Trump Calls For EPA Cuts To Boost Military Spending: Emissions Regulations Rollbacks Looming

9 months ago by Steven Loveday 122

The Trump administration plans to release its first tentative budget on March 13. According to a myriad of sources, it will impose substantial cuts to Environmental Protection Agency funding, to make room for monumental increases to military spending. Part of the plan will act to rollback emissions regulations.

Scott Pruitt

Trump’s promises to just the Navy alone ring in around $165 billion. Many cuts will need to be made in order for Trump’s plan to work, including those to Social Security, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act. However, none of these are reportedly on the immediate chopping block.

Instead, the administration aims to to downsize, and perhaps eventually eliminate the EPA. Part of this deals with rehashing emissions standards for vehicles. The EPA “locked” 2025 regulations in place right before Obama left office, and Trump plans to “unlock” them. Automakers have complained that it will be too difficult and expensive to comply with the “stringent” rules, but others argue that many automakers just want to put an end to the adoption of electric vehicles.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has worked to convince Trump that the EPA’s regulations will cost many American jobs. The group has also reported that consumers aren’t concerned about fuel economy or emissions, and that the American public will not purchase alternative fuel vehicles.

As soon as next week, the Trump administration could officially withdraw the EPA’s ruling, along with the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and likely several other earth-friendly programs. The administration combats the EPA’s “manipulation” of scientific research or economic analysis to support its cause. Trump’s EPA transition team is citing a document written by Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

“EPA does not use science to guide regulatory policy as much as it uses regulatory policy to steer the science. This is an old problem at EPA. In 1992, a blue-ribbon panel of EPA science advisers that [sic] ‘science should not be adjusted to fit policy.’ But rather than heed this advice, EPA has greatly increased its science manipulation.”

The document also bullets:

  • EPA should not be funding scientific research
  • If EPA uses scientific data for regulation, that data must be publicly available so independent scientists can review it
  • EPA’s science advisory process needs to be overhauled to eliminate conflicts of interest and inherent bia
  • Science standards need to be developed and implemented to ensure that science policy decisions and epidemiological practices are based on sound science

Source: New York Times, The Hill, Axios

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

122 responses to "Trump Calls For EPA Cuts To Boost Military Spending: Emissions Regulations Rollbacks Looming"

  1. a-kindred-soul says:

    Military spending has always been the best way to take money from the people and give it to the rich and powerful.

    Another negative: all this money must somehow be spent, therefore arms will be built and need to be used. Wars are on the horizon.

    It’s like the thirties in Germany.

    1. Texas FFE says:

      I don’t like defending Trump but this is just ridiculous. The United States in the 21st Century is nothing like Germany in the 1930s. I guess you’re forgetting the huge amounts of money Obama spent on the military when he got in office to “stimulate” the economy.

      1. speculawyer says:

        Oh, there are too many scary parallels to the 30s. Demonizing minority groups like Mexicans and Muslims. Anti-semitism with tombstone attacks and bomb threats. A charismatic leader denouncing the Lugenpresse, I mean “fake news”. A commission to tabulate the crimes of immigrants just like the commission to tabulate the crimes of jews. Paranoid inaccurate proclamations by the leader.

        We are not going to let it get as bad but there there definitely scary parallels.

      2. floydboy says:

        What huge amounts!! This false equivalency BULLS%#@ from the right makes me sick! CONGRESS controls the pursestrings! Yes, the same conservative congress(Republican moderates got the boot) that went all 1950s on Obama’s ass! They opposed EVERYTHING he suggested spending money on, including our crumbling infrastructure!

        1. Texas FFE says:

          You are so wrong!!! The list of programs Obama enacted to stimulate the economy enormous. After Obama came into office about the only place a professional could find a decent paying job was working for the government or working on a federal contract.

      3. super390 says:

        Obama actually reduced military spending from Bush’s later years, which meant the stimulus came from other kinds of spending.

        Didn’t you hear National Savior Trump warn us all that Obama had weakened America’s military horribly and we were all in incredible danger?

        1. Texas FFE says:

          Wrong again! Look up the Recovery Act dimwit.

          1. pjwood1 says:

            ARRA was around 787 billion, nearly the same amount that is being appropriated to Amercian defense. The Sequester was 9%, across discretionary spending, including the military. I don’t have the exact answer, but believe it has a lot to do with what fraction of ARRA expanded the military, and whether this ~9% offset it.

            On the whole, if Obama was expansionary with the military, it was nominal. Military spending to GDP, during the cold war, was around 3-4%. In my opinion, and probably Trump’s, it hasn’t fallen enough since that time. On the debate stage, whether army-types like it or not, Trump clearly saw the opportunity cost of the trillion the got squandered on Iraq. I don’t think Republican molding is necessarily keeping that view in his head, but when I hear him lavishing the military it is more of a fiscal stimulus program than preparation for war.

            Republican Keynesianism, in a nut shell.

    2. speculawyer says:

      I don’t understand why he wants to increase the military budget when he has already surrendered to Russia.

      1. Anon says:

        FYI: Generally, Conservative minds operate in a near-constant state of heightened fear. Spending huge money on weapons, helps them feel better. Even if it makes no rational / fiscal sense to anyone else, to do so.

        Another example would be: Building an impenetrable, multi-Billion dollar wall against imaginary hoards of “bad hombres”, when there is no realistic value in doing so.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Even worse, El Trumpo wants to get us into another nuclear arms race with Russia. When we’ve already got more than enough nuclear weapons to render the entire Earth uninhabitable by anything more complex than a cockroach, then building more nuclear weapons only makes us less safe. So that’s even worse than merely wasting taxpayer money!

