Trump Signs Measure Blocking Obama-Era Rule to Protect Streams

community
By:  @community, 7 months ago
Comments: 45 ..

Tags

President Donald Trump signed legislation repealing a regulation meant to protect streams from the effects of coal mining.

The congressional resolution killing the so-called Stream Protection Rule, which was issued in the waning days of the Obama administration, follows similar action by Trump overturning an anti-corruption rule that would have required oil companies to disclose payments to foreign governments. Congressional Republicans have plans to send Trump an array of resolutions under the Congressional Review Act, including one to prevent people with serious mental-health problems from buying guns.

"In eliminating this rule I am continuing to keep my promise to the American people to get rid of wasteful regulations," Trump said at a White House signing ceremony.

Companies such as coal producers Foresight Energy LP and Murray Energy Corp. stand to gain from repeal of the mining rule, which would have required those companies to monitor water quality and restore streams once their mining is complete.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-signs-measure-blocking-obama-205353540.html;_ylt=A0LEVvaGVqZY.TkAGS8PxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTBybGY3bmpvBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

Flagging unavailable
jrDiscussion
 
A. Macarthur
link   A. Macarthur    7 months ago

I worship my God while fishing, photographing or just walking by mountain streams.

Trump, one way or another, will kill or sicken us all.

When I heard about this, my first thought was … what will happen to my grandchildren's futures with this fool in the White House, the prostitutes in Congress, and the Organized Wealth assholes who believe that THE MARKETPLACE IS GOD.

1pennsylvaniamountainsteamagurmankin.jpg

 I talk to God in places like this.

© A. Mac/A.G.

 
Larry Hampton
link   Larry Hampton    7 months ago

The Interior Department, which spent seven years crafting the rule, had said the regulation, which updates 33-year-old regulations, will protect 6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 acres of forests, primarily in Appalachia. It is meant to stop the practice of dumping mining waste in streams and valleys during mountaintop mining. They estimated compliance with the regulation would cost $81 million a year, or 0.1 percent or less of aggregate annual industry revenues, it said.

 

Angry

 
Sean Treacy
link   Sean Treacy    7 months ago

The country's streams managed to survive until the regulation was passed a mere 60 days ago. They'll do just fine without it. 

If this is such a big deal, you'd think the Democrats would have bothered to pass an actual law concerning this when they had filibuster proof control of Congress. Instead, they did nothing and waited for a last second regulation. Obviously the democrats didn't care too much about it either.

 

 
A. Macarthur
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 months ago

The country's streams managed to survive until 60 days ago without the law. They'll do just fine without it. 

You do not know what you're talking about!

For openers …

EPA: Many U.S. streams badly polluted




More than half the streams and rivers in the United States are in poor condition for aquatic life, the Environmental Protection Agency announced this week.

Major findings of the a huge research and testing effort,  according to an EPA news release, include:

—  Nitrogen and phosphorus are at excessive levels. Twenty-seven percent of the nation’s rivers and streams have excessive levels of nitrogen, and 40 percent have high levels of phosphorus. Too much nitrogen and phosphorus in the water—known as nutrient pollution—causes significant increases in algae, which harms water quality, food resources and habitats, and decreases the oxygen that fish and other aquatic life need to survive. Nutrient pollution has impacted many streams, rivers, lakes, bays and coastal waters for the past several decades, resulting in serious environmental and human health issues, and impacting the economy.

– Streams and rivers are at an increased risk due to decreased vegetation cover and increased human disturbance. These conditions can cause streams and rivers to be more vulnerable to flooding, erosion, and pollution. Vegetation along rivers and streams slows the flow of rainwater so it does not erode stream banks, removes pollutants carried by rainwater and helps maintain water temperatures that support healthy streams for aquatic life. Approximately 24 percent of the rivers and streams monitored were rated poor due to the loss of healthy vegetative cover.

– Increased bacteria levels. High bacteria levels were found in nine percent of stream and river miles making those waters potentially unsafe for swimming and other recreation.

– Increased mercury levels. More than 13,000 miles of rivers have fish with mercury levels that may be unsafe for human consumption. For most people, the health risk from mercury by eating fish and shellfish is not a health concern, but some fish and shellfish contain higher levels of mercury that may harm an unborn baby or young child’s developing nervous system.

