother Earth in a mere six months.
 
Back when the economy tanked in 2008, I saw people claim that the best way to fix it was to temporarily ( :rolleyes: ) suspend all environmental regulations, which would allow American companies to be profitable and competitive again, which would quickly revitalize the economy.

What could possibly go wrong?
 
Armitage72 said:
Back when the economy tanked in 2008, I saw people claim that the best way to fix it was to temporarily ( :rolleyes: ) suspend all environmental regulations, which would allow American companies to be profitable and competitive again, which would quickly revitalize the economy.

What could possibly go wrong?
Click to expand...

I have no children to worry about as to the future. And will certainly be dead before the really bad stuff starts piling on. But a lot of people out there do
but do not seem to give a **** about what happens to their children and grandchildren.
 
Wait. What's the basis for Whitman's criticism? She was EPA head under Bush, but the rules that are being rolled back are mostly stuff that she never sought to push for when she was in charge. If Whitman thinks those Obama-era rules are really so critical, why didn't she push for them under her watch?
 
Civet said:
I know that conservatives are much more likely to reject anthropogenic climate change, but I also got the impression that they were very concerned about air and water contaminants. I'm always seeing a lot of water purifier stuff for sale on right-wing sites and a huge amount of obsessing over mercury and lead exposure. Are they just okay with this since Trump's doing it?
Click to expand...

For those who want to be prepared for next apocalyptic event.

I think one of the right wing talk show hosts sells freeze dried food
for "preppers".
 
casebro said:
Gee, what a Great & Powerful Wizard he must be to actually do terrible things to Mother Earth in a mere six months.
Click to expand...

Gee, what a witty nitpicking of the title. Even if you've been living under a rock and don't know what is being referenced, it's in the linked article. I think anyone using the barest critical thinking and context skills understands that many of the decisions of the Trump administration are going to be bad for the environment and peoples health.
 
The_Animus said:
Gee, what a witty nitpicking of the title. Even if you've been living under a rock and don't know what is being referenced, it's in the linked article. I think anyone using the barest critical thinking and context skills understands that many of the decisions of the Trump administration are going to be bad for the environment and peoples health.
Click to expand...

And anyone using the barest critical thinking and context skills will generally avoid sources like Mother Jones.
 
It's all politics per the old axiom "Keep the people scared so they will vote for me to lead them to safety". In this case the Liberals are eco-terrorizing. Converse is the Conservatives "They are ruining the economy with their restrictions! Elevnetydoom1111" Vote for the party with the scariest doomsayings.!
 
If Republicans could be made to believe that Climate Change is caused by Big Government, they would become the greenest party on the planet.
 
Ziggurat said:
Wait. What's the basis for Whitman's criticism? She was EPA head under Bush, but the rules that are being rolled back are mostly stuff that she never sought to push for when she was in charge. If Whitman thinks those Obama-era rules are really so critical, why didn't she push for them under her watch?
Click to expand...

You know that she didn't? Or, maybe if she wanted to, Bush et. al. let her know in no uncertain terms that such ideas were a non-starter.

You post suggests more that a little naivete.

Also, whether she did or not has no bearing on her present day stance thus rendering your post rather irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
And anyone using the barest critical thinking and context skills will generally avoid sources like Mother Jones.
Click to expand...

Does not address the argument made in the article or this thread.

casebro said:
It's all politics per the old axiom "Keep the people scared so they will vote for me to lead them to safety". In this case the Liberals are eco-terrorizing. Converse is the Conservatives "They are ruining the economy with their restrictions! Elevnetydoom1111" Vote for the party with the scariest doomsayings.!
Click to expand...

Any reasoning behind this? I assume you levy the charge because you disagree with the science involved.

***

The real issue is the downstream regulatory management of law in government agencies. In favor of this practice is the ability to analyze and technically address real issues in science and technology using experts, lending a proper approach to what are, after all, technical issues. In short, if the science is beyond John Q Public, how then does one deal with the issues? Here's one way: Elected reps name experts to agencies and monitor them, so JQP's voice is there throughout.

Against the idea of experts developing regulatory frameworks is the notion that there is only one truth, it is not amenable to modification by science, and that truth is that, left to their own devices, little boys should be able to play unsupervised, as is their right, even if that means poisoning the ground water and fouling the air. To go no further, animals and people should die from lead poisoning if that means oil companies can sell leaded gasoline, or "ethyl," to use the unmistakable propaganda name. That's fifty years of knowingly willing the death of others for profit right there (a real showstopper for Randian-libertarian "righteous owner" proponents).

Then again, why not have those fine evolution-denying, AGW-refusing, fact-phobic ladies and gents in the House and Senate do all the science, guided by industry, who, being led by the type of unthinking alpha males Republicans worship, know better? As Trump supporters all know, thumb sucking in abject mental slavery is fun! And if things blow up, "Not my fault!," "I was misled." The easy life for the ethically inert and intellectually challenged.
 