          1. speculawyer says:

            Yeah, the sheer paranoid irrationality of the fear drives me crazy.

            Look, of course I hate terrorism and want it fought. But if you look at the objective statistics, you are more likely to be struck by lightning than be killed by an Islamic terrorist in the USA. If we just want to save more human lives, we would be much better off giving out statin drugs, mailing out grip-strips for tubs/showers, higher tobacco taxes, cracking down on drunk driving, tightening gun laws, distributing anti-overdose drugs, etc.

            It really is just fear-mongering and demagoguery.

      2. super390 says:

        Bannon swore last year that war between “Western civilization” and both Islam and China was “inevitable.”

        He seems to consider Russia to part of Western – meaning Christian – civilization.

        And he seems to think World War 3 will be survivable.

        1. bogdan says:

          Trouble is, Europe and Russia are not stupid enough to join this war.

      3. Loaddown says:

        Amen! I was going to say the same thing – “why a military buildup against our new allies?”

    3. For those who might not make it deep down in these many comments:

      >>Nix
      March 7, 2017 at 2:25 pm

      random — Big oil actually doesn’t need more research. They’ve known the science since the 1980’s/1990’s.

      Here is an example of Shell making a video to explain the science of climate change, from way back in 1991:

      “Public information film unseen for years shows Shell had clear grasp of global warming 26 years ago but has not acted accordingly since, say critics….The oil giant Shell issued a stark warning of the catastrophic risks of climate change more than a quarter of century ago in a prescient 1991 film that has been rediscovered.

      A separate 1986 report, marked “confidential” and also seen by the Guardian, notes the large uncertainties in climate science at the time but nonetheless states: “The changes may be the greatest in recorded history.”

      The predictions in the 1991 film for temperature and sea level rises and their impacts were remarkably accurate, according to scientists, and Shell was one of the first major oil companies to accept the reality and dangers of climate change.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/28/shell-knew-oil-giants-1991-film-warned-climate-change-danger

  2. Well this sucks the Big One! And hiw many “Jibs” will the Military Spending deliver or create – in Shipyards, Aircraft Factories, Heavy Vehicle Plants, etc? And if those workers can’t get Healthcare, then what?

    1. Wow! Typo’s big time and no edit options!

      HOW many JOBS (unless they are making Sailing Ships)!

      1. DangerHV says:

        I thought “jib” sounded familiar, but couldn’t fit into your comment. After a quick Googling, it all makes sense now.

        1. Just_Chris says:

          I assume you meant “this sucks big time!” rather than “this sucks the big one!” but I think the later is probably more accurate in this instance.

    2. super390 says:

      Indeed, you’ve hit upon the key of why military spending can’t have the economic benefits it had in WW2. The hungry military contractors of 1942, even ones owned by fascists like Ford, produced well-engineered products at world-beating prices. The P-51 Mustang cost $50,000 each.

      But the entire point of the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us against is that it no longer gets told by Congress what weapons to build. It tells Congress, via corrupt think-tanks and media penetration, what wars it prefers us to be afraid of so that it can build the useless weapons it prefers at ridiculous cost. 60 years of Cold War replaced the Arsenal of Democracy with hyper-advanced, specialized tech firms who don’t really hire a lot of people.

      Now, the relationship between war and technology swings back and forth. Historically we’ve had violent eras of mass armies and mass-produced weapons, and longer eras of limited wars and stalemates managed by imperial diplomats, narrow-minded generals/courtiers and professional soldiers who kept things at a comfortable low simmer.

      What would really shake the world would be a flip back to great wars over huge causes, accompanied by highly ideological mass armies toting mass-produced weapons. THAT could produce a lot of jobs, but what would this new warfare be about? A million soldiers marching to the front with drones strapped to their backs? Ten million govt-subsidized hackers in their mom’s basements attempting to ruin everyone’s lives in some other country?

      Can there ever again be a mass war without resort to strategic nuclear weapons?

  3. Brian says:

    You say: “The administration doesn’t believe that the EPA should use scientific research or economic analysis to support its cause.”

    And then you quote a document used by the administration as saying: “In 1992, a blue-ribbon panel of EPA science advisers that [sic] ‘science should not be adjusted to fit policy.’ But rather than heed this advice, EPA has greatly increased its science manipulation.”
    It also says: “Science standards need to be developed and implemented to ensure that science policy decisions and epidemiological practices are based on sound science”

    You quote them saying that the EPA should use sound science to guide its policy, but then claim that they don’t believe that. So basically you are calling them liars, without providing any evidence. I’m not saying there isn’t evidence to be had, but it is not used in this article.

    1. Takeshi says:

      What’s confusing to you, exactly? The quote demonstrates their denial of climate change, in which they advance the lie that the EPA is promoting some vague anti-science political agenda. Which is precisely what they are guilty of.

      So yeah, they’re liars. They reject the overwhelming evidence of climate change – because it threatens their donors or ideology – not through research or counterargument but rhetorical tricks and obfuscation.

      Republican 101.

      1. Brian says:

        “The quote demonstrates their denial of climate change”

        Nowhere in this article does it state that. The quote doesn’t demonstrate it at all. Rather, it is a result of their denial. So the reader is left to assume it. The quote given simply states that the EPA manipulates science. The EPA should instead by subject to proper science. That’s a statement that they made. Nowhere in this article does it directly mention that Climate Science is a hoax, or whatnot. Implied though it may be.

        The irony is that both the statements made by the Trump administration, and those of us here agree that policies should be made based on sound science. We just disagree as to what is sound science.

        Again, I’m not saying I’m confused, or that this article is wrong. Just that, like the administration itself, it is assuming that the reader is making the same assumptions as the author.

        The Trump administration excels and vague statements loaded with underlying assumptions. The best way to counter that is to speak and write with complete arguments.

        1. Takeshi says:

          “The quote given simply states that the EPA manipulates science.”

          Right, which is the lie. A lie in the service of climate change denial, if you’re capable of understanding context. That it is implied and not outright stated, therefore preserving an air of moral authority in duplicitous fashion, makes the lie all the more insidious and important to call out.

          There was no editorial overreach here, sorry.

          1. needa says:

            That isn’t necessarily a lie. When you have a gov’t body that doles out money to science communities in order to back up their own claims of climate change… something is wrong. And it isn’t something that we should be paying for. When you can take the exact same data that is used to try and prove climate change, and prove that there is no climate change… something is wrong with that also. Simply put… 30 years of data isn’t enough to show/prove anything.
            I am all for doing my part to save the earth, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be skeptical of the information that is out there.

            I am totally willing to have a conversation that 100% makes me believe in climate change, but only if it is a civil one.

            1. TNT says:

              So who should fund the research if governments aren’t?

              1. needa says:

                Research would continue privately. That wouldn’t be a problem. Thirty years of data is not enough for anything more than speculation. The gov’t shouldn’t be paying for speculation.

                1. Just_Chris says:

                  I assume you mean 30 years of satellite data, which only confirms the thousands of years worth of data that we have from a wide array of sources. Sea level changes, glacial movement, changes in rain fall patterns, temperature variation, chemical composition of the air, etc. can all be determined from direct and indirect measurement of a lot of different things. From this data it is perfectly possible to assign cause and effect. It is also possible to make some pretty inaccurate but very valuable predictions around things like sea level and ocean temperature. Combined with our pretty accurate weather models this can allow us to make some pretty strong conclusions around who will be living under water and how much of the great barrier reef will become a sea grass meadow.

                  1. needa says:

                    Half of the things you mention has happened naturally with or without our help though. Using satellite data with old data only allows for theories because the accuracy of anything previous is subjective. But if you do look at the satellite data, it shows things like more ice on earth in 2014 than any year previously. 50% ice growth in 2012. Ice declines in other years. Sea variations due to earthquakes, ice, etc. Huge dips in temps after el ninos. It shows that the earth is in a constant change, just as it has been for thousands of years.
                    I used to be a climate change believer… 100%. After voting for Trump and seeing the things he is doing that never gets reported on, I started to realize that just because the media shoves things down our throats.. it doesn’t necessarily mean it is true. So I went on a quest to pseudo educate myself on climate change. I found some compelling arguments on the subject that goes a lot deeper than the scenarios above.

                2. ModernMarvelFan says:

                  “Research would continue privately. That wouldn’t be a problem.”

                  You mean like when Exxon Funded the research on climate change and then decide to “bury it” from the public because they are partially at fault in making it happen?

                  Or do you mean the science that Tobacco company funded to find smoking harmful but also equally “buried it” to prevent the public from knowing the truth and then hire the “doctors paid” to misinform the public?

                  Geez, “private funded” research are so “innocent”, aren’t they?

                  1. neda says:

                    If you don’t think people like Bill Gates and such wouldn’t sink money into Climate Change research you are sadly mistaken. Oh Wait… They already are.

                    Troll someone else please.

            2. pjwood1 says:

              Your whole premise is flawed. The 1.2C increase in temperatures is simply real, and steadily observable. Carbon dioxide’s growth and effects are known. Nobody needs to lavish the scientific community to back this up.

              Maybe if you believe there is some other possible cause, you’ll discuss.

              1. SparkEV says:

                Many argue that CO2 is not due to man made source, but isotope analysis shows that extra CO2 is indeed by man made sources.

                Some argue CO2 follows temperature change, not the other way around. Sure, there are articles describing why this is the case when looking at core samples, but they’re still skeptical.

                But far bigger issue is that it’s a global problem. Just look around you for all the damn SUV and trucks on the road. Now imagine it’s like that all over the world, and there’s no hope that the humanity will curb CO2 any time soon.

                No matter what little we (US) do, other guys will still emit just as much CO2. Considering developing countries, things will get far worse.

                1. pjwood1 says:

                  So, give up?

                  The globe may peak at 50Gt/year from man, on a shot clock most subscribed to as ~1,000Gt (back around 2009). That’s for 2C. We’re still throwing fouls on that clock.

                  If developed nations electrify, emerging ones will follow. They’re waiting for the U.S. China, the rest of the Paris Agreement, is waiting for us. That’s how bad the Trump Administration is. They’re behind Saudi Arabia on CO2, and maybe just a little ahead of…Russia.

                  Under a “give up” scenario, what I don’t understand is why Rex Tillerson doesn’t have to to tell me what 500, and then 600PPM will do, after the ocean soaks up enough heat, changes its currents, changes its PH and whatever else his ilk consciously wants us to neglect.

                  It isn’t as if we get to some fixed point, when we surrender to the problem of CO2.

                  1. SparkEV says:

                    As far as personal effort is concerned, yes, give up. It’s pointless.

                    But if you’re developing something that will make things cheaper without more GHG emissions, by all means, continue. Solar is an example of this. Fusion is another. But only do them, because they will make things cheaper, not because of GHG considerations.

                    US didn’t sign up for Kyoto, yet we curbed more GHG than many nations that did sign up. That’s due to lower cost of energy thanks to fracking. Sure, it’s not optimal, but my point is that things will only improve if they get cheaper, not because of some mandate that try to force people to change their ways.

                    1. needa says:

                      Solar isn’t all that and a bowl of grits either. Some say the fluorine emissions from making them is far worse than not making them at all. I haven’t really read up on it any more than the one blog, which may or may not be true. So don’t hold me to it. Info is out there though is anyone wants to read.

              2. needa says:

                Not going to discuss when you tell me my premiss is flawed. Unable to see that it might not be. It wouldn’t be a discussion as much as it would be a you’re wrong and I am correct type of thing.

                1. pjwood1 says:

                  You come off as equally weighting the idea that climate change is, or isn’t, a problem.

                  “When you can take the exact same data that is used to try and prove climate change, and prove that there is no climate change… something is wrong with that also. ”

                  I say your premise is flawed, not to be rude, but to accept or reject the idea that reasonable people are anywhere educating themselves and coming to this conclusion. Attitudes on this subject are not formed by who pays for research. They’re formed by the research, and what we commonly know about the physical world.

                  I don’t think a discussion can be had, when comments suggesting there’s been no warming get thrown around, as if they had backup. That’s what you’re saying, right? That it can be equally proven?

                  “Fluorine” makes me curious. I’m not a toxins expert. I study the financial impact of regulating things like NOx, mercury, sulfur and CO2/methane. Since its a water problem, I don’t even get into lead. There’s a whole lot I’m leaving out, but fluorine isn’t something I remember seeing on a picket sign. Fluoride was a Communist scare, I’m not kidding, several decades ago as it was introduced to drinking water.

                  I’m always open to links that go over new things industry needs to be concerned about. Sorry, we disagree.

                  1. needa says:

                    I ultimately think the earth is going to do what it is going to do. It is going to heal itself as things happen. And looking for links would take up a lot of time that I don’t have atm. Had i realized how long a comment would have to be to get a point across.. mine or yours, I would have never made the lets conversate comment. lol. On the same data used thing… I saw several instances of that being said and shown when on my two night hunt to better educate myself on the subject. I put in a reply above that says a couple of things if you want to read.
                    Thanks for the level headed reply. *thumbs up*

            3. super390 says:

              Meanwhile, the rest of the world is rebuilding around the assumption that the science has already been settled. Funny about that. Think it has anything to do with the fact that Big Tobacco proved decades ago that the US public is especially susceptible to being lied to about its addictions and resistant to govt warnings about same? Or that Big Oil is more concentrated in the USA than anyplace else and has a reach far beyond Big Tobacco at its bloody worst? Or that half of America believes that the wrong side won the Civil War, that FDR caused the Depression, and that the Civil Rights Movement means everything is fair now and Blacks should just shut up? All of which views act as excuses for pro-business, anti-government bias?

              Yeah, yeah, tell me about how often private interests (businesses) will follow ecological survival over short-term profit.

  4. Ocean Railroader says:

    I really think the Military and the Defense contractors need to change their spending habits to stop massive cost over runs on projects.

    I have worked on several disaster story lines were the US Military gets wreaked were the enemy can throw thousand super cheap fighters instead of our ten super expensive fighters.

    I personally feel that giving the defense contractors a blank check will not make us any safer.

    I”m also worried that if Greenland or if our earth interacts with a space could of space water ice we will need our science organizations to keep track of all the damage it will do to us on earth.

  5. JorgeG says:

    The Chavez of America, populist, liar, charismatic, 30% of faithful uneducated followers and getting richer what a tragedy for US and the Planet earth.

    1. pjwood1 says:

      I know, and the news keeps coming. Exxon and the White House were in lock step, yesterday:

      “ExxonMobil is strategically investing in new refining and chemical-manufacturing projects in the U.S. Gulf Coast region to expand its manufacturing and export capacity. The company’s Growing the Gulf expansion program, consists of 11 major chemical, refining, lubricant and liquefied natural gas projects at proposed new and existing facilities along the Texas and Louisiana coasts. Investments began in 2013 and are expected to continue through at least 2022.”

      Cut & Paste…really great to know the swamp is being drained, and we can fund 54 billion of additional military spending by taking from EPA’s $8 billion budget.

      1. SJC says:

        The fix is in, Rex is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

  6. George L. Parrott says:

    Sadly “politics” is really about the exercise of power….power over people and over territory where those people live.

    But “science” is simply the search for truth….truth tested by repeatability and about a fit to reality. Science is adjusted by feedback and new data, but POLITICS is simply about power and personal rewards in this case.

    When foolish people pick a “leader” who does not understand science but clearly understands egotism, self-enrichment, and the manipulation of others (POLITICS), then they/we get what we chose….

    A world less green, less habitable, less promising for “OUR” children, but much better for…..HIS.

    NOT my president.

  7. Alan says:

    These reversals will be reversed again in 4 years no doubt !

    1. Goaterguy says:

      If he doesn’t get rid of the elections…

      1. A says:

        A world wor will force the people not to change the president. I think this is the plan. He is a business men and wors are big money. I think the word trump will be in 10 years time the same as above stupidity up to total distruction

        1. Anon says:

          You mean, “Wars”.