Read the full draft National Rivers and Streams Assessment report.


 


EPAnutrient pollutionwater pollution




  1. CLEANING UP AFTER POLLUTION - Safe Drinking Water


    www.safewater.org/.../knowthefacts/Cleaning_Up_Pol...



    CLEANING UP AFTER POLLUTION “It wasn’t the Exxon Valdez captain’s driving that caused the Alaskan oil spill. It was yours.” - Greenpeace advertisement, New ...





  2. Stream Clean-up — Perkiomen Watershed Conservancy


    www.perkiomenwatershed.org/stream-clean-up...



    The Conservancy will be holding a stream clean-up on Saturday, April 8th from 9am-12pm. Stay tuned for more information about this event! Every spring, the ...





  3. Pollution of Streams by Garbage and Trash - river, plants ...


    www.waterencyclopedia.com/Oc-Po/Pollution-of-Strea...



    Water » Oc-Po » Pollution of Streams by Garbage and Trash ... There are many opportunities for private citizens to participate in river and stream cleanups.





  4. Stream Cleanups « The Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association


    thewatershed.org/news-and-events/stream-cleanups



    Click to see 9 years of Stream Cleanup photos! ... People pollution is one of the biggest contributors to water pollution in ... Questions about the Stream Cleanups?





  5. How to Clean Up a Stream (with Pictures) - wikiHow


    www.wikihow.com/Clean-Up-a-Stream



    How to Clean Up a Stream. Streams are an important part of our ecosystem that can become polluted by garbage, which destroys natural habitat, harms wildlife, and ...





  6. Streams | Rivers & Streams | US EPA


    archive.epa.gov/water/archive/web/html/index-17.html...



    Understanding the condition of rivers, streams, ... – Search for stream quality information nationally, 



 
Kavika
link   Kavika  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 months ago

Sean, you should really do some research before talking about something that you have little knowledge of.

Check out the DNR reports for lakes, rivers and streams for Wisconsin.

 
Cerenkov
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 months ago

Well said. More faux outrage.

 
Kavika
link   Kavika  replied to  Cerenkov   7 months ago

Once again showing your inability to converse in anything but one liners and lack of knowledge of the subject.

Well done Cerenkov.

 
Cerenkov
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Kavika   7 months ago

Ridiculous doomsday theories deserve nothing more.

 
Kavika
link   Kavika  replied to  Cerenkov   7 months ago

Once again you prove my point, Cerenkov...

 

 
Sean Treacy
link   Sean Treacy    7 months ago

Wow. Things are that dire and Obama and the Democrats ignored them for 8 years before passing a midnight regulation that was designed first and foremost to kill the coal industry.  

 
Kavika
link   Kavika  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 months ago

The Interior Department, which spent seven years crafting the rule, had said the regulation, which updates 33-year-old regulations, will protect 6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 acres of forests, primarily in Appalachia. It is meant to stop the practice of dumping mining waste in streams and valleys during mountaintop mining. They estimated compliance with the regulation would cost $81 million a year, or 0.1 percent or less of aggregate annual industry revenues, it said.

You really don't know anything about it, Sean.

 
A. Macarthur
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 months ago

Things are that dire and Obama and the Democrats ignored them for 8 years before passing a midnight regulation that was designed first and foremost to kill the coal industry.  

Citation? Specifics.

 
Cerenkov
link   Cerenkov  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 months ago

thumbs down

 
A. Macarthur
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Cerenkov   7 months ago

thumbs down

Yeah, Cerenkov … we don't need no stinkin' specifics … why rely on facts when we can simply believe what suits our personal and political agendas?

 

 
Dowser
link   Dowser  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 months ago

It wasn't designed to kill the coal industry, it was designed to protect drinking water supplies that originate in surface waters.  And it probably took that long for the republicans to agree to it.  So, yeah, living in a coal mining state where tailings, trash, and mine waste is dumped regularly in stream beds, I dread to think what it is doing to the water supplies.  You should see some of our acid mine runoff.  Thanks to a little thing like pyrite, which comes part and parcel with lower grade coals, the water kills fish and aquatic life.  The water is expensive to treat and offers some real problems to the wildlife.

acid mine drainage.jpg

 
Buzz of the Orient
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dowser   7 months ago

The lakes and rivers in China are a good example of what can happen when there is not much legislation, or enforcement of it, controlling their purity. Although I love fish and seafood, I rarely eat it now for two reasons - where the fish and seafood are from, and the increase in my Uric Acid level causing gout from eating it.

