Trump Saves Lives by Killing EPA Regulations

[bodecea]

That's right, folks, rgulations cost more than just money. They also cost lives. When people don't have enough money to pay for health insurance, drugs, groceries, etc, they sometimes die. Poverty kills, and Obama's pointless regulations create more poverty

Trump Improves Transparency by Ending EPA Sue-and-Settle Agreements

Poverty remains, by far, the biggest killer of humans, and government-imposed regulations have been proven to create economic costs that make poverty more likely. As a result, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget estimates every $7.5 million to $12 million in regulatory costs imposed on the economy results in a life lost.

Federal and state government regulatory costs top $1.9 trillion annually, amounting to $14,842 per U.S. household. That’s nearly $15,000 that’s unavailable to families to pay for health insurance, medicine or medical bills, college expenses, groceries, a new car, or vacations.

These facts clearly show why substantive and formal transparency is critical when developing and imposing regulations. Regulations should be built on unimpeachable science. To best ensure that occurs, government agencies should disclose all the science, models, and information exchanges used to make agency decisions, and no agency should be allowed to use any report to support or justify a rule if the research is not open to verification by outside parties.

Additionally, every government research contract should require recipients to make available all assumptions, models, data, and email exchanges related to the contracted research upon receiving a Freedom of Information Act request or a request by a congressional committee that has proper oversight.

Increasing transparency in the research processes used to justify regulations is not enough. There must also be transparent processes for establishing new rules forced on the public by regulatory agencies.

Existing laws already require transparency in the normal rulemaking process. For instance, regulatory agencies must reach out to stakeholders, including state governments likely to be affected by proposed rules, for input concerning the need for a rule and what form it should take. Laws or internal agency rules also typically require public hearings and a public notice period while regulations are being drafted and, once drafted, before they are finalized.

However, during President Barack Obama’s administration, rather than following this legally required transparency process, bureaucrats worked behind the scenes to collude with lobbyists from radical environmental groups to impose costly policies outside of the normal rulemaking process and expand the coffers of environmental groups using “sue-and-settle.”

Sue-and-settle is a strategy used most often by environmental special-interest groups. The groups sue a federal agency, demanding the agency issue rules by a specific deadline, and the group and agency then enter into a private settlement that becomes legally binding for the agency. These agreements allow rules to be created without agencies having to go through the normal rulemaking channels, and there are no public comment periods. ​

Cool.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes

Coal and polluted rivers wil save us all

You will not find pollution as cause of death but respiratory failure.

/—-/ and how is that caused by pollution and not other factors? If true you have clusters of people dying of respiratory problems not isolated cases.

If you look at a map of emmissions from coal fired power plants and a map showing where people lived when they died of respitory failure, you'll note there is absolutely no correlation.

Of course the direct opposite is true..
PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEAR COAL PLANTS SHOW HEALTH ISSUES.
https://www.upi.com/Poor-who-live-near-coal-plants-show-health-issues/19771353090681

Even common sense will tell you that.

Speaking of stupid, note that the report referred to was written by the NCAAP, not the EPA or any scientific organization. Also, note the following:

People living within 3 miles of a coal plant are more likely to inhale pollutants that cause respiratory problems such as asthma, researchers said. They also said people living within 3 miles of a coal plant are disproportionately low-income and minorities.
​

It doesn't say that people living within 3 miles of a coal plant are more likely to suffer from respitory problems. That's because there is no such evidence. The location of coal fired power plants has no effect whatsoever on the incidence of respitory disease. No one has ever demonstrated such a correlation.

The bottom line is that no one has ever died or even become sick from a modern coal fired power plant. No one.

You’re entitled to your opinion but you’re not entitled butchering the facts.
You’re 100% totally full of shit.


Pollution from America's power plants is a deadly serious problem, a new study shows
Living on Earth

Avon Lake, a coal-fired power plant near Cleveland, has been out of compliance with the Clean Air Act for at least three years. Its particulate pollution is responsible for hundreds of premature deaths, according to PSE Healthy Energy and NextGen Climate America.
*****Residents living closest to power plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania caused up to 4,400 premature deaths across the country in 2015, according to a new study. *****


****Residents closest to the plants, near Pittsburgh and Cleveland, had the highest premature death rates, but particulates and other pollutants from those power plants increased mortality and morbidity as far away as Maryland, New Jersey and Massachusetts. ****

Pollution from America's power plants is a deadly serious problem, a new study shows

From your article:

To calculate how these power plants cause health effects that result in premature death, the researchers used an EPA model called COBRA — Co-Benefits Risk Assessment Model. They took existing historic emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which are measured at every power plant every hour, and combined this data with an atmospheric model that looks at how those pollutants react in the atmosphere to form particulate matter and maps where the pollutants go in relation to population centers. Based on how many people live in each county, they estimated how much particulate matter individuals living in those areas inhale.


“The health impacts are based on modeling work, so we cannot say, ‘This person specifically had a heart attack because of pollutant emissions at this plant,’” Krieger explains. “What we can say is that we know that high concentrations of particulate matter are associated with a whole range of health impacts leading up to premature death, particularly for vulnerable populations like the elderly and those with underlying diseases.”
​

In short, they didn't measure how many people in the so-called affected areas actually suffered the claimed health effects. They only modelled them. In other words, they have no evidence of any actual health effects. They simply assume such affects.

No banana.

 

[bripat9643]

How do you know when a Trumpie is lying? He’s breathing.

Bripat: People living near coal plants don’t have health problems or deaths.

Now the truth once again:

******Residents living closest to power plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania caused up to 4,400 premature deaths across the country in 2015, according to a new study. *****


****Residents closest to the plants, near Pittsburgh and Cleveland, had the highest premature death rates, but particulates and other pollutants from those power plants increased mortality and morbidity as far away as Maryland, New Jersey and Massachusetts. ****

What you failed to understand is that your study didn't actually measure any of the claimed health effects. They used a model that assumed these health affects.

You are scientifically illiterate. That's why you fall for the EPA abracadabra.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes

Coal and polluted rivers wil save us all

Coal does save lives. Nobody wants polluted rivers but let's keep in mind the last river that was polluted was done by the EPA. So maybe they aren't all that special.

Coal is obsolete

Trump gave them permission to start dumping in our rivers again

Makes America great

Yeah, coal is about as obsolete as fishing for food is.

I heard corn was obsolete for eating.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

How do you know when a Trumpie is lying? He’s breathing.

Bripat: People living near coal plants don’t have health problems or deaths.

Now the truth once again:

******Residents living closest to power plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania caused up to 4,400 premature deaths across the country in 2015, according to a new study. *****


****Residents closest to the plants, near Pittsburgh and Cleveland, had the highest premature death rates, but particulates and other pollutants from those power plants increased mortality and morbidity as far away as Maryland, New Jersey and Massachusetts. ****

Did he say "Let me be clear"? That's the telltale sign you're about to hear some serious bullshit. I know, I'm an expert, been hearing it for eight years.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump Saves Lives by Killing EPA Regulations

Yeah, coal will help us live longer.

It sure as hell does. Cheap electricty refrigerates our food and makes it possible to pay for food, health insurance and prescription drugs.

Do you thnk more people die when everything is expensive or when everything is cheap?

natural gas is cheaper than coal....and much cleaner...

how many lives are saved by having the regulations? Be good to know, so we can compare....

No lives were saved by Obama's "Clean Power Plan." But it would have tripled our power bills.

I doubt that...!!!

coal power: air pollution

coal power: air pollution
...

Burning coal is also a leading cause of smog, acid rain, and toxic air pollution. Some emissions can be significantly reduced with readily available pollution controls, but most U.S. coal plants have not installed these technologies.

• 
  
  
  • Sulfur dioxide (SO2): Coal plants are the United States’ leading source of SO2 pollution, which takes a major toll on public health, including by contributing to the formation of small acidic particulates that can penetrate into human lungs and be absorbed by the bloodstream. SO2 also causes acid rain, which damages crops, forests, and soils, and acidifies lakes and streams. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 14,100 tons of SO2 per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including flue gas desulfurization (smokestack scrubbers), emits 7,000 tons of SO2 per year.
  • Nitrogen oxides (NOx): NOx pollution causes ground level ozone, or smog, which can burn lung tissue, exacerbate asthma, and make people more susceptible to chronic respiratory diseases. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 10,300 tons of NOx per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including selective catalytic reduction technology, emits 3,300 tons of NOx per year.
  • Particulate matter: Particulate matter (also referred to as soot or fly ash) can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility. A typical uncontrolled plan emits 500 tons of small airborne particles each year. Baghouses installed inside coal plant smokestacks can capture as much as 99 percent of the particulates.
  • Mercury: Coal plants are responsible for more than half of the U.S. human-caused emissions of mercury, a toxic heavy metal that causes brain damage and heart problems. Just 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat. A typical uncontrolled coal plants emits approximately 170 pounds of mercury each year. Activated carbon injection technology can reduce mercury emissions by up to 90 percent when combined with baghouses. ACI technology is currently found on just 8 percent of the U.S. coal fleet.

Other harmful pollutants emitted annually from a typical, uncontrolled coal plant include approximately:

• 
  
  
  • 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium. Baghouses can reduce heavy metal emissions by up to 90 percent3.
  • 720 tons of carbon monoxide, which causes headaches and places additional stress on people with heart disease.
  • 220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
  • 225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.

Most coal plants have scrubber technology, so your initial claim is wrong. All your pollution figures are based on plants with no scrubbers.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Yes

Coal and polluted rivers wil save us all

Coal does save lives. Nobody wants polluted rivers but let's keep in mind the last river that was polluted was done by the EPA. So maybe they aren't all that special.

Coal is obsolete

Trump gave them permission to start dumping in our rivers again

Makes America great

Yeah, coal is about as obsolete as fishing for food is.

I heard corn was obsolete for eating.

Apparently now it's only good for turning into gas for cars. Progress right?

 

[jillian]

That's right, folks, rgulations cost more than just money. They also cost lives. When people don't have enough money to pay for health insurance, drugs, groceries, etc, they sometimes die. Poverty kills, and Obama's pointless regulations create more poverty

Trump Improves Transparency by Ending EPA Sue-and-Settle Agreements

Poverty remains, by far, the biggest killer of humans, and government-imposed regulations have been proven to create economic costs that make poverty more likely. As a result, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget estimates every $7.5 million to $12 million in regulatory costs imposed on the economy results in a life lost.

Federal and state government regulatory costs top $1.9 trillion annually, amounting to $14,842 per U.S. household. That’s nearly $15,000 that’s unavailable to families to pay for health insurance, medicine or medical bills, college expenses, groceries, a new car, or vacations.

These facts clearly show why substantive and formal transparency is critical when developing and imposing regulations. Regulations should be built on unimpeachable science. To best ensure that occurs, government agencies should disclose all the science, models, and information exchanges used to make agency decisions, and no agency should be allowed to use any report to support or justify a rule if the research is not open to verification by outside parties.

Additionally, every government research contract should require recipients to make available all assumptions, models, data, and email exchanges related to the contracted research upon receiving a Freedom of Information Act request or a request by a congressional committee that has proper oversight.

Increasing transparency in the research processes used to justify regulations is not enough. There must also be transparent processes for establishing new rules forced on the public by regulatory agencies.

Existing laws already require transparency in the normal rulemaking process. For instance, regulatory agencies must reach out to stakeholders, including state governments likely to be affected by proposed rules, for input concerning the need for a rule and what form it should take. Laws or internal agency rules also typically require public hearings and a public notice period while regulations are being drafted and, once drafted, before they are finalized.

However, during President Barack Obama’s administration, rather than following this legally required transparency process, bureaucrats worked behind the scenes to collude with lobbyists from radical environmental groups to impose costly policies outside of the normal rulemaking process and expand the coffers of environmental groups using “sue-and-settle.”

Sue-and-settle is a strategy used most often by environmental special-interest groups. The groups sue a federal agency, demanding the agency issue rules by a specific deadline, and the group and agency then enter into a private settlement that becomes legally binding for the agency. These agreements allow rules to be created without agencies having to go through the normal rulemaking channels, and there are no public comment periods. ​

only someone with the IQ of a carrot would think dumping chemicals into your air and water is good for you.

 

[Reasonable]

How do you know when a Trumpie is lying? He’s breathing.

Bripat: People living near coal plants don’t have health problems or deaths.

Now the truth once again:

******Residents living closest to power plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania caused up to 4,400 premature deaths across the country in 2015, according to a new study. *****


****Residents closest to the plants, near Pittsburgh and Cleveland, had the highest premature death rates, but particulates and other pollutants from those power plants increased mortality and morbidity as far away as Maryland, New Jersey and Massachusetts. ****

What you failed to understand is that your study didn't actually measure any of the claimed health effects. They used a model that assumed these health affects.

You are scientifically illiterate. That's why you fall for the EPA abracadabra.

They used a real study using real people with real health issues. Once again you’re totally full of it.
I provided facts and statistics. You pulled shit straight from your ass like you always do.

We all know you feel the need to pimp for the fossil fuel companies. It’s what ignoramuses on the right do. You must obey your masters.

 

[bripat9643]

That's right, folks, rgulations cost more than just money. They also cost lives. When people don't have enough money to pay for health insurance, drugs, groceries, etc, they sometimes die. Poverty kills, and Obama's pointless regulations create more poverty

Trump Improves Transparency by Ending EPA Sue-and-Settle Agreements

Poverty remains, by far, the biggest killer of humans, and government-imposed regulations have been proven to create economic costs that make poverty more likely. As a result, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget estimates every $7.5 million to $12 million in regulatory costs imposed on the economy results in a life lost.

Federal and state government regulatory costs top $1.9 trillion annually, amounting to $14,842 per U.S. household. That’s nearly $15,000 that’s unavailable to families to pay for health insurance, medicine or medical bills, college expenses, groceries, a new car, or vacations.

These facts clearly show why substantive and formal transparency is critical when developing and imposing regulations. Regulations should be built on unimpeachable science. To best ensure that occurs, government agencies should disclose all the science, models, and information exchanges used to make agency decisions, and no agency should be allowed to use any report to support or justify a rule if the research is not open to verification by outside parties.

Additionally, every government research contract should require recipients to make available all assumptions, models, data, and email exchanges related to the contracted research upon receiving a Freedom of Information Act request or a request by a congressional committee that has proper oversight.

Increasing transparency in the research processes used to justify regulations is not enough. There must also be transparent processes for establishing new rules forced on the public by regulatory agencies.

Existing laws already require transparency in the normal rulemaking process. For instance, regulatory agencies must reach out to stakeholders, including state governments likely to be affected by proposed rules, for input concerning the need for a rule and what form it should take. Laws or internal agency rules also typically require public hearings and a public notice period while regulations are being drafted and, once drafted, before they are finalized.

However, during President Barack Obama’s administration, rather than following this legally required transparency process, bureaucrats worked behind the scenes to collude with lobbyists from radical environmental groups to impose costly policies outside of the normal rulemaking process and expand the coffers of environmental groups using “sue-and-settle.”

Sue-and-settle is a strategy used most often by environmental special-interest groups. The groups sue a federal agency, demanding the agency issue rules by a specific deadline, and the group and agency then enter into a private settlement that becomes legally binding for the agency. These agreements allow rules to be created without agencies having to go through the normal rulemaking channels, and there are no public comment periods. ​

only someone with the IQ of a carrot would think dumping chemicals into your air and water is good for you.

That's already against the law, dingbat. Where did I say it was good for you?

 

[Reasonable]

That's right, folks, rgulations cost more than just money. They also cost lives. When people don't have enough money to pay for health insurance, drugs, groceries, etc, they sometimes die. Poverty kills, and Obama's pointless regulations create more poverty

Trump Improves Transparency by Ending EPA Sue-and-Settle Agreements

Poverty remains, by far, the biggest killer of humans, and government-imposed regulations have been proven to create economic costs that make poverty more likely. As a result, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget estimates every $7.5 million to $12 million in regulatory costs imposed on the economy results in a life lost.

Federal and state government regulatory costs top $1.9 trillion annually, amounting to $14,842 per U.S. household. That’s nearly $15,000 that’s unavailable to families to pay for health insurance, medicine or medical bills, college expenses, groceries, a new car, or vacations.

These facts clearly show why substantive and formal transparency is critical when developing and imposing regulations. Regulations should be built on unimpeachable science. To best ensure that occurs, government agencies should disclose all the science, models, and information exchanges used to make agency decisions, and no agency should be allowed to use any report to support or justify a rule if the research is not open to verification by outside parties.

Additionally, every government research contract should require recipients to make available all assumptions, models, data, and email exchanges related to the contracted research upon receiving a Freedom of Information Act request or a request by a congressional committee that has proper oversight.

Increasing transparency in the research processes used to justify regulations is not enough. There must also be transparent processes for establishing new rules forced on the public by regulatory agencies.

Existing laws already require transparency in the normal rulemaking process. For instance, regulatory agencies must reach out to stakeholders, including state governments likely to be affected by proposed rules, for input concerning the need for a rule and what form it should take. Laws or internal agency rules also typically require public hearings and a public notice period while regulations are being drafted and, once drafted, before they are finalized.

However, during President Barack Obama’s administration, rather than following this legally required transparency process, bureaucrats worked behind the scenes to collude with lobbyists from radical environmental groups to impose costly policies outside of the normal rulemaking process and expand the coffers of environmental groups using “sue-and-settle.”

Sue-and-settle is a strategy used most often by environmental special-interest groups. The groups sue a federal agency, demanding the agency issue rules by a specific deadline, and the group and agency then enter into a private settlement that becomes legally binding for the agency. These agreements allow rules to be created without agencies having to go through the normal rulemaking channels, and there are no public comment periods. ​

only someone with the IQ of a carrot would think dumping chemicals into your air and water is good for you.

Isn’t that incredible?
Let’s just call him Bugs Bunny.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

That's right, folks, rgulations cost more than just money. They also cost lives. When people don't have enough money to pay for health insurance, drugs, groceries, etc, they sometimes die. Poverty kills, and Obama's pointless regulations create more poverty

Trump Improves Transparency by Ending EPA Sue-and-Settle Agreements

Poverty remains, by far, the biggest killer of humans, and government-imposed regulations have been proven to create economic costs that make poverty more likely. As a result, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget estimates every $7.5 million to $12 million in regulatory costs imposed on the economy results in a life lost.

Federal and state government regulatory costs top $1.9 trillion annually, amounting to $14,842 per U.S. household. That’s nearly $15,000 that’s unavailable to families to pay for health insurance, medicine or medical bills, college expenses, groceries, a new car, or vacations.

These facts clearly show why substantive and formal transparency is critical when developing and imposing regulations. Regulations should be built on unimpeachable science. To best ensure that occurs, government agencies should disclose all the science, models, and information exchanges used to make agency decisions, and no agency should be allowed to use any report to support or justify a rule if the research is not open to verification by outside parties.

Additionally, every government research contract should require recipients to make available all assumptions, models, data, and email exchanges related to the contracted research upon receiving a Freedom of Information Act request or a request by a congressional committee that has proper oversight.

Increasing transparency in the research processes used to justify regulations is not enough. There must also be transparent processes for establishing new rules forced on the public by regulatory agencies.

Existing laws already require transparency in the normal rulemaking process. For instance, regulatory agencies must reach out to stakeholders, including state governments likely to be affected by proposed rules, for input concerning the need for a rule and what form it should take. Laws or internal agency rules also typically require public hearings and a public notice period while regulations are being drafted and, once drafted, before they are finalized.

However, during President Barack Obama’s administration, rather than following this legally required transparency process, bureaucrats worked behind the scenes to collude with lobbyists from radical environmental groups to impose costly policies outside of the normal rulemaking process and expand the coffers of environmental groups using “sue-and-settle.”

Sue-and-settle is a strategy used most often by environmental special-interest groups. The groups sue a federal agency, demanding the agency issue rules by a specific deadline, and the group and agency then enter into a private settlement that becomes legally binding for the agency. These agreements allow rules to be created without agencies having to go through the normal rulemaking channels, and there are no public comment periods. ​

only someone with the IQ of a carrot would think dumping chemicals into your air and water is good for you.

Only someone with the brains of the dung used to fertilize that carrot would think that's what we're talking about here.

 

[bripat9643]

How do you know when a Trumpie is lying? He’s breathing.

Bripat: People living near coal plants don’t have health problems or deaths.

Now the truth once again:

******Residents living closest to power plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania caused up to 4,400 premature deaths across the country in 2015, according to a new study. *****


****Residents closest to the plants, near Pittsburgh and Cleveland, had the highest premature death rates, but particulates and other pollutants from those power plants increased mortality and morbidity as far away as Maryland, New Jersey and Massachusetts. ****

What you failed to understand is that your study didn't actually measure any of the claimed health effects. They used a model that assumed these health affects.

You are scientifically illiterate. That's why you fall for the EPA abracadabra.

They used a real study using real people with real health issues. Once again you’re totally full of shit.
I provided facts and statistics. You pulled shit straight from your ass like you always do.

We all know you feel the need to pimp for the fossil fuel companies. It’s what ignoramuses on the right do. You must obey your masters.

No they didn't. Read the article. It says they used a "model." They did not look at actual cases of respitory illnes. Nowhere does it mention any such figures.

To calculate how these power plants cause health effects that result in premature death, the researchers used an EPA model called COBRA — Co-Benefits Risk Assessment Model. They took existing historic emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which are measured at every power plant every hour, and combined this data with an atmospheric model that looks at how those pollutants react in the atmosphere to form particulate matter and maps where the pollutants go in relation to population centers. Based on how many people live in each county, they estimated how much particulate matter individuals living in those areas inhale.

“The health impacts are based on modeling work, so we cannot say, ‘This person specifically had a heart attack because of pollutant emissions at this plant,’” Krieger explains. “What we can say is that we know that high concentrations of particulate matter are associated with a whole range of health impacts leading up to premature death, particularly for vulnerable populations like the elderly and those with underlying diseases.”
​

You've been snookered by EPA abracadabra.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

That's right, folks, rgulations cost more than just money. They also cost lives. When people don't have enough money to pay for health insurance, drugs, groceries, etc, they sometimes die. Poverty kills, and Obama's pointless regulations create more poverty

Trump Improves Transparency by Ending EPA Sue-and-Settle Agreements

Poverty remains, by far, the biggest killer of humans, and government-imposed regulations have been proven to create economic costs that make poverty more likely. As a result, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget estimates every $7.5 million to $12 million in regulatory costs imposed on the economy results in a life lost.

Federal and state government regulatory costs top $1.9 trillion annually, amounting to $14,842 per U.S. household. That’s nearly $15,000 that’s unavailable to families to pay for health insurance, medicine or medical bills, college expenses, groceries, a new car, or vacations.

These facts clearly show why substantive and formal transparency is critical when developing and imposing regulations. Regulations should be built on unimpeachable science. To best ensure that occurs, government agencies should disclose all the science, models, and information exchanges used to make agency decisions, and no agency should be allowed to use any report to support or justify a rule if the research is not open to verification by outside parties.

Additionally, every government research contract should require recipients to make available all assumptions, models, data, and email exchanges related to the contracted research upon receiving a Freedom of Information Act request or a request by a congressional committee that has proper oversight.

Increasing transparency in the research processes used to justify regulations is not enough. There must also be transparent processes for establishing new rules forced on the public by regulatory agencies.

Existing laws already require transparency in the normal rulemaking process. For instance, regulatory agencies must reach out to stakeholders, including state governments likely to be affected by proposed rules, for input concerning the need for a rule and what form it should take. Laws or internal agency rules also typically require public hearings and a public notice period while regulations are being drafted and, once drafted, before they are finalized.

However, during President Barack Obama’s administration, rather than following this legally required transparency process, bureaucrats worked behind the scenes to collude with lobbyists from radical environmental groups to impose costly policies outside of the normal rulemaking process and expand the coffers of environmental groups using “sue-and-settle.”

Sue-and-settle is a strategy used most often by environmental special-interest groups. The groups sue a federal agency, demanding the agency issue rules by a specific deadline, and the group and agency then enter into a private settlement that becomes legally binding for the agency. These agreements allow rules to be created without agencies having to go through the normal rulemaking channels, and there are no public comment periods. ​

only someone with the IQ of a carrot would think dumping chemicals into your air and water is good for you.

Isn’t that incredible?
Let’s just call him Bugs Bunny.

Then let's just call you tapeworm since you spend all of your time with your head up the DNC's ass eating their shit.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Yes

Coal and polluted rivers wil save us all

Coal does save lives. Nobody wants polluted rivers but let's keep in mind the last river that was polluted was done by the EPA. So maybe they aren't all that special.

Coal is obsolete

Trump gave them permission to start dumping in our rivers again

Makes America great

Yeah, coal is about as obsolete as fishing for food is.

/----/ Libs say fishing is mean and cruel and we should ban it all together. If you want fish, just go to the supermarket.

 

[hadit]

Trump Saves Lives by Killing EPA Regulations

Yeah, coal will help us live longer.

It sure as hell does. Cheap electricty refrigerates our food and makes it possible to pay for food, health insurance and prescription drugs.

Do you thnk more people die when everything is expensive or when everything is cheap?

Why don't you throw your computer out and send your posts by snail mail to the USMB, that's an accurate equivalency to your stupid argument.
This is why progressives call idiots like you regressives. You want to go back 200 years in energy production instead of moving forward into solar and wind.
You really think it's cheaper to mine coal than to harvest the wind and the sunlight?

Yes, abusively its cheaper. If it wasn't, we'd use something else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk