Ivanka Trump is a Leftist when it comes to "Global Warming"

>>118452
>While the president cannot, as Mr. Trump suggested, unilaterally undo a 194-nation accord that has already been legally ratified, he could initiate the four-year process to withdraw the world’s largest economy and second-largest climate polluter from the first worldwide deal to tackle global warming. Such a move would rend a global deal that has been hailed as historic, throwing into question the fate of global climate policy and, diplomats say, the credibility of the United States.

>But it would also demonstrate to his supporters that Mr. Trump is a man of his word, putting American coal interests ahead of a global deal forged by Mr. Obama.

>On one side of that debate is Mr. Bannon, who as a former chief executive of Breitbart News published countless articles denouncing climate change as a hoax, and who has vowed to push Mr. Trump to transform all his major campaign promises into policy actions.

>On the other side are Ms. Trump, Mr. Tillerson, and a slew of foreign policy advisers and career diplomats who argue that the fallout of withdrawing from the accord could be severe, undercutting the United States’ credibility on other foreign policy issues and damaging relations with key allies.

>>118454
>Although Ms. Trump has not spoken out publicly for action to combat climate change, proponents and opponents of such action see her as an ally. Former Vice President Al Gore met with her during the Trump transition, and was ushered in by the “first daughter” to see the president-elect. The actor and activist Leonardo DiCaprio even slipped her a DVD copy of his climate-change documentary.

>“President Trump Must Not Wobble on Climate Change — No Matter What Ivanka Says …,” blared a Breitbart post on Monday written by James Delingpole, who is close to Mr. Bannon and who leads the website’s coverage of climate-change policy.

>Mr. Trump wants to make a decision by next week, say people familiar with the White House’s debate on the climate pact, in order to announce his executive order to undo Mr. Obama’s climate regulations in conjunction with his plans for the Paris deal.

>>118456
>According to leaked budget documents, the president will also propose killing off nearly two dozen E.P.A. programs, including the Obama-era Clean Power Program, climate partnership programs with local governments, Energy Star grants to encourage efficiency research in consumer products and climate-change research. Those would be part of a broader budget submission that would cut the E.P.A.’s funding by 25 percent, to around $6.1 billion from $8.2 billion, and its staff by 20 percent.

>“If the goal is to fulfill the president’s campaign promises and implement his agenda, there is no value in staying in Paris,” said Thomas J. Pyle, an adviser to the Trump transition and the president of the Institute for Energy Research, an organization partly funded by the billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch, who have worked for years to undermine climate-change policies.

>Mr. Trump has cited Mr. Pyle’s group as being influential in shaping his energy and climate proposals, including his campaign pledge to withdraw from the Paris deal.

>>118457
>According to leaked budget documents, the president will also propose killing off nearly two dozen E.P.A. programs, including the Obama-era Clean Power Program, climate partnership programs with local governments, Energy Star grants to encourage efficiency research in consumer products and climate-change research. Those would be part of a broader budget submission that would cut the E.P.A.’s funding by 25 percent, to around $6.1 billion from $8.2 billion, and its staff by 20 percent.

>“If the goal is to fulfill the president’s campaign promises and implement his agenda, there is no value in staying in Paris,” said Thomas J. Pyle, an adviser to the Trump transition and the president of the Institute for Energy Research, an organization partly funded by the billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch, who have worked for years to undermine climate-change policies.

>Mr. Trump has cited Mr. Pyle’s group as being influential in shaping his energy and climate proposals, including his campaign pledge to withdraw from the Paris deal.

>>118463
>“The two greatest obstacles to a Clexit (climate exit from U.N. Paris agreement) are probably Ivanka and Tillerson,” wrote Marc Morano, a former Republican Senate staff member who now runs Climate Depot, a fossil-fuel-industry-funded website that promotes the denial of climate science, in an email. “Tillerson with his ‘seat at the table’ views could be biggest proponent of not withdrawing the U.S. from the agreement.”

>Mr. Tillerson is a former chief executive of Exxon Mobil, which, like many major global corporations, endorsed the Paris agreement. While his former company once denied human-caused climate change, it has more recently publicly acknowledged the threat posed by burning oil and supported proposals to tax carbon dioxide pollution.

>Asked during his Senate confirmation hearing about the Paris accord, Mr. Tillerson said, “It’s important that the U.S. maintains its seat at the table about how to address the threat of climate change, which does require a global response.”

>>118464
>Under the Paris agreement, every nation has formally submitted plans detailing how it expects to lower its planet-warming pollution. The Obama administration pledged that the United States would reduce its carbon pollution about 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. However, that pledge depends on enactment of Mr. Obama’s E.P.A. regulations on coal-fired power plants, which Mr. Trump and Mr. Pruitt intend to substantially weaken or eliminate.

>But under the Paris deal, those numerical targets are not legally binding, and there are no sanctions for failing to meet them. The primary legal requirements of the deal are that countries publicly put forth their emissions reductions targets, and later put forth reports verifying how they are meeting the targets. It would be possible for the Trump administration to stay in the deal and submit a less ambitious target.

>Even senior Republican voices in the foreign policy debate have said it may be wiser to stay in but keep a low profile.

>“There’s really no obligation,” Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview. “It doesn’t require us to do anything. I think they may take a little time to assess whether pulling out makes sense now.”

>>118467
>Foreign policy experts say withdrawing from Paris would have far greater diplomatic consequences than President George W. Bush’s withdrawal from the world’s first global climate-change accord, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

>“I think it would be a major mistake, even a historic mistake, to disavow the Paris deal,” said R. Nicholas Burns, a retired career diplomat and under secretary of state under Mr. Bush.

>“In international politics, trust, reliability and keeping your commitments — that’s a big part of how other countries view our country,” Mr. Burns said. “I can’t think of an issue, except perhaps NATO, where if the U.S. simply walks away, it would have such a major negative impact on how we are seen.”

>The Paris deal is more consequential than Kyoto. Unlike that pact, which required action only from developed economies, the Paris agreement includes commitments from every nation, rich and poor, to cut emissions, including China and India, the world’s largest and third-largest polluters. Also, the science of climate change has become far more certain and the impact more visible in the 20 years since Kyoto. Each of the last three years has surpassed the previous one as the hottest on record.

>>118469
>Some of the United States’ closest allies are urging the Trump administration not to pull out. In a letter to Mr. Trump after he won the election, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany wrote, “Partnership with the United States is and will remain a keystone of German foreign policy, especially so that we can tackle the great challenges of our time.” They include, she wrote, “working to develop farsighted climate policy.”

>As Mr. Trump and his advisers weigh their Paris options, one proposal is gaining traction, according to participants in the debate: Mr. Trump could declare that the Paris agreement is a treaty that requires ratification by the Senate. The pact was designed not to have the legal force of a treaty specifically so that it would not have to go before the United States Senate, which would have assuredly failed to ratify it.

>“If there are camps forming in the White House, then let the people decide, the elected representatives,” Mr. Pyle said. “Let’s put the question to them.”

>Proponents of that idea say it could shift some of the weight of the decision from Mr. Trump to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, at least in the eyes of some foreign diplomats, and of the president’s daughter.

>The actor and activist Leonardo DiCaprio even slipped her a DVD copy of his climate-change documentary.

This simple act will probably have more effect on our policy than every single scientist in the world right now. Top lel.

>(removing) Clean Power Program

Politicians still delusional that oil will never run out. Humans are so short sighted.

>>118452
Ivanka has always been my least favorite. Her and her weirdo husband.

Tiffany4lyfe

>>118493
That's because Ivanka is 35 and actually has political opinions (and probably has the ear of Jared as well), Tiffany is fucking 23, she's not going to rub you one way or another at that age. Trump respects the opinions of Jared and Ivanka immensely and has stated so multiple times, he doesn't give one shit if Tiffany says something. She's got a ways to go.

there is no left and right when it comes to a potential global biospheric catastrophy that fututre generations will have to deal with.

the fact that Trump hasn't mentioned it yet suggests to me that he must have at least had a second thought on the matter. Perhaps his daughter, or someone from the military or intelligence who does not have the luxury of being political was able to impress upon him. Or maybe he had a spark of independent thought.

>>118452
>Ivanka Trump is a Leftist when it comes to "Global Warming"
The title of your link is "Top Trump Advisers Are Split on Paris Agreement on Climate Change"
Please be a little less purposeful with the inflammatory titles, /pol/.

>>118517
Trump seems to have lukewarm feelings about a lot of things. He's not a polished politician with a stance on everything and we really did get an outsider here. I think its important to remember that regardless of what Trump does, these are the opening months and he may not really push back and form a strong opinion until later in his presidency.

>“President Trump Must Not Wobble on Climate Change — No Matter What Ivanka Says …,” blared a Breitbart post on Monday written by James Delingpole, who is close to Mr. Bannon and who leads the website’s coverage of climate-change policy.

