House GOP dismantles Obama regulation protecting streams from

>Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said the only reason to repeal the disclosure rule was "to help corrupt governments steal money from their people."

>Republicans voted to repeal the Obama-era rules using the Congressional Review Act, an obscure oversight tool that could become more familiar in the coming weeks as Congress uses it to overturn regulations federal agencies issued late in Obama's presidency.

>The law hastens the process for bringing legislation to the floor and removes the hurdle of a 60-vote threshold in the Senate. Regulations imposed since June 13 can be invalidated on a simple majority vote of both GOP-led chambers and the president's signature.

>What's more, the law prevents the executive branch from imposing substantially similar regulations in the future.

>It is that aspect of the law that frightens environmental groups that have fought for years for the coal-mining rule and another rule to restrict energy companies from burning off natural gas during drilling operations on public lands.

>Using the review act to overturn a federal regulation "is like burning down your house because you don't like the paint color," said Jenifer Collins, a clean water advocate for the environmental group Earthjustice.

>Collins calls the review act "an extreme and blunt instrument" that essentially prevents federal rule-makers from addressing a topic once Congress has acted.

>But House Speaker Paul Ryan and other Republicans blame Obama, saying the rules Congress is rescinding are poorly crafted and hurt people.

>"The stream protection rule is really just a thinly veiled attempt to wipe out coal mining jobs," Ryan, R-Wis., said.

>"The Department of Interior's own reports show that mines are safe and the surrounding environment is well-protected," Ryan said, adding that the stream-protection rule ignores dozens of federal, state and local regulations already in place.

>The Interior Department said in announcing the rule in December that it would protect 6,000 miles of streams and 52,000 acres of forests, preventing coal mining debris from being dumped into nearby waters. The rule maintains a long-established 100-foot buffer zone that blocks coal mining near streams, but imposes stricter guidelines for exceptions to the 100-foot rule.

>Interior officials said the rule would cause only modest job losses in coal country and could even create jobs as companies hire construction crews to haul and store debris.

>Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, senior Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, said repealing the stream protection rule would "sicken and kill the very people Donald Trump falsely promised to help," coal miners in West Virginia and other states.

>Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., displayed a bottle of brownish water he said came from a constituent's well near a surface coal mine. He challenged lawmakers to drink from it and said the stream rule was one of the only safety measures protecting people in coal country.

>Congress has successfully used the 2-decade-old review act only once before — when President George W. Bush signed a law negating a rule on ergonomic standards enacted during President Bill Clinton's final months in office.

>Associated Press

Can't wait for all that smog we outsourced to China to come back to the good ol' US and A.

This just after the fgt from Kentucky bitching about what was Trump gunna do for coal mining in murica

Let it shit all over the areas it surrounds apparently

>>107322
If they have an issue with it, they can sue the companies that caused it. It is not the government's job to get in the way of private relations.

>>107325
Feasible only in a minority of cases, unfortunately. Ecological damage happens whether or not a human can gather evidence enough to build a case against the company and whether or not the damage is done within the statute of limitations.

>>107325
Or, you could prevent that conflict entirely with laws against irresponsible disposal of hazardous material.

>>107325
This is some "get your government hands off my Medicare" level retardation here. Libertardians should br gassed

Pfft, everyone knows pollution is just a Chinese hoax, just like global warming. I use coal instead of ice cubes and my health is just dandy!

>>107313
Yeah! Screw protecting the world for rhe future!

REMEMBER. This is winning in Trumpland. Winning. Cancer for everyone! Yay!

>>107397
Don't forget: corporations are people too!

I look forward to the day when the GOP realize that less regulations will not solve all of their problems.

>>107398

>still not understanding that corporate personhood is a good thing

Go. And stay go.

>>107401
>Introduces millions of dollars into election cycles that effectively makes the US pay-to-play and screws the little guy
>Good

Kek

>>107399
Unfortunately, we'll all be dead or extremely ill by then.

I'm honestly more interested in this congressional tool than about the laws they rescinded.

Does it have a name or something? I'd like to read about it.

>>107406
Maybe the little guy deserves it?

>>107466
Explain.

>>107466
We do keep voting corporatists into power.

>>107472
Well, you think about it, and the average worker is pretty expendable and easily replaced in the overall grand scheme of things. His value to society kinda reflects that. You could lose thousands of them and it wouldn't be a big deal. However, exceptional and singular individuals, such as Henry Ford or Steve Jobs are invaluable. With just their existence, these individuals determine the course of society. Why should the masses then, seek to drag these exceptional people down when they have achieved their elite status through their own brilliance?

>>107472
Well if they didn't want to drink coal water then they should have bought more money.

>>107325
yeah fuck the government man!! big businesses totally have our best interests at heart!!!!

>>107475
You are deluded in your choice of "heros." Glad I don't have to suffer your presence. I pity the people who do have to suffer your ignorance.

>>107313
None of them have a sliver of love or concern in them. They see only the green of greed like retard jobs that ate himself to death on fruit, which facing his karma and consequences in death and rebirth is the only useful thing he did in his life.

>>107401
>making shit up

You seem to want an oligarchy. I invite you to take a barge onto international waters and have it there.

Do people really want to bring back coal just for the jobs? Isn't coal unpopular because of financial reasons?

>>107592
Yes.

Basically, there are a bunch of shitty mining towns in rural parts of the United States that are absolute wrecks because coal is not economically efficient. Those people want coal companies to be given government handouts so they'll get hired (remember, accepting government handouts is bad, but if a corp gets government handouts and then gives you some it's great).

That's not how they see it, of course. They've masked it in a bunch of mumbo jumbo about the good old days and American exceptionalism. MAGA and all that.

>>107594
I do not blame the coal miners. They are desperate and have a history of being fucked over by the mining industry. Up in Appalachia they once rose up and took arms. The fed gov sided with the coal barons and deployed the army. After that the strikers broke and stayed broke.

Ever heard of clean coal, dinguses?

>>107615
You're not wrong. The history of labor in America is a pretty sad one. And it's kinda amazing how little of it we teach people beyond some basic coverage of strike busting.

You guys just don't get it, this is all part of a new plan to generate renewable power, now they just have to harness the untapped energy of Teddy Roosevelt spinning in his grave

>>107658
Clean coal refers to burning it in a clean way (not economically viable compared to NG).

Mining it is the problem. It's why thousands in the Appalachians have terrible lung problems, why streams and rivers in the NE and E coast became sludge trenches in the mid 1900s.

t. Chemical Engineer.

>>107658
Clean coal still produces CO2 emissions, as well as other pollutants. It's economically and environmentally feasible to use literally any other fuel source except for wood.

>>107701
This is why the whole MAGA thing makes no sense to me. Our history with labor isn't all that great. Coal barons, child labor, trickle down economics, closed down mills and factories. It's not anyone else's fault if a person fails to adapt to a changing market and make themselves valuable.
The only time I can think of where we were great might be centuries ago, but not of us were there so it could just be nostalgia. Even then, the amount of technological progress means we would never be able to go back to those days.

So how many jobs will this bring back?

>>107325
to hell with prevention