67 Environmental Rules on the Way Out Under Trump

[cnm]

It's clearly me saying you really are putting in a LOT of effort to appear dumber than TM.

Really it's you refusing to admit the US has been deforested to a large degree by earlier exploitation, as though it doesn't count.

 

[gipper]

I am well aware that gov regs helped clean up America.

I think you want to have it both ways while talking in generalities you haven't thought through but which sounded good in the echo chamber.

You think government knows how to regulate. LMFAO!

You have exposed yourself as an idiot.

You have no understanding of the enormous level of environmental rules and regulations the EPA has imposed on the nation, over these past several decades.

Go away or you will be banned.

 

[Two Thumbs]

It's clearly me saying you really are putting in a LOT of effort to appear dumber than TM.

Really it's you refusing to admit the US has been deforested to a large degree by earlier exploitation, as though it doesn't count.

I'm wasn't refusing a damn thing.

now what you just claimed is what 'leaping to a conclusion' really is.


man, I know it's early, but put the computer down and finish your tea.

 

[gipper]

It's clearly me saying you really are putting in a LOT of effort to appear dumber than TM.

Really it's you refusing to admit the US has been deforested to a large degree by earlier exploitation, as though it doesn't count.

I'm wasn't refusing a damn thing.

now what you just claimed is what 'leaping to a conclusion' really is.


man, I know it's early, but put the computer down and finish your tea.

Time to ban this jackass.

 

[cnm]

http://education.seattlepi.com/rates-deforestation-reforestation-us-3804.html

Rates of Deforestation & Reforestation in the U.S.
http://education.seattlepi.com/rates-deforestation-reforestation-us-3804.html
http://education.seattlepi.com/

Current Forest Cover

As of 2010, the United States had 304,022,000 hectares (751,255,000 acres) of forested lands, a number that represents one-third of the country. Of this area, 25 percent is old growth forest, 67 percent is secondary forest, and 8 percent is tree farms or plantations. The United States is frequently divided into the Northeast, Southeast and the West because of forest eco-type and historical forestry practices. These regions have 41 percent, 40 percent and 28 percent forest cover, respectively, although the West has the most acres of forested lands.

Historical Forest Trends
It is estimated that prior to European settlement, the United States. was 46 percent forested. European settlers quickly harvested much of the available timber for housing, industry, the creation of railroads and to clear land for farming. By 1907, the U.S. forest cover was reduced to 33 percent. The eastern portion of the nation was disproportionately affected during this era because it was more heavily settled and had better agricultural soils and climate than the West. Since 1953, the trend in the northern region has been increasing forest cover while the South and West have trended level to slightly downward.

Deforestation Rates
The United States lost an average of 384,350 hectares (949,750 acres) of forest each year between 1990 and 2010. A total of almost 4 million hectares (10 million acres) of timber is harvested each year, but most of that timber regenerates and remains classified as forested land, albeit at a different successional stage. So the deforestation here refers to lands that are converted from forest to some other purpose. Deforestation could increase in the future because tree pests and diseases such as bark beetles are becoming more prevalent in the face of climate change.​

 

[Two Thumbs]

It's clearly me saying you really are putting in a LOT of effort to appear dumber than TM.

Really it's you refusing to admit the US has been deforested to a large degree by earlier exploitation, as though it doesn't count.

I'm wasn't refusing a damn thing.

now what you just claimed is what 'leaping to a conclusion' really is.


man, I know it's early, but put the computer down and finish your tea.

Time to ban this jackass.

for what?

he kinda funny, in a sad pathetic sort of way

 

[Two Thumbs]

Rates of Deforestation & Reforestation in the U.S.
http://education.seattlepi.com/

Current Forest Cover

As of 2010, the United States had 304,022,000 hectares (751,255,000 acres) of forested lands, a number that represents one-third of the country. Of this area, 25 percent is old growth forest, 67 percent is secondary forest, and 8 percent is tree farms or plantations. The United States is frequently divided into the Northeast, Southeast and the West because of forest eco-type and historical forestry practices. These regions have 41 percent, 40 percent and 28 percent forest cover, respectively, although the West has the most acres of forested lands.

Historical Forest Trends
It is estimated that prior to European settlement, the United States. was 46 percent forested. European settlers quickly harvested much of the available timber for housing, industry, the creation of railroads and to clear land for farming. By 1907, the U.S. forest cover was reduced to 33 percent. The eastern portion of the nation was disproportionately affected during this era because it was more heavily settled and had better agricultural soils and climate than the West. Since 1953, the trend in the northern region has been increasing forest cover while the South and West have trended level to slightly downward.