Civet said:
I know that conservatives are much more likely to reject anthropogenic climate change, but I also got the impression that they were very concerned about air and water contaminants. I'm always seeing a lot of water purifier stuff for sale on right-wing sites and a huge amount of obsessing over mercury and lead exposure. Are they just okay with this since Trump's doing it?
Click to expand...


They probably think that it's environmental regulation that is causing the problem, and if they can get rid of 'Big Government' everything will be fine.

We used to have a poster here who claimed that the medical industry was deliberately poisoning us for profit, and thought that the way to fix it was to abolish the FDA and make the industry self-regulating.
 
SezMe said:
You know that she didn't? Or, maybe if she wanted to, Bush et. al. let her know in no uncertain terms that such ideas were a non-starter.
Click to expand...

Then why did she stay in the position?

You post suggests more that a little naivete.

Also, whether she did or not has no bearing on her present day stance thus rendering your post rather irrelevant.
Click to expand...

You have that exactly backwards. You are being naive about her possible motives here.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
The real issue is the downstream regulatory management of law in government agencies. In favor of this practice is the ability to analyze and technically address real issues in science and technology using experts, lending a proper approach to what are, after all, technical issues.
Click to expand...

But they aren't technical issues. Or more precisely, they are not only technical issues. There are always tradeoffs. So who gets to decide what the tradeoffs are? If you simply hand all the decisions to a bunch of technocrats, you aren't simply being pro-science, you're also being anti-democratic.

In short, if the science is beyond John Q Public, how then does one deal with the issues? Here's one way: Elected reps name experts to agencies and monitor them, so JQP's voice is there throughout.
Click to expand...

JQP's voice was just heard in the election of Trump.

Against the idea of experts developing regulatory frameworks is the notion that there is only one truth, it is not amenable to modification by science, and that truth is that, left to their own devices, little boys should be able to play unsupervised, as is their right, even if that means poisoning the ground water and fouling the air. To go no further, animals and people should die from lead poisoning if that means oil companies can sell leaded gasoline, or "ethyl," to use the unmistakable propaganda name. That's fifty years of knowingly willing the death of others for profit right there (a real showstopper for Randian-libertarian "righteous owner" proponents).
Click to expand...

This is chicken little hyperbole. We aren't going back to leaded gasoline. America under Bill Clinton was not a hellhole of toxicity everywhere.

The real tell here is that hyperbole about a complete lack of any environmental regulations is basically all that's on offer here. Nobody has really defended the specific rules that are being scaled back here. Is it that you don't know the merits involved? Or do you not care?
 
Brainster said:
And anyone using the barest critical thinking and context skills will generally avoid sources like Mother Jones.
Click to expand...

They have liberal bias which sometimes results in poor articles but they also sometimes have really good quality reporting.

Determining which is which is where those critical thinking and context skills come into play.
 
Hlafordlaes;11915482..... Any reasoning behind this? I assume you levy the charge because you disagree with the science involved. *** .[/QUOTE said:
What charge?

Am I thinking Big Picture Strategy, while you are thinking Tactics: Green vs Not Green?
Click to expand...
 
Argumemnon said:
Give me the nuclear codes and I can make it uninhabitable to all multicellular life in minutes.
Click to expand...

challenge.jpg
 
Argumemnon said:
Give me the nuclear codes and I can make it uninhabitable to all multicellular life in minutes.
Click to expand...

Which codes? America's? Russia's *All of them*?

What's your targeting scenario? Traditional Cold War, with full MAD escalation to counter-value strikes across North America and Europe?

Or did you have in mind a more comprehensive (and geopolitcally incoherent) global targeting scheme?
 
theprestige said:
Which codes? America's? Russia's *All of them*?

What's your targeting scenario? Traditional Cold War, with full MAD escalation to counter-value strikes across North America and Europe?

Or did you have in mind a more comprehensive (and geopolitcally incoherent) global targeting scheme?
Click to expand...

Oh, I'd just lob one on Moscow to trigger the response, then pepper the rest of the world to make sure nothing makes it out alive. There may be a few pockets of survivors but they'll be sterile so it's not a problem.
 
Ziggurat said:
Wait. What's the basis for Whitman's criticism? She was EPA head under Bush, but the rules that are being rolled back are mostly stuff that she never sought to push for when she was in charge. If Whitman thinks those Obama-era rules are really so critical, why didn't she push for them under her watch?
Click to expand...

AFAIK, some of those rules where responses to environmental problems that either happened, or where discovered, after she left office. Others were problems still being investigated or litigated at the time she left office. Some more where waiting on the completion of scientific studies before appropriate rules could be written. Still others where based on new scientific studies and/or changed economic conditions that occurred after she left office.
 
