The last word in ignorance
PASTICHE:
a compelling compendium
“The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant, “What good is it?” If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.” Aldo Leopold
 |
| Trump & Zinke propose to remove these from the list of National Monuments to be preserved. |
“Conservation is getting nowhere because it is incompatible with our Abrahamic concept of land. We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”
 |
EPA |
GREENS URGE CLEAN POWER PLAN RULING: Thursday
marked the second anniversary of former President Barack Obama's release of the
Clean Power Plan, and environmentalists celebrated by pushing for a federal
court decision on its legality.
A coalition of green groups filed a motion in
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, arguing that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking too long to complete the
regulatory process to repeal the rule, so the court should issue its ruling.
They pointed to the White House's regulatory
agenda released last month showing that the EPA doesn't think it will have a
new proposal regarding the Clean Power Plan within a year.
"The court should decide the case on the
merits, or terminate it by remanding the case to EPA," the greens wrote.
FROM
THE HILL, OVERNIGHT ENERGY, AUG 3,
2017
"The EPA is set to issue a proposed
repeal soon of Obama's signature climate policy to cut carbon emissions from
power plants. It's under review now at the White House's Office of Management
and Budget. But most people will be paying attention to Washington's fight over
the debt ceiling." FROM AXIOS AM, AUG
3 2017
You’ve heard a lot from me about the impact of the Trump
deregulatory executive order.
The order is such a big deal that we sued the president.
Now, as we prepare to argue Public Citizen v. Trump before a judge in just a few days, I wanted to share with you some thoughts from a former regulator on the executive order.
Last week, Betsy Southerland — the director of science and technology in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of Water — resigned after a 30-year career at the agency.
In a moving public statement, she explained that to implement Trump’s order, “EPA will have to choose which Congressional law to ignore.”
“This poses a real Sophie’s choice for public health agencies like EPA.”
“Should EPA repeal two existing rules protecting infants from neurotoxins in order to promulgate a new rule protecting adults from a newly discovered liver toxin?”
Other former officials — the people who have had the responsibility of promoting energy efficiency, ensuring workplace safety, protecting endangered species — echo the point.
Government officials will face a terrible dilemma: adopt new protections or preserve existing ones.
So Betsy Southerland’s pointed question echoes throughout government.
The order is such a big deal that we sued the president.
Now, as we prepare to argue Public Citizen v. Trump before a judge in just a few days, I wanted to share with you some thoughts from a former regulator on the executive order.
Last week, Betsy Southerland — the director of science and technology in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of Water — resigned after a 30-year career at the agency.
In a moving public statement, she explained that to implement Trump’s order, “EPA will have to choose which Congressional law to ignore.”
“This poses a real Sophie’s choice for public health agencies like EPA.”
“Should EPA repeal two existing rules protecting infants from neurotoxins in order to promulgate a new rule protecting adults from a newly discovered liver toxin?”
Other former officials — the people who have had the responsibility of promoting energy efficiency, ensuring workplace safety, protecting endangered species — echo the point.
Government officials will face a terrible dilemma: adopt new protections or preserve existing ones.
So Betsy Southerland’s pointed question echoes throughout government.
- Should the
auto safety agency repeal two existing vehicle safety standards in order
to issue a new rule enabling cars to communicate with each other?
- Should the
banking regulators repeal two existing rules on financial derivatives in
order to issue a new rule ensuring that CEO pay doesn’t incentivize risky
behavior?
- Should the
FDA repeal two rules that protect us from listeria and salmonella
outbreaks in order to issue a new rule on antibiotic resistance?
Those are all impossible, immoral choices.
Here’s the question we should be asking: Why in the world should we be making such choices?
Do we really have to choose between maintaining auto braking standards and auto safety upgrades?
No.
There is no trade-off between existing protections and new ones.
Except for the diktat imposed by the Trump deregulatory executive order.
And the only rationale for that order — and the broader Trump deregulatory agenda — is to make it possible for corporations to sell unsafe food and cars, to cheat and scam, to risk our lives at work, to pollute and despoil the planet.
All so they can make a quick buck.
At our expense.
So, there is a real choice we all have to make:
Do we let this happen?
Or do we fight?
I know which side you’re on.
Please chip in today to help us fight Trump’s scheme.
Donate now or join our monthly giving program.
Thank you for anything you can contribute!
Onward,
Robert Weissman
President, Public Citizen
Here’s the question we should be asking: Why in the world should we be making such choices?
Do we really have to choose between maintaining auto braking standards and auto safety upgrades?
No.
There is no trade-off between existing protections and new ones.
Except for the diktat imposed by the Trump deregulatory executive order.
And the only rationale for that order — and the broader Trump deregulatory agenda — is to make it possible for corporations to sell unsafe food and cars, to cheat and scam, to risk our lives at work, to pollute and despoil the planet.
All so they can make a quick buck.
At our expense.
So, there is a real choice we all have to make:
Do we let this happen?
Or do we fight?
I know which side you’re on.
Please chip in today to help us fight Trump’s scheme.
Donate now or join our monthly giving program.
Thank you for anything you can contribute!
Onward,
Robert Weissman
President, Public Citizen
BOOKS OF ECOLOGY, ENVIRONMENT, GAIA & LOVE OF EARTH
 |
ENVIRONMENTALISM |
“Cease being intimidated by the argument that a right action is impossible because it does not yield maximum profits, or that a wrong action is to be condoned because it pays.” Aldo Leopold
 |
CLIMATE CHANGE |
NOTE: The news sources here vary. Not all sources have the same credibility, but in an effort to share some different perspectives, they are included here. This compendium itself cannot claim to be unbiased. Please take into consideration where these different perspectives originate in assessing their value. Thank you.
Comments
Post a Comment