It's pretty clear he's already pushing back. Whether that amounts to anything we will have to see, but this is good news regardless for anyone concerned about climate change. Trump isn't convinced and I'm sure being on the wrong side of history has occurred to him at least a few times. Pence and Bannon are fierce disbelievers though and his closest council. But theres no shortage of people that want to advise the president, so if Trump ever wants a second opinion its there for him.

>>118519
I thought it was cute (and a nice grabber), there are much worse abuses of topic titles on /news/ right now. Like "trump is losing his marbles"

>>118525
I like the title and tbh it's why I posted.

Fuck these crybabies whining about language.

So long as you are not being dishonest, phrase shit however you want

>>118519
>Everyone I don't like is /pol/

>>118528
But it is dishonest, or at least bait-y
>>118525
It would be nice if you dudes just posted the actual title.
>>118557
Well everyone they don't like is shareblue, so.

>>118452
She did realized that climate change is yet another liberal ploy to establish a global nanny state.

>>118801
So youre arguing we dont need a nanny state to protect the environment?

Do you think companies would ever self-regulate if they believed that they might destroy the environment? Ever?

>>118582
>bait is dishonest because my feels

>>118809
global warming is bullshit, it's just an excuse for government to grab power.

Everyone understands that we shouldn't dump toxic sludge into rivers.

We don't need unprovable doomsday scenarios and taxes to prevent obviously bad shit from occurring.

>>118810
>Everyone understands that we shouldn't dump toxic sludge into rivers.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Confirmed for never having worked a blue collar job.

>>118809
We don't nanny state for shit.

We rather have poisoned waters than to have regulations.

Otherwise we have fascist liberals forcing us to become vegans.

>>118810
The entire EPA is liberal garbage; built by fascists who wanted us to become hippies.

>>118815
I used to work tile setting and we never did stupid shit with the chemicals. Safety is taken seriously because our job depends on it.

I'm from a first world country btw. That's who I was referring to. Mexico and China may need a nanny state.

>>118809
nuke china, india and africa if you want to limit the "global footprint"

>>118823
I live in America, a land where mcdonalds grows one specific type of potato so they have to use more and more pesticides to the point where it shows up in the water table.

A land where north dakota has allowed oil companies to spill millions of barrels and wasnt fined for any of it.

Companies dont give one shit about pollution. The reason your tile company didnt just dump shit in a river is because they would get fined for it. You seem might proud of your nanny state.

>>118830
I rather live in a toxic wastedump than in a fucking nanny state.

>>118830
I wouldn't have gotten fined. I would have been fired by my boss for making a mess.

Yes, we need laws to tell walmart not to be bad.

We don't need a department for that.

"hey Walmart if you fuck our shit up we're going take all your shit"

end of problem. the only reason you want the EPA is because you worship government cock and want to control people.

>>118823

Your job depends on it because of environmental regulations lol. Every labor regulation exists because somebody fucked up and lots of people got fucked over. The only reason emergency exits exist is because of shit like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, regulations about water quality appeared because the East River in New York was almost incapable of supporting any kind of life at one point, regulations about safeguards in machinery appeared because employees in America were getting sucked into lathes and around axles and dying, much like happens in Chinese factories right now, because the regulations don't exist there. Instead, they have regulations that factories have to have suicide nets installed because so many factory workers jump to their deaths off the sides of the buildings.

>>118834
>Your job depends on it because of environmental regulations
And we don't need the EPA for that.

>>118836

But no one else makes the regulations. Those regulations come from the EPA, sometimes through the labor department. Do you have no idea what the EPA actually does? EPA stands for Environmental Protection Agency, that's why they exist.

>>118838
EPA budget in 2016 was $8,139,887,000

FOR FUCKING WHAT

>don't pollute
>That'll be 9 billion dollars, please come again

>>118830
And you know what, I'd still trust the private sector over the government. That's the difference between me and you libs. You want a the state to solve all problems, rather then taking the matter in your own hands and solving things yourself.

>>118839
For messes the free market created but refuses to clean up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites

>>118838
It was created by hippies who wanted the annihilation of the meat, pesticide, fossil fuels, and mining industries.

It killed the industries just because of "muh environment".

A bullshit study created to shove empathy down our throats.

That's why Bannon picked those people; to kill off those good for nothing liberal departments and programs designed to demonize and destroy free market.

>>118840
>muh invisible hand
There are some things the free market can't or won't do that need to be done. Who else to do it but the government? Who else has the authority to do it?

>>118842
it was created by Richard Nixon, you ignoramus.

>>118841
So the EPA steals tax payer dollars to clean up messes caused by corporations.

This is blatant corruption. End the EPA. DRAIN THE SWAMP.