Ziggurat said:
But they aren't technical issues. Or more precisely, they are not only technical issues. There are always tradeoffs. So who gets to decide what the tradeoffs are? If you simply hand all the decisions to a bunch of technocrats, you aren't simply being pro-science, you're also being anti-democratic.



JQP's voice was just heard in the election of Trump.



This is chicken little hyperbole. We aren't going back to leaded gasoline. America under Bill Clinton was not a hellhole of toxicity everywhere.

The real tell here is that hyperbole about a complete lack of any environmental regulations is basically all that's on offer here. Nobody has really defended the specific rules that are being scaled back here. Is it that you don't know the merits involved? Or do you not care?
Click to expand...

Not really. He lost the popular vote.
 
Polaris said:
Not really. He lost the popular vote.
Click to expand...

"Millions of citizens got the president they wanted, according to the election system they had agreed to use. Millions of citizens did *not* get the president they wanted, also according to the election system they agreed to use. From this we who did not get what we wanted conclude that the public's voice was not heard in this election."
 
Polaris said:
Not really. He lost the popular vote.
Click to expand...

And if we change the rules, WHAM, there would be 5,000,000 Republican votes in California that would actually count.

Other stats prove that if we used the popular vote, Trump would have still won. So enough with the "usurper" talk. He won, no matter how you count, or wish you count.
 
casebro said:
And if we change the rules, WHAM, there would be 5,000,000 Republican votes in California that would actually count.

Other stats prove that if we used the popular vote, Trump would have still won. So enough with the "usurper" talk. He won, no matter how you count, or wish you count.
Click to expand...

Seriously. The popular vote doesn't count in the US electoral system. Live with it, or get it changed. Don't do what Trump did back in 2012 and whine about when you lose (or think you've lost, in his case).
 
theprestige said:
"Millions of citizens got the president they wanted, according to the election system they had agreed to use. Millions of citizens did *not* get the president they wanted, also according to the election system they agreed to use. From this we who did not get what we wanted conclude that the public's voice was not heard in this election."
Click to expand...

casebro said:
And if we change the rules, WHAM, there would be 5,000,000 Republican votes in California that would actually count.

Other stats prove that if we used the popular vote, Trump would have still won. So enough with the "usurper" talk. He won, no matter how you count, or wish you count.
Click to expand...

Argumemnon said:
Seriously. The popular vote doesn't count in the US electoral system. Live with it, or get it changed. Don't do what Trump did back in 2012 and whine about when you lose (or think you've lost, in his case).
Click to expand...

Zig claimed that John Q Public's voice was heard in the election of Trump. Since Trump lost the popular vote, that claim is false. Of course Trump won the EC vote. Whether that's right and good or not is a whole other matter, and not relevant here.
 
Polaris said:
Zig claimed that John Q Public's voice was heard in the election of Trump. Since Trump lost the popular vote, that claim is false.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't false. There is no legalistic definition of "heard" in this context, nor is JQP identified solely by plurality. If you want to get pedantic about something, make sure you're actually right about it first.
 
casebro said:
And if we change the rules, WHAM, there would be 5,000,000 Republican votes in California that would actually count.

Other stats prove that if we used the popular vote, Trump would have still won. So enough with the "usurper" talk. He won, no matter how you count, or wish you count.
Click to expand...
You mean if you pretend that "popular vote" means something completely different?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
"Millions of citizens got the president they wanted, according to the election system they had agreed to use. Millions of citizens did *not* get the president they wanted, also according to the election system they agreed to use. From this we who did not get what we wanted conclude that the public's voice was not heard in this election."
Click to expand...
Not a single living person agreed to the winner-take-all electoral system, at least on a national level. This country was unable to even pass so much as a constitutional statement asserting straight up that individuals of each gender deserved equal rights. Letting alone the long, blatant, and deliberately anti-democratic policies of the Republican leadership.
 
Civet said:
I know that conservatives are much more likely to reject anthropogenic climate change, but I also got the impression that they were very concerned about air and water contaminants. I'm always seeing a lot of water purifier stuff for sale on right-wing sites and a huge amount of obsessing over mercury and lead exposure. Are they just okay with this since Trump's doing it?
Click to expand...

Not really. It's their philosophy that only those who can afford it should get clean water.
 
Shadowdweller said:
Not a single living person agreed to the winner-take-all electoral system, at least on a national level.
Click to expand...

And not a single person agreed to the appointment of all those EPA bureaucrats and their decisions, at least on a national level.

You can't claim the system is democratic to justify whatever it does that you like, but that same system is undemocratic to delegitimize whatever you don't.
 
Ziggurat said:
And not a single person agreed to the appointment of all those EPA bureaucrats and their decisions, at least on a national level.

You can't claim the system is democratic to justify whatever it does that you like, but that same system is undemocratic to delegitimize whatever you don't.
Click to expand...

Of course he can. People do it all the time! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom