Does the regime care at all about the environment?

The EPA is supposed to solve the interstate pollution conundrum.

Pennsylvania is basking in phony Trump promises with regards to coal. So anything that smacks of environmental concern is evidently verboten. The health of the Bay is critical to a lot more than just Pennsylvania folks.

41 thoughts on “Does the regime care at all about the environment?

  1. Hmm, let me see see here; an anti-environmentalist heads the EPA under trump and resigns ahead of possible indictment(s). And is replaced by a coal Lobbyist…

    Idahoans, they’re “on it”….

    Liked by 2 people

  2. RE: “The EPA is supposed to solve the interstate pollution conundrum.”

    That’s one theory. Another is that the EPA needn’t be the adjudicating authority. When agreements are violated, the courts are the appropriate place to seek resolution.


    1. @Roberts
      Per the editorial . . . “Maryland already threatening to sue Pennsylvania”

      So, your Trumpian answer – “So, sue me” – may be in the works. That is a shame. The courts have already been heavily involved for decades and the current interstate agreement is the result of lawsuits from concerned citizens – particularly the Chesapeake Bay Foundation – that the EPA was failing to fulfill its duties under the law.

      Under Obama, the EPA pushed hard to “save the bay” and years later than it could have, used it authorities under the Clean Water Act to require reductions of pollutants dumped in the Bay. It still has those authorities, and it ought to use them aggressively on any state not living up to its commitments that were made as a result of court orders. It appears that Pennsylvania is failing to do so but under Trump the EPA is remaining passive. That is worse than a shame. It is a disgrace.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. RE: “the EPA was failing to fulfill its duties under the law.”

      I’m not in favor of using the EPA to make up for perceived deficiencies of the judicial system. Let it be passive.


      1. @Roberts

        Let it be passive? So the President’s OATH to faithfully execute the law is what? Non-operative?

        The law in question – the Clean Water Act and its amendments – requires an ACTIVE program of water pollution control by the EPA.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. RE: “So the President’s OATH to faithfully execute the law is what? Non-operative?”

        The editorial doesn’t mention any violations of the law, only failures to comply with the interstate agreement. It also doesn’t tell us what enforcement actions the EPA is authorized, but declining, to take. As a result, it is not actually clear that the EPA or the administration more generally is really to blame.

        Let Maryland proceed with its lawsuit. That’s the right approach.


        1. @Roberts

          It should not take court action to get the EPA fulfill its legal functions and to enforce the law. They have the legal authority to set water pollution limits and to impose sanctions for those failing to comply. It has bent over backwards to accommodate laggards such as Pennsylvania. Time for it to get tough. And after November, it will. IMHO.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “They have the legal authority to set water pollution limits and to impose sanctions for those failing to comply.”

          So you say, but I dubious they aren’t doing that already. In any case, everyone’s beef seems to be with Pennsylvania, not the EPA or Trump.


          1. The beef is with the EPA under Trump because they are not holding PA to its agreement. Wasting years more in courts is not doing the health of the Bay any good.

            Liked by 3 people

          2. Putting your trust in the presidency or a buraucratic agency isn’t doing the health of the Bay any good, either, it would seem. Is there something specific you think the EPA should be doing that it isn’t?


      3. From Encyclopedia Brittanica’s website’s definition of the EPA: “agency of the U.S. government that sets and enforces national pollution-control standards.”

        Operative word in this case is “enforces”. Basically it is their job to enforce the standards in place. If PA is not following through, then it is in the EPA’s purview to enforce them. If PA refuses to comply with the EPA, then the courts should be involved.

        The current EPA Administrator is a former lobbyist for the coal industry (as noted by another poster). He has no desire to get involved with anything that has to do with polluters in general because he would be forced to bite the hand that fed him. And I would safely presume that when his time is up, Mr. Wheeler would like to remain in good standing with that industry so as to secure a job after his time in the administration is over.