>>118843
Under pressure by fucking liberals, you cuck.

>>118839

>I don't even know what the EPA does, I think that regulations are coming entirely from my employer
>Why do they need money to do their job?

I feel like this isn't even worth replying to seriously. They're a federal department, which means their budget is a public document. Feels free to look at it yourself.

>>118844
It's like you get everything you know about the EPA from Rush Limbaugh.

Here's a clue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency

>>118846
>>118847
You obviously don't know what they do, giving this generic ass information.

Go be a pseudo intellectual somewhere else.

>>118848
>generic ass information
>wikipedia
wait, what? I have to admit, for a /pol/tard, you are nothing if not original.

>>118823
>>118833
>>118840
>>118844
You're right anon, why do we even need the EPA to enforce regulation or the IRS
to manage taxes, I'm sure companies and individuals will just pay their fair share of tax and not pollute the environment. It's like the liberals just assume that people and companies are inherently selfish and profit driven or something....

>>118848

Well, at least you've given up the pretense of wanting to have a discussion. Allow me to take us all the way to the bottom:


>smuganimeface.jpg

>>118452
> Every labor regulation exists because somebody fucked up and lots of people got fucked over.

Which is what an angry mob is for.

Rich Bastard pollute your river? Burn his house down!

Increase poverty? Let the poor live a life of crime!

Racial discrimination? Let the negroes fight back!

When life give you lemons, don't go asking mommy to make lemonade for you!

>>118841
I like how most of New Jersey and Long Island, NY are superfund toxic waste dumps. Also, eastern Massachusetts. Very fitting.

>>118849
Are you saying that wikipedia is not generic information

ever since the election liberals are ass backward

wikipedia is GOOD
MSM is GOOD
public school is GOOD

you're off your rocker

>>118852
Your post contained nothing but false intellectual superiority.

>>118859
>If it wasn't on drudgereport then it didn't happen
And that's why you have no idea what's actually happening in the world and don't know what the EPA does.

>>118864

Wow you pretending to know something is really bullying me

I am a shill for hill now...

>>118853
who is mommy? everything in this world is made. it doesn't magically appear. every person in a governement office was once just an ordinary guy/girl. they saw a problem, and got up to do something about it. even elected officials got to where they are because an angry mob got up and voted.

you assume that the laws and regulations are in place because some weaselly liberal decided to fuck with good, honest Americans. nope. they are there because millions of people demanded them. Laws, fucker, not random violence.

there is no "mommy" fixing problems. We, the People, are fixing them.

>>118851
>>118833
I think what a lot of people dont understand about regulation is there is a big difference between regulating an oil pipeline, and a Plumber.

If the plumber fucks up your toilet, who gives a shit? Leave a bad review and move on. But if a pipeline explodes, holy shit, massive cleanup.

You dont need to regulate small time shit, they have small profit margins anyways and the risk is small. If you have a hundred barrels of something to sell, and you lose a few barrels, that really fucking sucks, you aint gonna spill any of that shit. A few barrels is 10% of your meager profits.

You look at the keystone pipeline. People will squawk that 60% of the cost to build is regulation. Kneejerk reactions abound. But the keystone pipeline costs 3 billion to make, and will make 1.3 billion a year with an operating crew of 40 people. Those are the facts. You lose a few hundred thousand barrels of that shit, and the CEO's that run the company- financially- wouldnt give one shit because 90%+ profit margins make it so they are making big bucks any which way. They can just go fix the leak. But the state has to deal with a massive oil spill pollution for years.

What people should be interested in is decreasing regulations COSTS by streamlining and focusing it, not removing regulation altogether. Flat out removing it would just make us a shitty third world country.

>>118844
one of the most expensive superfund sites is where we invented nuclear bombs. It eats up a shitload of money every year and may end up polluting the water table of nearby towns anyways for centuries. Really fun stuff if you ever want to be depressed, just read up on the wiki he posted.

>>118879
I think you missed my sarcasm here
>>118851

t. B.Sc (Geo & EnvGeoSc) + M.EnvSc
I'm actually at work monitoring groundwater in a hydrocarbon plume affected site right now

>>118879
I'm all for common sense regulation.

We don't need special agencies to decide special laws and rules.

We have a government already. Stop fucking growing it.

>>118884
shut the fuck up anon

>>118886
Please explain how having environmental regulations and the EPA to ensure the compliance of these regulations in areas which contain leaking subsurface diesel and petrol tanks is not common sense? Do you enjoy watering your garden or sourcing drinking water with hydrocarbon contamination in it?

