Trump's cabinet

[BigRedBuster]

I know so many of you are in a panic with the pick of Scott Pruitt as EPA head but I for one like the guy. I've followed his career here in Okla for many years. He knows the constitution inside and out and therefore is a strong believer in the federal concept of maintaining the correct balance of power between state and federal govts. If ever there was a dept that has over reached on regulations, it is the EPA. I think he will return some common sense to the dept and lesson the burdens placed on farmers and industry while still protecting the environment. I'm sure I'll get a bunch of flack for this statement but the people in this state who know him and followed him have found him to be a pretty straight forward, standup guy willing to stick his neck out on behalf of the state. Many predicted he would be either the next governor of the state or next US Senator.

Don't know the guy from Adam. But, I hope you are correct.

[knapplc]

It's very clear that we're going to have to make some serious, long-term mistakes for people to understand the need to protect our environment. The people complaining about EPA overreach are trying to profit off of the environment.

 

Let's go ahead and make huge mistake after huge mistake. Let's continue to burn coal, let's continue fracking, let's continue to let big business make big profits at the expense of clean air, clean water, stable earth. OK.

[QMany]

[knapplc]

But, but, but!!! The Clean Air and Water Act inhibit profits! WE NEED R PROFITS!!!!!!

[BigRedBuster]

It's very clear that we're going to have to make some serious, long-term mistakes for people to understand the need to protect our environment. The people complaining about EPA overreach are trying to profit off of the environment.

 

Let's go ahead and make huge mistake after huge mistake. Let's continue to burn coal, let's continue fracking, let's continue to let big business make big profits at the expense of clean air, clean water, stable earth. OK.

Not necessarily.

 

I personally have experienced EPA regulations that make absolutely no sense what so ever.

 

I am ALL for clean air and clean water. I have absolutely no desire to go back to the 1970s America where we had rivers starting on fire.

 

However, people act like if you simply ask for reasonable regulations you are some type of heathen that doesn't give a crap.

[knapplc]

Scott Pruitt isn't asking for reasonable regulations. He's the kind of guy who wants to neuter the EPA.

 

I'm all for reasonable regulations, and not pro-overreach. Scott Pruitt is not the guy to get us to a reasonable middle ground.

[Danny Bateman]

I think perhaps we're not all using the same operational definition of "reasonable regulations."

I'll wait and see what the guy does because I have no choice. I'm not at all happy about the selection, though. If he does make reasonable cutbacks, great! I can't get myself past "climate science denier." Anything beyond that is just noise to me.

[QMany]

[TGHusker]

Scott Pruitt isn't asking for reasonable regulations. He's the kind of guy who wants to neuter the EPA.

 

I'm all for reasonable regulations, and not pro-overreach. Scott Pruitt is not the guy to get us to a reasonable middle ground.

Knapp, I know you haven't followed him like we have in Oklahoma. He will not cause the rivers to catch on fire or 'tides to rise', the death of polar bears, or the melting of all of the artic ice. Nor will he give a blank ck to industry. He has acted reasonably and responsibly within his roles in the public and private sector in the past. I believe he will act responsibly within the EPA's charter mandate and guidelines of the constitution. If he doesn't - then call me on the carpet in 4 years. It isn't just big, bad, oil, the normal cry of the progressives (I'm not speaking of you) that the EPA affects, but also farmers & small businesses. Small farmers like my dad. Before my dad retired, he was told he could not plow up a small portion of HIS land because it held water for maybe 2 months max out of the year. He had plowed it up every year until new regulations deemed it to be 'wetlands'. I'm very much in favor of the existence of the EPA - it did great things after Nixon created it - I remember the pollution back in those days. It has accomplished a lot and it is still needed. I believe Pruitt sees its importance also and understands its history and mandate. I've heard him speak of it often in local radio interviews.

[knapplc]

Again, I'm fine with limiting the overreach of the EPA. Scott Pruitt is not about doing that.

 

He is not about small farmers. He's about letting large companies pollute and frack and reap massive profits.

[zoogs]

I don't know. Scott Pruit is only what the Times describes as 'a key architect of the legal battle against Mr. Obama's climate change policies' and wrote this year that "scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind", which is disingenuous in the most generous view.

 

Maybe we have no reasonable idea what to expect on climate policy from the administration of the man who repeatedly called global warming a Chinese hoax? Perhaps we owe it as Americans to give them a chance before just ASSUMING they're out to dismantle the environmental regulatory framework in service to the fossil fuel industries (coal in particular; I have no idea where I pulled that word out of, it's probably completely random).

 

 

I'm very much in favor of the existence of the EPA - it did great things after Nixon created it - I remember the pollution back in those days. It has accomplished a lot and it is still needed.

TG, this view seems to indicate you feel the environment is less of an issue today -- perhaps substantially less. Is that fair? That's a view that is hard to square, but it does help me understand where you're coming from.

