Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the EPA gets a major reform

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    ...
    Plus it is refreshing to see a thread about suspicions of corruption that does not mention Trump
    And I bet you can't stand it, can you?
    Pity that the highest dollar amount your linked article mentions is $5k... so much for hard data on serious amounts of money.

    But since I started the thread, I guess I should thank you... if I had lost my mind I might even consider it.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    from

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/12/polit...ess/index.html



    Former aide tells Congress of extravagant spending by EPA's Scott Pruitt

    ...Chmielewski is currently on unpaid leave from the agency after raising concerns about Pruitt's travel practices and uses of resources and funds.
    Among the allegations:
    Pruitt declined to use State Department-approved overseas hotels that already had security in place, preferring more expensive hotels with higher security costs.
    Pruitt requested aides to schedule official business in cities he wanted to visit.
    Pruitt directed staffers booking his travel on Delta to maximize his personal frequent flyer miles.
    Pruitt used the agency's scheduling director as a "personal real estate representative."
    Pruitt wanted staff to find reasons for him to visit his home state of Oklahoma.
    Pruitt spent more than the $5,000 allowed by law to decorate his office, including refinishing an antique desk, buying a standing desk and paying leases for art on loan from the Smithsonian.
    "We will respond to Members of Congress through the proper channel," the agency's spokesman, Jahan Wilcox, told CNN in a statement.
    The EPA has previously defended Pruitt's travel and security practices, and Pruitt argued in recent interviews his lease was ethically sound. EPA has also said Chmielewski is among "a group of disgruntled employees who have either been dismissed or reassigned."
    Chmielewski confirmed in a brief phone interview that the letter from Democratic members of Congress laying out his closed-door testimony is accurate. He has met with both Democratic and Republican members of Congress as part of inquiries into Pruitt.
    "This has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats. This is right and wrong. I will meet with whoever wants to meet with me," Chmielewski told CNN.

    One more story that concerned citizens need to monitor...
    Plus it is refreshing to see a thread about suspicions of corruption that does not mention Trump
    Last edited by pamak; 12 Apr 18, 16:34.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    How many of these 175 countries will give money? Everyone wants the US to pay the bill.

    Pruitt
    Ohly about 150 of them are expecting massive payouts, and are probably still hoping to get them since the Democranks will do anything to undermine the US when a Republican is in the White house.

    BTW, the foreign aid situation is still very interesting. The shorter list would be who we are NOT giving cash to , even in Europe.

    https://www.foreignassistance.gov/explore

    Yup, that is the State Department.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    How many of these 175 countries will give money? Everyone wants the US to pay the bill.

    Pruitt


    Here is the agreement

    http://unfccc.int/files/essential_ba..._agreement.pdf

    and a typical pat of it

    Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets Developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts an are encouraged to move over time toward economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances.

    Support shall be provided to developing country Parties for the
    implementation of this Article in accordance with Article 9 1 an 11,
    recognizing that enhanced support for developing country Parties will allow for higher ambition in their actions.
    In other words, even though the agreement is not in any final form since there are ambiguities, the US still refuses to be part even of an attempt to negotiate the details. The agreement as I read it shows an intention for everybody contributing in one way or another to the cost of reducing emissions.. Obviously, if there were solutions for free there would not be a debate. The real question is if inaction is free as many people think or if it also comes at a cost for the future generations. And something else" notice that despite the US resistance, the other countries continue with their attempt to implement the agreement. It is not that everybody expects the US to foot the bill.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    How many of these 175 countries will give money? Everyone wants the US to pay the bill.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    The problem is that you have states like China, who are creating massive pollution deserts. And the fact that you have the First World telling emerging nations that they can't have air conditioning, cars, and other First World toys because the planet can't take it.
    And still, China and 174 other countries including most of those in the "third word" have ratified the Paris agreement

    http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9444.php

    175
    175 Parties have ratified of 197 Parties to the Convention

    On 4 November 2016, the Paris Agreement entered into force.
    More information
    But let's find an excuse to do the best we can not to participate with the vast majority of other countries to try to address the problem of global warming...

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    I agree and I've no doubt that human activity has, for a long time, had impacts on the environment and - to some extent - climate too.

    I also think the last century or two - and especially in the period since WW2 - with steeper increases in industrial activity and an exponentially massive growth in human population, can only have magnified these effects.