 
Dowser
link   Dowser  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 months ago

Exactly, Buzz!

We still have areas that are impassable, don't go into those hummocky areas to hike.  You can fall down a hole that you can't see and be gone forever...

 
Kavika
link   Kavika  replied to  Dowser   7 months ago

Dowser, what the problem with polluted streams whose water is undrinkable, dead  fish and aquatic life. Hey the mining companies are making some more dollars. It the taxpayer who will have to pay to clean up the mining companies mess.

As long as the mining companies can make more money and the taxpayer has to pay for their screw up, it's all fair in the world of the RW'ers.

 
Dowser
link   Dowser  replied to  Kavika   7 months ago

It certainly seems to be true...  The coal mines have raped the land here for so long...  To provide jobs, for sure, but at the detriment of the environment, i.e. clean air and water.  Not to mention destruction of the landscape.  To remove this rule that will only cost 0.1% to enforce, seems to me to be very short-sighted. I'm all for jobs for the coal miners, but there has to be a way to keep them employed without such destruction.  And what kind of job is it?  One that is VERY dangerous, that gives the miners Black Lung disease, that only pays for 6 months per year.  Etc.   BTW, all those with Black Lung Disease are on the public dole, paid for by the taxpayers, not the coal mines.  

Y'all have heard of Paradise, KY?  Well, it's true-- the Peabody Coal Co. has hauled it away...  

paradise coal plant.jpg

 

Here is an article about how dirty the coal plant is, and how the TVA is closing some of it down... http://valleywatch.net/?p=3422

 

 
Dean Moriarty
link   Dean Moriarty    7 months ago

I hope it's just the tip of the iceberg of the getting rid of these needless regulations. Hopefully next they will reopen many of the trails around here that were closed during the Obama tree hugger years. 

 
Hal A. Lujah
link   Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Dean Moriarty   7 months ago

Maybe we can finally level your local landscape by scraping the tops of your mountains off and dumping the mess into your streams and valleys.  You seem to think that all that matters is an outcome involving a bump in the economy, so I assume you won't mind it in your back yard.

 
Jonathan P
link   Jonathan P    7 months ago

I would shudder at the thought of poisoning our streams, or for that matter, any other part of anything we would come into physical contact with. I think it's important to protect our environment.

That said, I have read that a great deal of the language of the Obama laws was very broad, and extended not only to the areas in question, but also the mining activity that was not in a position to affect the environment.

Are these people lying?

 

 
Dowser
link   Dowser  replied to  Jonathan P   7 months ago

I, personally, know of no coal mining activity that doesn't affect the environment in some way.  The "cleanest" coal was the Elkhorn #7 seam, which is now all gone.  Some of those abandoned mines are used as water supplies in the eastern part of the state.  But that was all mined out in the 1960s.

 
A. Macarthur
link   A. Macarthur    7 months ago

 mining activity that was not in a position to affect the environment.

Jonathan,

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any "mining activity" that is not, in one way, shape or form, potentially in a position to affect the environment.

But, if you can cite any, I will keep an open mind.

 
Jonathan P
link   Jonathan P  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 months ago

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any "mining activity" that is not, in one way, shape or form, potentially in a position to affect the environment.

We've been mining coal in this country since before we were a country. I understand the potential, but I'm sure that there has been mining that did not result in an adverse affect on the environment.

I'm trying to weigh the cost vs the benefit of this enterprise to our country. We have been mining coal here for centuries, and there has been an adverse affect on certain areas, while no adverse affect in others. My impression is that this bill sought to put an end to this industry in the US.

Is that correct?

 
Dean Moriarty
link   Dean Moriarty  replied to  Jonathan P   7 months ago

It wasn't a bill it was just regulations put in place by one of Obamas executive agencies. 

 
A. Macarthur
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  Jonathan P   7 months ago

We've been mining coal in this country since before we were a country. I understand the potential, but I'm sure that there has been mining that did not result in an adverse affect on the environment.

There are numerous damaging environmental impacts of coal that occur through its mining, preparation, combustion, waste storage, and transport. This article provides an overview. Each topic is explored in greater depth in separate articles, as are several related topics:

  • Acid mine drainage (AMD) refers to the outflow of acidic water from coal mines or metal mines, often abandoned mines where ore- or coal mining activities have exposed rocks containing the sulphur-bearing mineral pyrite. Pyrite reacts with air and water to form sulphuric acid and dissolved iron, and as water washes through mines, this compound forms a dilute acid, which can wash into nearby rivers and streams.[1]
  • Coal dust stirred up during the mining process, as well as released during coal transport, which can cause severe and potentially deadly respiratory problems.[6]
  • Coal fires occur in both abandoned coal mines and coal waste piles. Internationally, thousands of underground coal fires are burning now. Global coal fire emissions are estimated to include 40 tons of mercury going into the atmosphere annually, and three percent of the world's annual carbon dioxide emissions.[7][8]
  • Coal combustion waste is the nation's second largest waste stream after municipal solid waste.[9] It is disposed of in landfills or "surface impoundments," which are lined with compacted clay soil, a plastic sheet, or both. As rain filters through the toxic ash pits year after year, the toxic metals are leached out into the local environment.[10][11]
  • Coal sludge, also known as slurry, is the liquid coal waste generated by washing coal. It is typically disposed of at impoundments located near coal mines, but in some cases it is directly injected into abandoned underground mines. Since coal sludge contains toxins, leaks or spills can endanger underground and surface waters.[2]
  • Greenhouse gas emissions caused by surface mining - According to a 2010 study, mountaintop removal mining releases large amounts of carbon through clearcutting and burning of trees and through releases of carbon in soil brought to the surface by mining operations. These greenhouse gas emissions amount to at least 7% of conventional power plant emissions.[14][15]
  • Loss or degradation of groundwater - Since coal seams are often serve as underground aquifers, removal of coal beds may result in drastic changes in hydrology after mining has been completed.
  • Radical disturbance of 8.4 million acres of farmland, rangeland, and forests, most of which has not been reclaimed -- See The footprint of coal
  • Heavy metals and coal - Coal contains many heavy metals, as it is created through compressed organic matter containing virtually every element in the periodic table - mainly carbon, but also heavy metals. The heavy metal content of coal varies by coal seam and geographic region. Small amounts of heavy metals can be necessary for health, but too much may cause acute or chronic toxicity (poisoning). Many of the heavy metals released in the mining and burning of coal are environmentally and biologically toxic elements, such as leadmercurynickeltincadmiumantimony, and arsenic, as well as radio isotopes of thorium and strontium.[16][17][18]
  • Mercury and coal - Emissions from coal-fired power plants are the largest source of mercury in the United States, accounting for about 41 percent (48 tons in 1999) of industrial releases.[19]
  • Mountaintop removal mining and other forms of surface mining can lead to the drastic alteration of landscapes, destruction of habitat, damages to water supplies, and air pollution. Not all of these effects can be adequately addressed through coal mine reclamation.
  • Particulates and coal - Particulate matter (PM) includes the tiny particles of fly ash and dust that are expelled from coal-burning power plants.[21] Studies have shown that exposure to particulate matter is related to an increase of respiratory and cardiac mortality.[22] [23]
  • Radioactivity and coal - Coal contains minor amounts of the radioactive elements, uranium and thorium. When coal is burned, the fly ash contains uranium and thorium "at up to 10 times their original levels."[24]
  • Subsidence - Land subsidence may occur after any type of underground mining, but it is particularly common in the case of longwall mining.[25]
  • Sulfur dioxide and coal - Coal-fired power plants are the largest human-caused source of sulfur dioxide, a pollutant gas that contributes to the production of acid rain and causes significant health problems. Coal naturally contains sulfur, and when coal is burned, the sulfur combines with oxygen to form sulfur oxides.[26]
  • Thermal pollution from coal plants is the degradation of water quality by power plants and industrial manufacturers - when water used as a coolant is returned to the natural environment at a higher temperature, the change in temperature impacts organisms by decreasing oxygen supply, and affecting ecosystem composition.[27]
  • Waste coal, also known as "culm," "gob," or "boney," is made up of unused coal mixed with soil and rock from previous mining operations. Runoff from waste coal sites can pollute local water supplies.[28]
  • Water pollution from coal includes the negative health and environmental effects from the mining, processing, burning, and waste storage of coal.
 
Dowser
link   Dowser  replied to  Jonathan P   7 months ago

I'm not being mean to you, ok?  But when I was a kid, not THAT long ago, we used mercury in thermometers and when they broke, we had a fine time playing with it...  We know better than to do that, now.  We have learned a lot in the past 60 years...

 
Buzz of the Orient
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dowser   7 months ago

Ha ha Dowser. You just awakened my memories of doing just that - playing with mercury when I was a kid.  Here I am at the age of 80 and still kicking physically and (hopefully my comments don't indicate otherwise) mentally. LOL

 
Dowser
link   Dowser  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 months ago

My child car seat hooked over the front bench seat, much like a swimming pool ladder at the side of a pool, and had a steering wheel and a mirror attached, along with a gear shift.  Stop suddenly and we were all impaled.  Of course, we know better by now, but back then, the goal was to keep the kid quiet and occupied...  Its amazing that any of us survived childhood!

old child child seat.jpg

 
Buzz of the Orient
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dowser   7 months ago

Back when I was little, we didn't have a car seat at all. But I remember sitting on my father's lap while he was driving, letting me steer. You're right, it's a wonder we lived through those days.

 
Dowser
link   Dowser  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 months ago

I remember the same!!!  thumbs up

 
Redding Shasta Jefferson USA
link   Redding Shasta Jefferson USA  replied to  Dowser   7 months ago

Me too! 

 
ArkansasHermit-too
link   ArkansasHermit-too  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 months ago

Back when I was little, we didn't have a car seat at all

 

Ha!

That brought back to mind our long family drives back in the 50's.

Three young boys falling asleep in the back of the car.

Being the oldest I always called the Window bed;

I liked looking up at the stars as we drove through the night.

 

Middle son got the back, bench seat and youngest son slept down in the floorboards after the parents leveled it out with pillows, luggage and such, to lessen the hump of the drive shaft.

 

 

Anyone remember suicide doors?

As a toddler, less than 3, I once used the back door handles to pull myself up.  Door came unlatched, caught the wind, blew open and pulled me out of the moving car.

Long, painful story, cut short.

I have a vague memory of thinking that I was flying like superman, then looking up from the road and seeing cars coming to a screeching halt in a semi circle around me.

After that the pain kicked in and, from that point on, I just recall having to sleep on my back for months. 

The road rash, from forehead to the top of my bare feet, was quite something to see.

 

 

 
Dowser
link   Dowser  replied to  ArkansasHermit-too   7 months ago

OUCH!  I'm glad you're ok!!!

I used to love to rattle around in the back seat...  It was just me, and I had plenty of room for me and my teddy bears!  LOADS of fun!

 
Buzz of the Orient
link   Buzz of the Orient  replied to  ArkansasHermit-too   7 months ago

OMG A.H. - what a nightmare.  I could understand why suicide doors made it easier for people to get in and out of the back seat of a car, and I do remember the Lincolns (Continentals?) that had them but I guess your experience was one of the reasons why others didn't copy the concept. 

 
Nowhere Man
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  Buzz of the Orient   7 months ago

Actually suicide doors were common back in the 20-30's, the '64 Lincoln limo was a throwback to that age, and they added it to the Continental as an option.

It was a much loved if expensive feature back then, and is one of the things that make it a very desirable classic car.

But yeah, they did away with them cause of an experience on the road much like AH's with a Packard executive's child inadvertently opening the latch on the door.

The door was sandwiched back alongside the car body, the child wasn't as lucky as AH. Suicide doors disappeared soon after.

 
Cerenkov
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Dowser   7 months ago

"We have learned a lot in the past 60 years..."

We learned a fear of consequences unleavened with any understanding of risk.

 
Dowser
link   Dowser  replied to  Cerenkov   7 months ago

So, do you think it is a good idea to play with mercury, and ride in a child car seat that would impale you?  

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I stood on my left leg, propping myself up as a field geologist, for 20+ years, and now I have really bad arthritis in my left hip.  We don't always realize the risks of doing something, and don't until the consequences bite us in the behind...

The degradation of surface and ground water supplies due to coal mining activities are an observable fact, and can be proven.  Drinking sulfuric acid isn't a real healthy water supply, even at low levels.  Why do it on purpose?   Why allow the coal mining companies to pollute the water supplies with no consequences?  The fix seems to be pretty cheap.

I have never understood why they don't repurpose all that flatness they create from the coal mining activities into agricultural uses.  It seems to be to be an economically viable solution.  And it would help the economics of the mined areas, where, when all the coal is gone, so are the jobs...

 
Cerenkov
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Dowser   7 months ago

I'm not commenting on the stream restrictions. I'm advancing the proposition that many of the safeguards and precautions we are forced to adopt today are not in proportion to the risks.

And yes, playing with a little mercury is not a significant risk. Nor is riding a bike without a crash helmet.

 
Dowser
link   Dowser  replied to  Cerenkov   7 months ago

Ok.  To me, the loss of one child is a tragic outcome.  So many kids have been hurt because they weren't wearing bike helmets, and how many children died in car crashes with those awful old seats?  I don't have any idea and don't think I can look it up.  (Seems like I tried before and they didn't keep the numbers on the children that died in car wrecks that could have been saved with a car seat.)  

I don't know, Cerenkov.  There are a lot of things out there that we don't do anymore, that have had a positive effect on children's lives...  Like this, we don't do this any more, either:

baby cage apartment window.jpg

 
jwc2blue
link   jwc2blue    7 months ago

History is full of people claiming that regulations on certain industries are "job killing" or "overly burdensome" or "overreaching" or "too restrictive."

The truth is that a bill that is estimated to cost .1 percent of industry revenues is not designed to kill anything. In fact, that amount is arguably far less than the associated cost of the damage the bill would prevent.

The only thing the bill would kill is a tiny portion of the profits of people who think that the problems won't affect them anyway.

Rivers do not care about state lines, neither do aquifers. The pollution caused by coal and carried by the wind doesn't care about town boundaries, state lines or country borders any more than acid rain does.

 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.    7 months ago

The article from "Bloomberg" (I was hoping to find the exact wording of the law)

The congressional resolution killing the so-called Stream Protection Rule, which was issued in the waning days of the Obama administration, follows similar action by Trump overturning an anti-corruption rule that would have required oil companies to disclose payments to foreign governments. Congressional Republicans have plans to send Trump an array of resolutions under the Congressional Review Act, including one to prevent people with serious mental-health problems from buying guns.

"In eliminating this rule I am continuing to keep my promise to the American people to get rid of wasteful regulations," Trump said at a White House signing ceremony.

Companies such as coal producers Foresight Energy LP and Murray Energy Corp. stand to gain from repeal of the mining rule, which would have required those companies to monitor water quality and restore streams once their mining is complete.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has led the opposition to the rule, calling it "an attack against coal miners." Others against it included the United Mine Workers of America and the National Mining Association, a Washington-based trade group representing companies such as Arch Coal Inc. and Peabody Energy Corp.

The Interior Department, which spent seven years crafting the rule, had said the regulation, which updates 33-year-old regulations, will protect 6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 acres of forests, primarily in Appalachia. It is meant to stop the practice of dumping mining waste in streams and valleys during mountaintop mining. They estimated compliance with the regulation would cost $81 million a year, or 0.1 percent or less of aggregate annual industry revenues, it said.

"Leaders in Congress and the administration chose to put coal-mining profits over the health and safety of Appalachian communities,” said Deborah Murray, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. “Limiting the toxic waste coal companies can dump in our rivers and streams is not a burdensome government regulation; it is common sense and, quite frankly, the job of our federal government."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-16/trump-signs-measure-blocking-obama-era-rule-to-protect-streams

 
Randy
link   Randy    7 months ago

He will not serve out a full first term before being thrown out of office. However many of the people who rape the environment like this will remain, such as Scott Pruitt. The question is not if they will do massive damage to the environment before they themselves can be weeded out. They will. The question is how much irreversible damage will they do, for the sake of money only, before they can be disposed of themselves.

 

Share This

Who is online










Visitors: 33