          1. Maybe he meant ‘Whore’?
            A “New World Whoreder”?

            Fossil Fuels;
            Fossilized;
            Old Fossil;
            Old!

            Nothing New from Trump?

            So How will burning more fuels make cleaner air, Mr. (President) Trump?

  8. Loboc says:

    Making Pruitt the head was a huge step in this direction. Same thing with Perry. Foxes guarding the hen-house.

    1. My brother raised Chickens. His Dig killed and ate one. He shot his dog.

      Lesson learned?
      Dogs Love Chicken!

  9. georgeS says:

    Let me know when CARBs mandate is pulled. That’s the biggy. CAFE not so much.

    Also, I don’t see the changes mentioned here affecting Tesla’s Model 3 sales.

    That said I don’t like Trumps policy.

    1. georgeS says:

      CARBs waiver

    2. fishhawk says:

      Unless the $7500 tax credit is eliminated as well. I might be buying a new car sooner than later.

    3. David Murray says:

      Indeed.. The Model-3 is the one saving grace we have. If not for that vehicle looming on the horizon, the other manufacturers would just quietly ditch all of their EV efforts as soon as the regulations are rolled back. But when there is a serious competitive threat looming, they still have to do something.

      1. Alan says:

        Not only that, but Tesla have been planning for life after tax credits by building the gigafactory.

        I hope they eat more than their opponents lunch.

        1. georgeS says:

          Alan,
          Agreed. I think the M3 will sell fine even without the tax incentive

          1. DJ says:

            It’ll have to as it won’t really be there regardless 🙂

            Who really needs clean air and water though after the coming nuclear apocalypse…

            1. We already buy and use way too much bottled water!

              Who will start selling Bottled Air?

    4. speculawyer says:

      California will go crazy if they kill off CARB. I think the process to do it would take years and before then, thing are going to be very different politically.

      1. pjwood1 says:

        CAFE, and other EPA rulings take years when having to be replaced by re-rulings which require their own proposal and comment periods. The CARB waiver could be toast by Summer. Obama reversed it ~6 months after taking office. Once done, I bet any state legislature with a ZEV program gets sued by team Trump, if they don’t withdraw it.

        These are nasty times.

        1. Time for “The Organization of Living Americans” to take Trumps leading Polluters to Court!

  10. SteveSeattle says:

    When conspiracy theories are believed more than peer reviewed science this is what you get.
    This country will have to go through some pain before it realizes its mistakes.

  11. Djoni says:

    Your president isn’t an idiot.
    He just acts like one to fool everyone, but he knows where the money goes.
    And all of us watching this robbery are useless as idiot.
    Solar industry in the U.S.A. employ more people than, gas, coal and oil together.
    But this guy obtain vote to get back to coal economy, where he have friends.
    And war just divert you money to what is need to keep fossil energy going and keep the rich richer.

    Nice job Dumbo!

    1. super390 says:

      The old industries are always better organized than the new ones, especially in Washington.

  12. SparkEV says:

    More evidence why taxes are evil. Had the Dumbocrats raised taxes even more, Republitards that will eventually take office will use that extra tax money for more bombs. Sure, Republitards say “no new taxes”; they just let the Dumbocrats raise it for them.

    If you’re a patriot and care for humanity, reduce your tax burden as much as possible. Take that EV tax credit; you’re doing the world good by paying less taxes.

    1. Nick says:

      And if you’re part of the 10% who are left out in the cold by capitalism, you can eat cat food and freeze under a bridge.

      Murica!

      1. SparkEV says:

        That’s how they get you. They raise taxes by saying it’s to help the poor, and the new administration (or more like confusion with Dump) comes in and WHAM! Cut social programs and make more bombs. Unless you advocate for god-like perpetual benevolent dictator, more taxes in US democracy will mean bad things for humanity.

        If you really want to help the poor, seek out private charities. Yes, it’s more work, but that’s far more effective than blindly giving to big brother.

        1. super390 says:

          Private charities are being overrun by the Christian Right. I read a couple of years ago about how the Salvation Army is imposing increasingly rigid ideological restrictions on its personnel. Note that White evangelical churches are far larger and wealthier than Black ones. Thus White evangelicals can vote to destroy social programs, and then fall back on their churches to save them, sort of, while Blacks just starve. Like in the old South those White churches so praise as a model.

          Taking your logic to its extreme, we just go back 1000 years to feudal Europe, with the Catholic Church’s oppressive power backed by it being the conduit for all charity while the governments did nothing for the poor.

          Note that the governments of Scandinavia have had far higher tax rates and their conservative parties don’t turn all that revenue into weapons. Eisenhower kept the military budget in check with a 91% top income tax rate. Our problem is the particular perversion of conservatism called the modern Republican Party.

  13. SteveSeattle says:

    If the administration wants to get out of environmental protection how will they argue that the states like CA should not set their own standards.

    1. georgeS says:

      Steve,
      Exactly. Seems like the Republicans are big on states rights. If they pull Ca’s ability to set its own emmissions standards and EV mandates then that is one big contradiction on their part.

      1. SparkEV says:

        Republicans are not all that big on states’ rights. The most famous Republican (I mean a Republican, not the Repuliturds we have now) Abraham Lincoln, did not allow states’ rights on some issues, even going to war.

        1. Nick says:

          Lincoln was a Republican back before the parties switched positions.

          Lincoln’s views are much more aligned with modern Democratic views.

          1. SparkEV says:

            Core value of Republican is individual responsibility. Slavery is entirely contrary to that, and that hasn’t changed among Republicans. That’s why I make the distinction with Repulitards and Republiturds who have more in common with Dumbocrats.

            1. super390 says:

              And yet as we speak, a private prison is being sued for forcing immigration detainees to perform labor under threat of solitary confinement, thereby making the prison more profitable and giving it an incentive to lobby against quick deportation. And not a single Republican will speak against something which logically could turn all our prisons into slave labor plantations, destroying our wages far more than the illegals ever did.

              You know perfectly well that once we make it profitable to put people in prison, laws and penalties will have as little to do with “personal responsibility” as it did in the chain gang system of the Old South before all its racists switched parties.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            “Lincoln was a Republican back before the parties switched positions.”

            Indeed. In that era, the Democratic party was largely pro-slavery, and after the war largely anti-Reconstruction.

            The modern GOP definitely ain’t the party of Lincoln. Heck, it’s not even the party of Reagan anymore. If Ronald Reagan were alive today and running on the same platform he ran on in his day, then he’d be running as a Democrat.

    2. Brian says:

      Hold my beer…

    3. Nix says:

      They would argue that it is bad for businesses to have 50 different standards, and all that evil regulation would kill jobs.

      That was one of the actual arguments that was made when Nixon created the Federal EPA in the first place. That businesses needed one single set of national regulations, not a patchwork, like California had already started creating. This is also the justification that is used to argue against the EPA granting waivers to CARB to write their own state emissions laws. They even go so far as to pretend that each of the CARB states are “setting their own standards” and creating a “Patchwork of regulations” even though they are all just adopting the same CARB regs.

      Any idea that there is any consistency to when they apply “states rights” would be pure fantasy.

      1. pjwood1 says:

        I hope we see argued before SCOTUS, that the CARB 15 that have more than 50% of the new U.S. auto-market, should be given deference by the remainder.

        This Administration needs to be the last stand for about a ~dozen fossil fuel states (Trump’s cabinet). The oil “patchwork” is what’s screwing things up.

  14. Someone out there says:

    The US already accounts for 1/3rd of the world’s cumulative military spending but of course that’s not enough so screw the environment and screw healthcare, let’s spend even more on killing people instead! So much for draining the swamp…

    1. super390 says:

      Well, it was 1/2 of all spending ten years ago.

  15. Ron M says:

    We already spend three times more than the next closes country on military spending 600 Billon.
    That doesn’t even include the cost of Homeland Security, Retirement or Veterans Affairs.
    Even the military says that we need renewable energy to make combat troops safer.

    1. Priusmaniac says:

      We can only imagine what we could do with a third of that budget spend on a base on Mars instead. 200 billion dollars each year would pay for 3 flights per day. At that rate a city would be on Mars much faster than we could ever dream of. In more, it would still leave 400 billion dollars for defense or more than double the next one. It would also do much more for admiration of the US by other countries than the perpetual US foreign bombings and meddling happening now.

  16. Ron M says:

    Can Trump actually do what he’s doing to the EPA without congress.

    1. SparkEV says:

      Majority of Congress is Repulitards. Not quite as bad as Republiturds like Dump, but pretty bad.

    2. pjwood1 says:

      The EPA is in the Executive Branch. So, mostly yes. Congress made what the EPA does legal, and Constitutional. And, unlike the article above, Trump cannot pull the Clean Air & Water Acts as if they were a “program”. They are laws passed by the U.S. Congress.

      Trump’s budget, like Obama’s and others before them, won’t be reproduced by the Congress. That doesn’t mean EPA funding cuts won’t happen at the same time CARB’s waiver is pulled, or Pruitt doesn’t get working up his own “science” to reverse CAFE, CPP, WOTUS…

      And to think we also got here because identity politics kept enough Democratic votes away.

  17. DangerHV says:

    I think this line “…and likely several other earth-friendly programs.” should be changed to “…and likely several other civilization saving programs.” It may be more compelling, considering the circumstances.

    1. Anti-Lord Kelvin says:

      More likely to “health friendly programs” because most people don’t like to have their children sick from breath diseases, or other family members dying from lung cancers or heath attacks that polluted air bring to them.
      Not to speak about the Clean Water act, we know republicans are rich so they can buy bottles of “Evian” or “Perrier” water, not the average American, and they can pay good health insurances and cares, not the average American, but…it was mostly the average American (uneducated, fool or brain washed) who vote for this administration and this Congress…oh, well, in 2011, Trump send a twit where he was saying that Americans are idiots..for once he was right as we saw in November.

  18. Gene says:

    While I enjoy my $185/month BMW i3, I think it is wrong to subsidize luxury cars for people who can afford to pay for their transportation.
    As for the military spending- look what happened to Ukraine. They declared themselves peaceful, neglected their military and got attacked by Russia.

    1. SparkEV says:

      By your logic, we should spend every single penny on the military and nothing else. Even if we cut military spending by 90%, no one will dare attack US with conventional warfare; we still have many nukes.

      Terrorists are another matter, but we don’t fight terrorists with F35. Ideology must be fought with better ideology, not with bombs.

    2. Stimpy says:

      Ukraine didn’t have military spending equal to the next 7 countries combined.

      Apples to oranges.

    3. Nix says:

      You complain about EV owners getting tax incentives, yet wealthy people with gas guzzlers and personal jets who burn gas like crazy all benefit from massive oil/gas subsidies for DECADES, with no end in site.

      Meanwhile, every single EV tax credit ALREADY has a sunset provision, and Politicians from one party want to kill them before they even sunset. These are the same Politicians who turn a blind eye to decades of oil/gas subsidies that have no sunsets at all, that benefit the wealthy more than the poor (who might not even own a car).

      Bullpucky.

    4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “As for the military spending- look what happened to Ukraine. They declared themselves peaceful, neglected their military and got attacked by Russia.”

      It’s often said that the most expensive military is the one that’s second-best.

      But that’s not true. The most expensive military is the one which is already #1, but still has lawmakers feeding it billions or trillions of taxpayer dollars to build even more expensive weapons that aren’t needed and never get used.

      And that’s what the USA has.

      I would dearly love to see our military budget slashed by about 50%. That would have the added benefit of making us far more cautious about blundering into, and continuing to pursue, wars which aren’t in our national interest; wars which result in making the world less safe for Americans.

  19. randomhuman says:

    “EPA should not be funding scientific research”

    But the Oil industry should…?
    I mean Big Oil is the definition of independent science I guess…

    1. Anti-Lord Kelvin says:

      It is like saying that Health State Department should not fund science research about tobacco consumption causing cancers, but…tobacco industry should! lol
      In fact, it’s exactly what will succeed and all the ones who voted for them will say mehhh!

    2. Nix says:

      random — Big oil actually doesn’t need more research. They’ve known the science since the 1980’s/1990’s.

      Here is an example of Shell making a video to explain the science of climate change, from way back in 1991:

      “Public information film unseen for years shows Shell had clear grasp of global warming 26 years ago but has not acted accordingly since, say critics….The oil giant Shell issued a stark warning of the catastrophic risks of climate change more than a quarter of century ago in a prescient 1991 film that has been rediscovered.

      A separate 1986 report, marked “confidential” and also seen by the Guardian, notes the large uncertainties in climate science at the time but nonetheless states: “The changes may be the greatest in recorded history.”

      The predictions in the 1991 film for temperature and sea level rises and their impacts were remarkably accurate, according to scientists, and Shell was one of the first major oil companies to accept the reality and dangers of climate change.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/28/shell-knew-oil-giants-1991-film-warned-climate-change-danger

  20. Nix says:

    This is only the tip of the iceberg. They aren’t going to stop once they kill incentives, kill CAFE regulations, and kill California’s CARB waivers.

    They have already proposed or already enacted punitive laws that punish you for owning an EV and powering with your own solar power.

    Everything from punitive yearly taxes in some states that tax your EV at a higher rate than a full-size HD pickup truck, to punitive building license fees for public chargers, to monthly fees for owning solar panels, to massive fees for disconnecting your own home from the grid and using solar with battery backup, etc.

    The latest I saw was proposed legislation to require EV’s to go through very expensive inspections as often as every 3 months, and another proposed state law that would levy a fine for every kWh of solar or wind power delivered to customers inside that state!

    Their intentions are very clear. They do not simply want to “level the playing field”. If given their way, they want to punish EV ownership.

    All of these measures will be justified with clever code-words to pretend that there are other motivations.

    1. georgeS says:

      Nix,

      How do you like the new health proposal? Pretty good right. No mandate. …but insurance companies still can’t deny insurance for pre existing conditions.

      How will that decrease premiums?

      1. Nix says:

        I haven’t had a change to read it yet to give an informed opinion. But at just 65 pages, I’m doubting we’re getting the whole story yet. I’ll try to circle back when I’ve had a chance to plow through it and see what it says, and more importantly, what might be glaringly missing.

      2. Mister G says:

        Without individual mandate young and healthy Americans will not buy health insurance, so how will insurance companies pay for claims and make a profit? By raising premiums, raising deductibles, no pre-existing conditions covered, emergency care services not covered, etc…we will go back to pre Obama insurance world. So if any fat diabetic Americans voted for Trump get ready to pay pay pay lol

        1. georgeS says:

          I agree Mister G. Looks like it will raise premiums not lower them.

        2. super390 says:

          It seems that a lot of low-education Americans with health insurance worship the status of having the policy, but never understood that it would be useless in a real emergency due to countless tricks used by the insurance industry. They resented the Hell out of the ACA forcing policies to meet some kind of meaningful standard.

          Those folks will buy anything a salesman promises on his honor as a White Christian man. So they’ll love crappy bait & switch policies vouched for by Trump that will betray them one day. That’s how the premiums will be kept down to protect Trump in the short term.

          The whole problem with insurance is that it’s a risk pool – only a minority of members will ever need the policy to work really well. But convert that into voters, and a majority will go thru their lives without ever knowing they were getting screwed.

    2. Anti-Lord Kelvin says:

      At one time, American people will have to decide what they want: being part of Human Specie or part of Stupid Specie…

  21. Mdstj says:

    A lot of parallels to Lennin Set Russia back 50 years

  22. Mat says:

    Donald is onto something! Let’s just nuke the damn global warming, invade the rising sea, launch air strikes against draught, pull a Donald on SMOG and be done with it! Only the Donald can save us 🙂

    1. In the mountains, there are caves, which have natural air conditioning, no taxes, no politics, and a front door with great views!

      Could be new busines opportunities in finding livable caves, maybe put together a Jobs package to Trump for this!

  23. speculawyer says:

    C’mon #Kremlingate….keep rolling and take down this orange Birther clown.

    1. georgeS says:

      Spec,
      The republicans believe that, when we find out about the wire taps it will be another Watergate.

      1. speculawyer says:

        Trumpkins believe that. Sane Republicans know that tweetstorm was just more orange Birther con-man BS.

        BTW, that outrage on Trump could backfire on him. If there actually is a wiretap then we will get to see the FISA warrant and all the evidence that provided the probable cause for the wiretap.

  24. offib says:

    I still can’t fecking grasp how and why you lads in the states voted for this. smh…

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “Every country has the government it deserves.” — Joseph de Maistre

      In that El Trumpo is president because enough Americans actually voted for him, de Maistre is right. Our current president is a self-inflicted disaster. But what the heck did those of us who voted for Hilary do to deserve this descent into chaos and the ongoing destruction of American institutions?

      #NotMyPresident

      1. offib says:

        I really wish the best for you in your situation. I’m sure Ireland wouldn’t turn it’s back on a few US refugees.

  25. Murrysville EV says:

    What the US needs is energy independence as a key feature in our national security policy.

    I think Mr Trump (who I voted for) would support zero dependence on foreign energy, especially that which comes from nefarious ‘friends’.

    And, it’s about time for EV subsidies to end, anyway. Congress intentionally limited their duration. If the mfrs quit making them (Tesla excluded, of course), it’s because they’re tired of losing money on them.

    And no, I don’t care about global warming – man-made or otherwise. Al Gore’s claim 25 years ago that the seas would rise 20 feet in 100 years was a total lie; at this point they should’ve risen 5 feet already. Instead, they’ve risen 3 inches.

    Frankly, I’m tired of hearing all the whining about the environment for the past generation, and how the only solution is more regulation and more money, while the developing world (China, India) does whatever it wants. The rest of you need to understand that this sentiment is why Mr Trump got elected. People are sick of the liberal deference to the demands of every individual, group, and even other countries. This discussion has the same incredulous tone as the post-election pundits had on TV. Keep it up, and Mr Trump will get 4 more years (if he doesn’t self-destruct first!).

    BTW, every planet in the solar system is warming, and it’s not all due to evil Republicans and their SUVs.

    But I eagerly await my Model 3….

    1. SparkEV says:

      The reason why Dump got elected is because liberals and media kept him in the news instead of ignoring him. Something about orange hair must’ve been irresistible, just like troll dolls. All them SJW’s hitting Dump supporters and crying on youtube only helped Dump.

      If this continual coverage of anything Dump keeps up, he will be re-elected 4 years later. You don’t change anothers’ mind by shouting at them.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “The reason why Dump got elected is because liberals and media kept him in the news…”

        Certainly El Trumpo won the nomination, and then the election, primarily because the mass news media gave him so much attention. If they had given him the attention he actually deserved — about equal to, for example, the “Beer Party” candidate, then he never would have won the nomination.

        What is most astonishing to me is how the news media kept excusing their own behavior. “He’s sucking all the oxygen out of the room!” was their constant refrain. Well no, you keep feeding him all the “oxygen in the room”! In the months leading up to the election, on most days, the TV nightly news shows would lead with a piece about Trump. (Yes, by “most” I do mean more than 1/2 of all those days. In fact, well in excess of that. Probably 2/3 or even more.)

        El Trumpo didn’t even need to spend money on paid advertising, when the news media gave him so very much for free!

        “With great power comes great responsibility.” — Spider-Man comics

        The news media has great power; too bad they no longer exercise it responsibly.

      2. super390 says:

        Based on your logic, all protest is useless. Jim Crow? Ignore it and it will go away. Gay rights? Just hide in the closet until it comes.

        The protests work when people still have standards of humanity to understand the arguments of corruption and racism made against Trump. Obviously, those standards are now dead. As is the commitment of large numbers of Americans to human rights, the right to vote, and a healthy environment. They say they support those things yet are instantly willing to sacrifice them for their personal paranoia and prejudice. They resented the protesters for pointing out that paranoia and prejudice.

    2. Djoni says:

      By the time you receive your model 3, sea might raise another couple of inch.
      BTW 20 feet is not needed to produce dramatic change.
      Just a couple will do.
      Florida would be sunk under water well before that mark.

      1. super390 says:

        Florida will be ruined by salt contamination of its fresh water supply before that. The cost of imported water will make it uncompetitive.

      2. Ambulator says:

        At the current rate, the world’s oceans will take about 14 years to go up two inches. There are other issues with sea level in Florida, like subsidence and the Gulf Stream, but how low on the reservation list can you be?

    3. Ambulator says:

      “And no, I don’t care about global warming – man-made or otherwise. Al Gore’s claim 25 years ago that the seas would rise 20 feet in 100 years was a total lie; at this point they should’ve risen 5 feet already. Instead, they’ve risen 3 inches.”

      It’s been about 12 years since the slide show was captured for the movie. The projection for sea level rise by 2100 has gone from a little under three feet to a little over three feet now. It is completely wrong to pretend that the rate will be linear: we are on pace to reach that. I don’t think Gore ever said anything different, but he liked to obscure how unknown the time frame he was talking about was.

      Sea level rise isn’t the worst effect. The death of the coral reefs is currently happening and looks to keep getting worse. Drought is also a serious concern even if we don’t know just where. You may feel you can just buy food from where the rain ends up falling, and you may be rich enough that is true. That would be pretty callous of you, though, since many people are not.