Deforestation Rates
The United States lost an average of 384,350 hectares (949,750 acres) of forest each year between 1990 and 2010. A total of almost 4 million hectares (10 million acres) of timber is harvested each year, but most of that timber regenerates and remains classified as forested land, albeit at a different successional stage. So the deforestation here refers to lands that are converted from forest to some other purpose. Deforestation could increase in the future because tree pests and diseases such as bark beetles are becoming more prevalent in the face of climate change.​

nobody cares.

why?

B/c there's more trees now than 100 years ago

 

[cnm]

B/c there's more trees now than 100 years ago

Not according to the citation I gave. 33% of land was forested in 1907, which is the current rate of forestation.

At which point about 25% of original forest area had been lost.

 

[cnm]

for what?

Scaring big bad libertarians.

 

[Two Thumbs]

B/c there's more trees now than 100 years ago

Not according to the citation I gave. 33% of land was forested in 1907, which is the current rate of forestation.

At which point about 25% of original forest area had been lost.

• More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true! | MNN ...
  https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/...
  Moving forward, we will continue to have more trees, and more forests than in years past. It's important that we encourage foresters and governments in Third World countries, where deforestation is still occurring at an alarming rate, to do the same.

• America has more trees now than it's had in 100 years. But ...
  www.upworthy.com/america-has-more-trees-now-than-its-had-in-100...
  America has more trees now than it's had in 100 years. But we're not out of the woods yet. Advertisement ...

• We have more trees than thought, but fewer than ever ...
  www.chicagotribune.com/...tree-study-deforestation-20150902-story.html
  Sep 02, 2015 · We have more trees than thought, but fewer than ever. ... The new research suggests that massively more trees need to be planted ... We have to generate ...

• There are more trees in America today, than there were 200 ...
  https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view...
  That's why we probably DO have more trees today, than we did 200 years ago. I've seen old growth forests, and I've seen the hideous brush covered forests that struggle to recover, after they've been raped by the lumber barons.

• Scientists discover that the world contains dramatically ...
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/09/...
  The new research suggests that massively more trees need to be planted than previously thought — but Crowther said ... We have to generate this baseline ...

• Are there more trees in the US now than 200 years ago ...
  https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100314230936AA0908w
  Mar 14, 2010 · I live in a town in western Arizona. over the years a lot of trees were planted, few of them native to the area. On the other hand a lot more trees were cut down to build the the town so I doubt if we're even up on the overall tree count. Of course the issue isn't the number of trees, the issue is the the number of acres of forest.
  
  • Status: Resolved
  • Answers: 10
  Can you confirm that there are more trees in the United ... Status: Resolved
  In the US how many fewer trees than 100 years ago? | Yahoo ... Status: Resolved
  Do we have more trees now then 200 years ago? | Yahoo Answers Status: Resolved

 

[gipper]

It's clearly me saying you really are putting in a LOT of effort to appear dumber than TM.

Really it's you refusing to admit the US has been deforested to a large degree by earlier exploitation, as though it doesn't count.

I'm wasn't refusing a damn thing.

now what you just claimed is what 'leaping to a conclusion' really is.


man, I know it's early, but put the computer down and finish your tea.

Time to ban this jackass.

for what?

he kinda funny, in a sad pathetic sort of way

I have only banned one other person in all my years here. For some reason I let this ignorant weasel get to me. I won't let it happen again.

 

[cnm]

More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true! | MNN ...

From this link in that link...

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),

After two centuries of decline, the area of US forestland stabilized in about 1920 and has since increased slightly. The forest area of the US is about two-thirds what it was in 1600.
​

Yahoo answers doesn't really cut it. Sorry. But in any case it has been government regulation that has promoted what recovery there has been from private exploitation. How this can be disputed is beyond me.

 

[cnm]

I have only banned one other person in all my years here.

Yeah? You a secret mod? How scary.

 

[Two Thumbs]

More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true! | MNN ...

From this link in that link...

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),

After two centuries of decline, the area of US forestland stabilized in about 1920 and has since increased slightly. The forest area of the US is about two-thirds what it was in 1600.
​

Yahoo answers doesn't really cut it. Sorry. But in any case it has been government regulation that has promoted what recovery there has been from private exploitation. How this can be disputed is beyond me.

you proved me right

you mad bro?

