Retromelon
Member
In a mere few weeks Americans will head to the polls and elevate a nominee to the presidency. Matters such as the economy, Isis and the situation in Syria no doubt influence their decision. Unfortunately little attention has been paid to some problematic comments and actions made by one of the candidates regarding the Environmental Protection Agency, and that ought to change.
But first, context.
The EPA was established December 2nd, 1970, by then president Richard Nixon in response to rising public sentiment that more should be done by the government to ensure the well being of the land, water and sky. Ever since, it's been monitoring and regulating the damage we inflict on our environment, as well as enforcing compliance with existing legislation. Sadly, the republican record on the EPA has not been good since. The topic of Reagan's environmental practices deserves its own thread, but suffice it to say that under his administration the EPA's budget was slashed, enforcement cases filed dropped preciptously, and Reagan appointed assistant EPA administrator Rita Lavelle was convicted for lying under oath about the corruption in her department, and spent 6 months in jail.
In short, republican presidents have long seen fit to ease the oversight and weaken the influence of the EPA at every turn. It seems like they value what's best for business above what's best for our country.
I regret to inform you that their nominee this year is no different. His economic advisor Stephen Moore is pushing for a climate change denier and fracking promoter to head the EPA, he has appointed a long time climate skeptic to lead the administration's efforts to dismantle Obama's environmental legacy like the Clean Power Plan and the Paris agreement and has vowed to dramatically cut the EPA's funding, because "We will be fine with the environment" and "We will be ok with a little bit." He's said he is not interested in selling public lands, but is ok with leaving the republican plank in the platform stating that states better know how to protect their lands (ie selling them off to billionaires and corporations to offset ruinous state budgets beleagured by massive tax cuts.) A book proclaiming the republican candidate an 'environmental hero', written by some obsequious flunky no doubt, is even disproven by the man's personal history:
Vote your conscience
But first, context.
The EPA was established December 2nd, 1970, by then president Richard Nixon in response to rising public sentiment that more should be done by the government to ensure the well being of the land, water and sky. Ever since, it's been monitoring and regulating the damage we inflict on our environment, as well as enforcing compliance with existing legislation. Sadly, the republican record on the EPA has not been good since. The topic of Reagan's environmental practices deserves its own thread, but suffice it to say that under his administration the EPA's budget was slashed, enforcement cases filed dropped preciptously, and Reagan appointed assistant EPA administrator Rita Lavelle was convicted for lying under oath about the corruption in her department, and spent 6 months in jail.
George Bush Jr continued his ideological predecessor's grim work with machiavellian flair. He refused to regulate carbon dioxide produced from coal plants, refused to accede to the kyoto accords, and fomented the disastrous clear skies initiative, which despite its name would have relaxed standards on millions of tons of air pollution if implemented. I'm only stopping here because the list could go on for quite a while.David Alberswerth said:
In short, republican presidents have long seen fit to ease the oversight and weaken the influence of the EPA at every turn. It seems like they value what's best for business above what's best for our country.
I regret to inform you that their nominee this year is no different. His economic advisor Stephen Moore is pushing for a climate change denier and fracking promoter to head the EPA, he has appointed a long time climate skeptic to lead the administration's efforts to dismantle Obama's environmental legacy like the Clean Power Plan and the Paris agreement and has vowed to dramatically cut the EPA's funding, because "We will be fine with the environment" and "We will be ok with a little bit." He's said he is not interested in selling public lands, but is ok with leaving the republican plank in the platform stating that states better know how to protect their lands (ie selling them off to billionaires and corporations to offset ruinous state budgets beleagured by massive tax cuts.) A book proclaiming the republican candidate an 'environmental hero', written by some obsequious flunky no doubt, is even disproven by the man's personal history:
Does an 'environmental hero' build his golf course on an ecologically precious area?
Vote your conscience