>inb4 companies just do it all themselves
Sure they might monitor it themselves, but trusting companies to review their own data and the outcomes of their remediation plan will 9 times out of 10 result in companies being dishonest if it means they can avoid the potentially multimillion dollar cleanup cost.

>>118886
Yes, lets stop organizing the government and just have it be one homogeneous big blob. Really streamline things.

Its not a special agency, its just a section of our gov.

God I can hear the talk show radio host in your car from here.

As far as growing it I dont really have an opinion.

>>118890
>>118891
>Either you like the EPA or you're an ANARCHIST

*yawn*

The government loves to create frivolous agencies. More money moving around, less knowledge of what it's used for. They can scoop up more profit that way.

We don't need a special department for something this simple.

>>118896
Nice job completely ignoring a practical example of why the EPA is necessary.

>frivolous agency
You do realise that every single first world country has their own equivalent of the EPA? Do you think it's because it's necessary? Or do you think it's because governments simply like to 'scoop up more profit'...

You have a very simple outlook on a very complex problem, but I guess that's why you probably voted Trump

>>118902
>Nice job completely ignoring a practical example of why the EPA is necessary.
False. You gave an example of why regulation is necessary.

I know that. Why does it need to be from a special agency? Enough of these alphabet agencies.

All unnecessary government agencies OUT

>>118904
I was just scrolling down the front page when I came across this and I have to ask:
What the fuck do you even mean?
You say that there needs to be regulation, but the body which does the regulating shouldn't exist?
What?

>>118904
>Please explain how having the EPA to ensure the compliance of these regulations in areas which contain leaking subsurface diesel and petrol tanks is not common sense?
>Sure they might monitor it themselves, but trusting companies to review their own data and the outcomes of their remediation plan will 9 times out of 10 result in companies being dishonest if it means they can avoid the potentially multimillion dollar cleanup cost.
Terrible reading comprehension anon.

Companies will cut costs and pollute if they know they can get away it. This is a fact. We're still dealing with the consequences of extreme soil and groundwater pollution that was caused before the EPA was around to enforce these environmental regulations. Again, governments all around the world have an EPA branch of their government because companies and individuals cannot be trusted to not pollute the environment. Your argument is pretty much on par with saying, "we dont need the police to enforce laws, people will just follow them"

>>118906
I want the legislative branch to stop creating new agencies and just do their job.

We give expand authority to create laws, and we wind up with idiotic shit like an "air tax."

>>118907
K. You have nothing to add other than your bullshit credentials.

You think republicans are anarchists. Thank your for your opinion.

>>118909
But the EPA is full of experts whose entire reason to exist is to know this one particular field. If the lawmakers had to run around either educating themselves on subjects that used to go to specific bodies like the EPA or rounding up experts to substantiate their legislating, then congress would move slower than it already does!

>>118909
8/10
Would read again

>>118452
She is married to Leftist Kike so what do you expect? If not for her Father she would be full libtard

>>118907
>we dont need the police to enforce laws, people will just follow them

more like

>we don't need the EPA because we already have police

If you care about the environment you should be arguing for punishments for pollution. Regulations just waste money.

>>118911
Sounds kinda like how the FED is supposed to prevent economic instability.

But it doesn't work out that way. Alphabet agencies are corrupt, private or government.

The only solution is less of it, so they can be held accountable.

If congress fucks up the environment, I know exactly who's at fault. Enough of this big ass government where nobody is to blame.

>>118915
>Regulations just waste money.
No, regulations save money because there often exists a conflict of interest between profit incentive and societal well-being.
They have to be the right regulations, and there must be transparency in order that we can make unbiased assessments regarding the quality of a given regulation.

>>118452
WHO
GIVES
A
FLYING
FUCK.

Anon, please don't post arbitrary shit like this. Will this make the world a better place? Will it help me have a better life? Is the subject of the news story even relevant? No.

I'll go to Yahoo!News for crap like this.

>>118909
Hahaha. Bullshit credentials, do you even know what they mean? I just added to the discussion practical examples of why environmental regulation and the EPA are completely necessary. What exactly have you added to this discussion? "The EPA is an unnecessary government agency for reasons I can't justify"

I dont think Republicans are anarchists, I'm not sure where you got that from. As you or somebody else rightly pointed out the EPA was created by Nixon. Reducing soil and groundwater contamination and it's consequential health effects is a bipartisan issue.

>>118915
So the police should enforce environmental regulation now? Does that mean they should also require a science degree so they can understand how dense non-aqueous phase liquids sorb to soil particles? Because that's important in determining the level of soil and groundwater contamination and how it will be remediated. Punishment for pollution already exists when regulations are disobeyed. Jesus christ this is obvious. The EPA is the scientific body we rely on to determine where and how bad that pollution is.

