You know, when you tilt your head back and look down your nose at us, all we see are your boogers.
I didn't want to respond at all. Not to the first three posts which were just general negative snarky remarks about Pruitt's appointment. I didn't see anything in such remarks worth commenting on. I did so only because Nebe pointedly noted the lack of comments on the matter (from the opposition I presume.) I apologize if that offends you.
Scott Pruitt has made a career of suing environmental groups and agencies to block regulations and enable the fossil fuel industry to continue to operate with as little responsibility as possible for clean up and reclamation of mining sites and fracted(sp?) oil and gas wells polluting water tables as well.
That certainly is more specific than your original comment, but still too general and more one sided opinion rather than argued fact. Suing an environmental group might be bad or good. One would have to argue the facts. Same goes for blocking regulations. Might be the right thing to do. Enabling someone to have as little responsibility as possible for clean up may be proper depending on the circumstance. Allowing the pollution of water tables doesn't sound good, but maybe it is worded to specifically make it sound bad--again what are the details.
Another doubter of global warming (don't
any of these guys ever go outside!!??) he's no fool and knows which side of the cracker has the jam.
He has stated that he believes there is warming but is not certain how much is due to specified human activity.
Trump
wanted to do away with the EPA completely, let big business regulate themselves.
If the EPA was eliminated, business, big or small, would still be regulated. I'm sure the Trump administration thinks it would be over-regulated. In many ways I agree with that.
As for environmental regulation, the states would take on a more complete role in regulation. And Congress can assume its proper federal role of regulator rather than giving unelected officials the plenary power to do so.
While that might not be possible at first, I think that he(Puitt) will certainly weaken and and try to completely eliminate any regs that might slow big business down.
My suspicion is that he will try to make regulation more constitutionally defensible. Make Congress more directly responsible rather than giving unelected regulators total control of making laws regarding the environment. I get the impression that he wants more state input in the regulatory process as well.
Conversely though, I do support his stance that private industry should not be able to use federal eminent domain laws in a for profit enterprise.
He has stated he wants to do away with the Waters of the United States Rule.
My limited understanding is that he wants it to be re-written with more specificity and practicality. And, again, have more state input in the writing and enforcing, etc. The Waters rule is too vague to properly apply. It's lack of clarity renders it open to abuse by regulators who desire to "overreach." Here's a good article that details its problems and various ideas on what it needs:
[http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049868//
How I feel this might affect us is if the EPA regulations are weakend or loosely enforced is there will be increased pollution at all points, runoff will destroy breeding grounds for fish and habitat for their food base. Or, big companies like Omega Protein will be allowed to take every last menhaden, herring and groundfish left, sell the ground up meal to India or China, and then go belly up and make the Fed bail them out. In the mean time, the stocks of market fish will (continue to) crash.
That sounds like a scenario that Trump would not want. Doubt if that would be allowed to happen.
We have to give the ocean time to heal, we've been beating the crap out of it for too long IMHO.