    It seems to me that we are just beginning to properly wake up to some of the consequences of all this.
    The problem is that you have states like China, who are creating massive pollution deserts. And the fact that you have the First World telling emerging nations that they can't have air conditioning, cars, and other First World toys because the planet can't take it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    If it really is too late then I guess that's too bad.
    As for the question, I've got no idea but my expectations are not high.
    Mine either. Different name on the boss's door - same business. That's why I think it's too late - the EPA is too deeply entrenched to be truly "overhauled".

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    But it's too late, since many nations are still developing industrially and populations are increasing exponentially.

    If we were all at the same stage of industry, technology and science, we might have a chance, but it will be perhaps a century or more before the Third World even begins to catch up.

    Russia, technologically on a rough par with us, remains to this day one of the worst polluters and ravagers of the earth than any other nation.

    Meanwhile, my question remains unanswered: what might we expect from the newly reorganized EPA?
    If it really is too late then I guess that's too bad.
    As for the question, I've got no idea but my expectations are not high.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    But it's too late, since many nations are still developing industrially and populations are increasing exponentially.

    If we were all at the same stage of industry, technology and science, we might have a chance, but it will be perhaps a century or more before the Third World even begins to catch up.

    Russia, technologically on a rough par with us, remains to this day one of the worst polluters and ravagers of the earth than any other nation.

    Meanwhile, my question remains unanswered: what might we expect from the newly reorganized EPA?
    Bold mine...

    But all such nations agree to limit emissions and science and technology can also develop exponentially, including the science and technology of clean energy...

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
    I agree and I've no doubt that human activity has, for a long time, had impacts on the environment and - to some extent - climate too.

    I also think the last century or two - and especially in the period since WW2 - with steeper increases in industrial activity and an exponentially massive growth in human population, can only have magnified these effects.

    It seems to me that we are just beginning to properly wake up to some of the consequences of all this.
    But it's too late, since many nations are still developing industrially and populations are increasing exponentially.

    If we were all at the same stage of industry, technology and science, we might have a chance, but it will be perhaps a century or more before the Third World even begins to catch up.

    Russia, technologically on a rough par with us, remains to this day one of the worst polluters and ravagers of the earth than any other nation.

    Meanwhile, my question remains unanswered: what might we expect from the newly reorganized EPA?

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
    Humans can and do alter "climate" through history. The Romans encouraged farming in North Africa and the loss of water caused made it dryer and warmer. The Sahara advanced towards the coast as a result. Cutting down the forest in Southeast Brazil took a lot of moisture out of the area and it dried up.

    The Amazon basin was once changed by man. The soil was changed and some rivers diverted and catch basins created. The people also plated a lot of nut and fruit trees. The Southwest Plateau was desertified when Indians tried to farm the lands, build houses and grow maize. The loss of the Pinon trees caused soil erosion and there was nothing to hold water.

    The list goes on. The problem is more of stopping development in deserts and maybe try to replant some areas that have not blown away.

    Pruitt
    I agree and I've no doubt that human activity has, for a long time, had impacts on the environment and - to some extent - climate too.

    I also think the last century or two - and especially in the period since WW2 - with steeper increases in industrial activity and an exponentially massive growth in human population, can only have magnified these effects.

    It seems to me that we are just beginning to properly wake up to some of the consequences of all this.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    Humans can and do alter "climate" through history. The Romans encouraged farming in North Africa and the loss of water caused made it dryer and warmer. The Sahara advanced towards the coast as a result. Cutting down the forest in Southeast Brazil took a lot of moisture out of the area and it dried up.

    The Amazon basin was once changed by man. The soil was changed and some rivers diverted and catch basins created. The people also plated a lot of nut and fruit trees. The Southwest Plateau was desertified when Indians tried to farm the lands, build houses and grow maize. The loss of the Pinon trees caused soil erosion and there was nothing to hold water.

    The list goes on. The problem is more of stopping development in deserts and maybe try to replant some areas that have not blown away.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • panther3485
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    Climate-gate was just the tip of the iceberg. Over the years climate scientists have lied to the public repeatedly. That doesn't mean that there is absolutely no validity to global warming but it does mean that the wrong people are doing the research.
    (My bold) From a strictly scientific view so far as I can see, global warming - as well as global cooling and climate change in general - have always been part of a natural cycle on this planet.
    Fossil records and geological evidence, in general, do appear to support this. The argument has never really been about that.

    The argument, such as it is, revolves around the question of human activity contributing to, or influencing, climate change patterns.
    Some folks don't seem to acknowledge that distinction and this can cause misunderstandings, IMO.

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    Climate-gate was just the tip of the iceberg. Over the years climate scientists have lied to the public repeatedly. That doesn't mean that there is absolutely no validity to global warming but it does mean that the wrong people are doing the research.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X