 

[gtopa1]

Enjoy your black lung
Enjoy your dirty water
Enjoy knowing that your kids and grand kids will never know or see most animal life that you got to see.
Enjoy the smog

Someone moving to a Socialist Heaven....like China??

Greg

 

[mudwhistle]

The "environmental" regulations wisely being reversed were put in place for one reason. And that is to damage the American economy.

They were put in place to weaken America and to rob us of our wealth concentrations.

Yep that nasty clean water really does bog down economic giants...

You're just acting paranoid. Trump supports clean water and both you and I know that.

Obama admittedly wanted to make electricity rates skyrocket.

You are a fucked up liar. Trump cares nothing about clean water. The doing away with the rules concerning mountain top mining allows the pollution of watersheds, that shows that the treasonous old clown cares nothing about clean water.

President Obama thought that the cost of wind and solar would not decrease as rapidly as they have. He was wrong, as the cost of both have rapidly decreased, and now it is cheaper to install wind and solar, and both produce electricity for less cost than do coal or gas. That is why in Texas they are installing both at record rate. So renewables are saving money for the customers.

I remember when Bush was accused of this same rubbish when he entered office.
Bill Clinton signed EOs that would have made a gallon of bottled water cost $100 because of his new EPA regulations. It was designed to force the new president to get rid of it so they could criticize him. Call it a poison pill. An intentional regulation or amendment that crooked politicians know no rational person would allow to remain in a piece of legislation. Obama's regulations were often designed to cause massive cost increases. They sounded good but were impractical and not cost-effective.

 

[mudwhistle]

The "environmental" regulations wisely being reversed were put in place for one reason. And that is to damage the American economy.

They were put in place to weaken America and to rob us of our wealth concentrations.

What an idiot you are. The wealth concentrations are now investing in renewables as they see a better return on their money in those sectors than the do in fossil fuels.

The only wealth concentrations the UN is worried about is in the US.
Nevermind all of the wealth concentrations in countries like Saudi Arabia that sell fossil fuels.
Those WC aren't even a problem.
Ask Saudi Arabia and other oil producers to contribute to their own competitors???
Figure the odds.
Renewable producers need to learn how to be self-sufficient like every other business.

 

[gipper]

The "environmental" regulations wisely being reversed were put in place for one reason. And that is to damage the American economy.

They were put in place to weaken America and to rob us of our wealth concentrations.

What an idiot you are. The wealth concentrations are now investing in renewables as they see a better return on their money in those sectors than the do in fossil fuels.

The only wealth concentrations the UN is worried about is in the US.
Nevermind all of the wealth concentrations in countries like Saudi Arabia that sell fossil fuels.
Those WC aren't even a problem.
Ask Saudi Arabia and other oil producers to contribute to their own competitors???
Figure the odds.
Renewable producers need to learn how to be self-sufficient like every other business.

At any rate, renewables are a joke. Many of them require lots fossil fuel, to make them.

Just more typical bull shit lies by the enviro whackos.

 

[Muhammed]

Gooooo Trump!!!!!!!

And I thought Trump just sat around played golf, watched television and trolled the MSM...




67 Environmental
Rules on the Way
Out Under Trump


By NADJA POPOVICH, LIVIA ALBECK-RIPKA andKENDRA PIERRE-LOUIS UPDATED Jan. 31, 2018

Since taking office last year, President Trump has made eliminating federal regulations a priority. His administration — with help from Republicans in Congress — has often targeted environmental rules it sees as overly burdensome to the fossil fuel industry, including major Obama-era policies aimed at fighting climate change.

To date, the Trump administration has sought to reverse more than 60 environmental rules, according to a New York Times analysis, based on research from Harvard Law School’s Environmental Regulation Rollback Tracker, Columbia Law School’s Climate Tracker and other sources.

33rules have been overturned

24rollbacks are
in progress

10rollbacks are
in limbo



67 Environmental Rules on the Way Out Under Trump




.

Oh No! That meanie Trump is thwarting political watermelon efforts to transform the USA into the cleanest 3rd world country on Earth!

 

[Old Rocks]

How long before there is a Trump staffer fired for domestic abuse, corruption, security risk, or simple stupidity to match all 67 regulations. LOL Do you think President Pence will continue to cut environmental regulations when he has to assume the mantle as the orange clown leaves in disgrace?