>If congress fucks up the environment, I know exactly who's at fault. Enough of this big ass government where nobody is to blame.

I don't want to wait until those chucklefucks mess our shit up beyond repair to blame someone. I don't care to blame anyone, I want to mitigate risk of future disaster and improve quality of life.

We need a framework of transparent regulation through which business owners can focus purely on their own profit interest without diverting focus onto the myriad of unintended consequences their industry might have on civilization or nature.

>>118924
That sounds terrible

>>118921
Why would police need to understand science to enforce the law?

You aren't so smart. Stick to the buzzwords, it was almost convincing.

>>118924
Regulations don't really prevent things from happening. Like BP really gives a fuck about paying some fine.

We have all kinds of banking regulations but they get more money when they fuck up. This shit isn't working.

>>118920
It affects my wallet, anon. Stock market, yo. Mining companies are gonna come back.

>>118937
Not if there aren't any customers for their products, as is the case with coal.

>>118935
Because unlike standard police work, e.g. "you shot and killed that guy", that's illegal, understanding environmental regulations (as you do not) requires a level of scientific understanding that cannot be gained from simply giving the police a field manual.

Let's get this straight, you're proposing that the police force, with all of their current free time, should be: monitoring and sampling groundwater wells, taking soil samples, undertaking air vapour tests, collating and mapping the data and then comparing it to health guideline values to determine if somebody has broken an environmental regulation? All of which you're proposing should be undertaken by somebody with no scientific background or understanding?

>regulations dont really prevent things from happenings
Correct, but enforcement of them does. The devil is in the detail with environmental regulation and giving the task of enforcing regulations to somebody who doesnt understand them will mean that they are not followed

>>118935
>Why would police need to understand science to enforce the law?

Go ask a cop to test groundwater at 200 feet deep for traces of mercury. Have them solve a murder at the same time.

I think you just want to cripple the enforcement of environmental laws.

>>118935
>Like BP really gives a fuck about paying some fine.

They dont, but regulation can enforce the proper operation of wells, pipelines, construction to reduce the risk of a spill in the first place. Fines dont remove pollution from groundwater.

>We have all kinds of banking regulations but they get more money when they fuck up. This shit isn't working.

Trump is working on repealing dodd frank, one of his orders has already weakened it- and half his cabinet including Bannon worked at goldmans sachs. Things are only going to get worse and worse in that industry, and there are not going to be any second thoughts from Ivanka on that. So that's good news for you. We're going back to 8 years ago with risky mortgage loans and many other fun things.

>>118952
>listen only us super smart science people understand what kind of toxic sludge is allowed ok?
>that'll be 9 billion dollars please come again

>oh hey remember how this stuff is complicated? we also have to tax the air because of some bullshit
>that'll be 15 billion dollars please come again

>listen the air taxes are going great, but we need total control of energy production ok?
>that'll be ????? dollars please come again

>hey the global climate is better than ever but we're going to need money for some gas chambers...
>HEIL NATURE

Stop the EPA before it's too late...

chemical dumping is a problem. but from what I've observed, the EPA is bloated and ineffective. I'm fine with Trump pursuing a destroy-and-rebuild strategy.

>>118954
How's it hangin Alex Jones?

>>118956
Fine, but I would like them to provide convincing evidence that their long-term strategy for EPA will be optimal.

>>118960
I can agree with that.

>>118927
I don't mean they shouldn't be concerned. I mean that in a sophisticated society, we have division of labor. It's good to have a greater appreciation of the role we all play in society but investors and owners should be free to focus purely on their trade knowing that they and their clients don't have to also have a doctorate in climatology or chemical engineering to anticipate what practices are going to have harmful consequences for others, and they can live with peace of mind that those whom are less than responsible with their work and patronage won't harm others either.

>>118954
>retarded screeching

Yeah you're right, who cares about being educated? Who cares about pollution? Lead and arsenic in groundwater tastes delicious anyway! Everybody do whatever you want!! Nothing matters! We have a small government now so everything is great!!!

>>118960
>Trump providing evidence his long term strategy for the EPA will be optimal
>Trump providing evidence
Good luck with that

>>118972
Good luck ever not being butthurt that Trump won hahahaha

>>118977
being butthurt that trump won is different than being butthurt because trump is destroying the country

>>118982
>America first
>destroy the country


hahahahahaa

>>118964
I don't see that as a realistic scenario. Ever.
We can be as sophisticated a society as you like, not gunna over turn basic human greed.

>>118956
>but from what I've observed, the EPA is bloated and ineffective
How so?
Examples?

>>118988
https://www.cagw.org/media/wastewatcher/epa-intersection-invasive-and-inefficient

this should serve.

>>118982
both sides believe the other is trying to destroy the country.

>>118993
You can make a reasonable argument that democrats want to destroy the country. Many of their policies would radically change America.

It does not go both ways. Republicans just want democrats to stop changing America so fucking fast.

>>118990
It doesn't.
It did not state the reason the equipment was going unused. Perhaps it's out of date, or there aren't any tesy to be done with it? I agree that's wasteful, but that can't be all there is to wish 'a destroy and rebuild' scenario. Maybe eventually, but I don't see the current administration doing anything other than making it easy for large corporations and fuel providers to fuck up my kid's planet.
That's all I saw. I'm not going to give into fear mongering over making sure hotels don't waste water.

>>118993
You can make a reasonable argument that republicans want to destroy the country. Many of their policies would radically change America.

It does not go both ways. Democrats just want republicans to stop legislating morality and giving tax breaks to billionaires.

>>118997
here's more:

http://freebeacon.com/issues/report-epa-running-a-160-million-pr-machine/
https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/7/Open_The_Books_Oversight_Report_-_Environmental_Protection_Agency_FINAL.pdf

I'll admit I haven't researched this issue in-depth, but I made a general observation with a fair amount of evidence supporting it.

I don't think building a few more pipelines is going to destroy the planet.

>>119007
First is about a mil a year over 14 years.
You could argue that PR is a waste but given the country's opinion on this like climate change, I'm not super bothered by it. It's also vauge about what furniture or 'toys and games' are. Side note: if you work a full time office job, it's nice when your chair doesn't give you back problems.

You could of just posed the second link, since that's what your first one is sourcing.
I also don't think you've bothered to read it, I will later.

If you haven't done any serious research, why are you coming to a conclusion that you seem to reach by giving me the first few links in Google? Seems kind of dsingenuous, anon.

It's not that I don't feel there could be wasteful spending, but I don't think it would require restructuring.

>>119009
I have read and skimmed through actually. yes, the first cites the second, but the second is much longer so I did that to make it easier.

I wouldn't make a false claim of expertise just to score points or 'win'. it's just my overall impression from reading and observing, and yes, I tossed you convenient links which support this.

could the EPA be improved without drastic cuts or abolishment? maybe. perhaps I'm being pessimistic in this case.

>>118896
>the government can scoop up profit with the EPA
The government is not usually a profitable enterprise. You have been proven wrong, there's no shame in that.

>>118999
>Many republican policies would radically change America

>no u
>every time
Which policies, you dumb liberal?

>>119083
>>>119083
The government is not usually a profitable enterprise

>>119088
Abortion, tax cuts for the rich, wanton environmental destruction, corporate welfare and helping the rich get richer, gutting wall street consumer protections, gutting consumer protections in general, anti-intellectualism, being Israel's bitch, >muh war on christmas, and strict constructionist picks for judicial posts. I could go on if you want...

>>119092
notice how you don't have a specific policy. "environmental destruction" are you serious, as if anyone supports that.

Abortion is the best you've got, and all we want is to undo changes made by democrats

you people want open borders that would warp our demographic and culture. many openly want the destruction of the second amendment. HATE SPEECH LAWS that would end the 1st ammendment.

I could go on

>>119101
>"environmental destruction" are you serious, as if anyone supports that.

I want this. Humanity had a good run, it's time to end it.

>>119149
After you my good sir.

>>119149
How's highschool? Hopefully you grow out of leftism before you get Muslim AIDS.

>>119092
Talk about liberal conspiracy theories.

LOL.

What about the fact that you libtards fourced us to pay for shit that we don't want?

What about libtards creating countless regulations that stunted ecomomic growth and kills countless jobs?

What about libtards supporting baby killers, climate cultists, hippies, and communists?

>>119149
Why don't you just kill yourself, tree hugger?

>>119188
>Hopefully you grow out of leftism before you get Muslim AIDS?

How's high school?

>>119216
That kind of post will fly on /pol/, but not here.

We have people arguing for and against the EPA in this thread, and whenever we try to talk about specifics, the discussion winds down real quick (see the posts at the end I quote). The fact is, you need a lifetime of experience and technical knowledge to even weigh in on this kind of issue. Which is why- left or right- I try to be a technocrat. Many people try to avoid being "sheep" and forming their own opinion, but thats simply not possible with issues this complicated. Always look for the politicians that support experts and scientists who spend their live reading and writing thousands of articles on the subject. Forming your own opinion may seem independent, but you'll only end up dumber than the guy next to you that read 4 articles instead of 2.