[TGHusker]

I don't know. Scott Pruit is only what the Times describes as 'a key architect of the legal battle against Mr. Obama's climate change policies' and wrote this year that "scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind", which is disingenuous in the most generous view.

 

Maybe we have no reasonable idea what to expect on climate policy from the administration of the man who repeatedly called global warming a Chinese hoax? Perhaps we owe it as Americans to give them a chance before just ASSUMING they're out to dismantle the environmental regulatory framework in service to the fossil fuel industries (coal in particular; I have no idea where I pulled that word out of, it's probably completely random).

 

 

I'm very much in favor of the existence of the EPA - it did great things after Nixon created it - I remember the pollution back in those days. It has accomplished a lot and it is still needed.

TG, this view seems to indicate you feel the environment is less of an issue today -- perhaps substantially less. Is that fair? That's a view that is hard to square, but it does help me understand where you're coming from.

 

No the environment is always a very important issue. I'm saying in the USA we've come a long way from the 70s and prior. You may not be old enough to know of or remember the smog alerts in LA, river fires, etc. There always has to be an EPA type organization in our modern industrial world - less we return to the polluted world of the past. It is less of an issue only in the sense that we've worked through the most difficult years and have established a cleaner environment in the USA. I don't think one country's efforts will solve climate change. This doesn't mean we stop doing what we can. However, oil production & clean coal power plants are much cleaner today than what it was in the 1970s. Regardless of who is over the EPA, we aren't going back to those days. No one wants to. The oil industry here in Okla has financed a huge make over of old oil drilling and refining sites into new green spaces. The industry doesn't want to and doesn't need to go back to those big polluting days. (note: I do not work for an oil company, however the company I work for sells equipment to that sector as well as to many other industrial sectors) New technology enables them to do what they do cleaner - from getting the oil out of the ground to refining it. Regarding burning fossil fuels, our vehicles are much more efficient, the fuel cleaner, etc. At the same time we should still be developing new technologies for cleaner energy. Oklahoma is also home to many huge wind farms & we also see large solar farms nearby in Colo - not sure if there are any here yet.

 

So, I surely don't want a 'repeal' of the EPA mandate but I think there is a need to review its rules and regs to make sure undo burdens are removed to allow our business to flourish while still being good environmental citizens. Every once in a while a colon cleanse is good for a person and also for an organization (sorry for that visual image I just planted in your brain). I think Pruitt will provide a honest review of

the policies of the EPA and will keep its mandate in place while conducting that colon cleanse.

 

However, the greatest environmental protection need is in developing countries and China and India. I believe the USA has led the way and has been a good example on how to turn around a polluted environment and changed mindsets. But I think we have also, with that lead, placed a larger burden on our industry than what we see in so many other countries & this gives us a completive disadvantage. (yes, there may be some countries with even more environmental control than ours). I believe we can find the correct balance between regulation and allowing companies to be competitive in the world market place - esp small companies who struggle the most with regulations. We can lead the rest of the world by persuasion and example. I don't think we can be the world's EPA police in the same way I don't think we can continue to being the world's military policeman. Perhaps in the same way we tie trade relationships to civil rights with some countries, perhaps we can do something policy wise by trading with more environmentally friendly nations. Of course that would cut China out immediately. Not sure what kind of big stick we can carry to affect environmental change in China and India and allow us to also level the competitive business playing field.

[zoogs]

 

 

You may not be old enough to know of or remember the smog alerts in LA, river fires, etc.

 

Oh, yeah. I'm definitely not. The only context I have for it when you say something like that is, "Was LA then like what <insert Chinese city> is like now?"

 

Actually, I'd heard the term LA smog. And worried about the air quality. But it never seemed like a nightmare scenario, and I suppose that is a credit to the efforts undertaken here decades ago, which as you point out, didn't happen in parallel in countries like China and India.

 

That's a big part of the importance of the Paris treaty to me. There's one way to bring those countries to the table, in my view, and that's American participation. Those countries need to catch up in a big way, and perhaps they'll assert a leadership of their own (the U.S. itself arrived at this point from somewhere, after all) -- but it will happen most credibly and most quickly under US pressure and leadership. We have for a long time, actually, not "led" but rather been in the way, and therefore, an easy out for countries that see themselves as peers. Europe is familiar with U.S. recalcitrance on the environmental issue. I think there's a long history of hurting and holding back global efforts there.

[BigRedBuster]

Nobody wants to go back to the 70s.

 

There will always be a need for an EPA type of agency and the vast majority of the regs need to be national.

 

However, every agency like this will always become somewhat irrational with what they do without every once in a while taking time to perform an anima.

[Danny Bateman]

Gonna bring back them jobs!

 

He's definitely going to have that automaton vote locked up come 2020.