>>119007
>>119009
>you haven't done any serious research, why are you coming to a conclusion that you seem to reach by giving me the first few links in Google?
>I'll admit I haven't researched this issue in-depth, but I made a general observation with a fair amount of evidence supporting it.

>>118452
>Rex Tillerson is for it
>One of the biggest oil tycoons
Holy shit, you know Trump is going full retard when even Rex is for it. Why can't Trump just let got of his ego, it's not going to get him far in his administration. Why would Bannon and others oppose it anyways, coal and oil industry is dying regardless of the regulations, seems like they should wake up and jump ship instead of taking us down with them. Also I didn't expect Rex to be a cool dude, every time I hear about him he's been doing a 180* from what I expected a billionaire oil tycoon to do and actually trying to be a solid secretary of the state.

>>119289
Bannon wants to cause irreparable damage to the US's administrative state and current global order. All the appointments of people who hate the agencies they'll be leading and scandal after scandal lines up with his stated purpose. He thinks that they'll be a war between a resurgent, economic nationalist US and Russian ethnostates, against Islam/possibly other liberal democracies. Backing out of the Paris Agreement fulfills that purpose.

>>119299
The guy sounds like a whack job on a mission for a self fulfilling - self destructive prophecy. Maybe someone should get him medicated.

>>119304
He's a big fan of the Fourth Turning. He's even made a movie about it. According to the theory put forth in the book, history in the West is cyclical, and the same trends of boom, bust, and crises all happen in a roughly 80 year span of time (past Crises in America was WWII and the Revolution).

One group builds the order (Greatest Generation), one maintains it (Silent Generation), another tears it down (Boomers), another lives in the anarchic world where where nobody has your back (80's -90's), and the last come together in the face of an almost insurmountable crises and build a new order (Current generation or millennials). Cue cycle restarting.

Under their theory, we're currently in the crises point, the time when society outgrows the crumbling old order and must define a new ideal. This unraveling and instability usually leads to total war.

Bannon probably styles himself as the Grey Champion, destined to instill his ideal in the youth and lead them into remaking the US. He wants to fulfill the above prophecy and redefine what America is. Thus Bannon believes that an almost apocalyptic war will likely be fought in the next decade.

The funny thing is though that even the author kinda disagrees with Bannon. The book was meant to be kind of a warning, and you should be mitigating the craziness of this transitional phase, not trying to make it worst.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/where-did-steve-bannon-get-his-worldview-from-my-book/2017/02/24/16937f38-f84a-11e6-9845-576c69081518_story.html?utm_term=.7ab9e17e3e77

>>119307
It gets worst: https://mic.com/articles/170447/steve-bannon-s-obsession-with-this-racist-novel-is-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg#.t25xcVzUn

>>119310
TRUMP: We have to keep our talented people in this country.

TRUMP: I think you agree with that. Do you agree with that?

BANNON: Well I got a tougher — you know, when two thirds or three quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think — on, my point is, a country's more than an economy. We’re a civic society.

-----------------

BANNON: You saw these guest workers. You saw the CIS report yesterday. You saw that, what is it, 61 million? Isn’t the beating heart of this problem, the real beating heart of it, of what we gotta get sorted here, is not illegal immigration? As horrific as that is, and it’s horrific, don’t we have a problem, we’ve looked the other way on this legal immigration that’s kinda overwhelmed the country? When you look and there’s got 61 million, 20 percent of the country, is immigrants — is that not a massive problem? You were with Jeff Sessions for many, many years. Is that not the beating heart of this problem?

MILLER: Well, yes, it’s mind-boggling, and it is something I have talked about before at some length on your program. It’s important to understand that historically speaking, that immigration is supposed to be interrupted with periods of assimilation and integration. So if you looked at the numerically smaller immigration waves from 1880 to 1920, when the foreign-born population increased from 7 million to 14 million, there was zero immigration growth for the next half-century. In fact, the foreign-born population growth shrank remarkably. So from 1920 to 1970, the foreign-born population shrank from 14 million to about 10 million. The number of immigrants in the country, the total number of immigrants, shrank in 50 years, and the overall American population doubled. Now, to just finish this short history of immigration, from 1970 to today the foreign-born population has quadrupled, more than quadrupled, from less than 10 million to more than 40 million plus the kids that are from the CIS report.