        And the Trump EPA, having been headed by Mr. Pruitt (before pending indictments forced him out) and now Mr Wheeler would be served by a name change that more accurately describes what the EPA is doing. New name should be ENPA. which stands for Environmental NON-Protection Agency, because they are doing little to nothing to protect the environment. Science be damned could be the new motto.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Sure they care, just not as anally as Democrats want it to. However, this regime has its hands full fighting Hollywood sanctioned and Obama endorsed Marxism. See the Oscars with Hollywood espousing the communist manifesto and Obama giving his gleeful approval of them??


      1. You telling someone else to get help is rather ironic. The correlation is clear. Your side moans and belly aches that this “regime” doesn’t enforce your idea of EPA standards that Obama himself did nothing about his entire presidency while embracing communism, courtesy of Obama and your Hollywood idols, that you blatantly deny. Blah, blah, blah, move along, nothing to see here…errr…but the hand on Marx in your pocket. Typical left wing deflection.


        1. So sue Bush, Obama and Trump.

          The last one has and is continuing to decimate the EPA to placate every industry that feels the environment is not their problem.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. The EPA needs another 25% or so trim.

            It will help them focus on the things they should be doing instead of going afield in search of imaginary monsters to destroy.

            The agency has become bloated and most of the real problems that led to its creation have been dealt with effectively. then the EPA found a problem that could not be solved (CO2 emitted outside its jurisdiction) and placed all of its focus on that, to the exclusion of things like the Bay that it was designed to deal with.


          2. “It will help them focus on the things they should be doing”… So what exactly in your infinite wisdom are they supposed to be doing if not enforcing environmental protection? Giving a pass to the fossil fuel industry and water polluters who only care about profit margins?

            By your reasoning, CO2 emissions should just be ignored in the US because no one else in the world is doing anything about it. I disagree. And the economic impact of doing something is not the end of the world prophesy you tend to toss out.


          3. The EPA should focus on issues that cross state lines.

            Prior to Trump’s rejection of Obama’s Waters of the US A rule, I would have needed a permit to build a dock on my own pond, which is unconnected to the watershed other than by groundwater.

            Virginia and Chesapeake are capable of regulating any impact of my pond outside my own property.

            Likewise, there is no point in the EPA getting ahead of diplomacy on climate change. China is not going to be impressed by us setting a good example, they will see it as a weakness to exploit.

            The EPA has been taken over by extremists who fail to balance environmental perfection with access and use of resources. That doesn’t work politically.


          4. All or nothing?

            If runoff from my pond were toxic, the City and State are capable of regulating that. If they failed to do so, and the toxins crossed State lines, then perhaps the EPA might become involved.

            But I should not have to go to the Federal govt for permission to restock my pond or place a culvert in a ditch on my own land.

            The Federal government does not have to regulate everything.


          5. …” I would have needed a permit to build a dock on my own pond,”… If you wanted to build an addition on to your house at the compound, you would also require a permit, even thought your house is not attached to anyone else’s. Your point is … pointless.


          6. It matters little where the permit came from. The law required it and you followed the law. Just because it is a federal oversight issue does not mean it shouldn’t be a requirement. Besides, who knows what you would be pumping from your bilges that could seep into the ground water and effect your neighbors and the environment in general.


          7. And Chesapeake is perfectly capable of protecting my neighbors, and the State is able to protect the watershed.

            There was never any reason for the EPA to meddle in my pond, and trying to do so, and defend the budget to meddle in thousands of ponds and millions of ditches was distracting it from getting PA to meet its interstate obligations.


          8. @Tabor

            “The EPA should focus on issues that cross state lines”

            Maybe, but the laws creating it and which it is charged to enforce have no such limitation.

            I am sorry to note that your example of your pond is a poor one. The phrase “unconnected to the watershed other than by groundwater” is another way of saying . . .

            “My pond is connected to the watershed.”

            Which means that things that you choose to dump in your pond may, in fact, end up in the Bay which is a body of water that crosses state lines.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. @Tabor

            “thousands of ponds and millions of ditches”

            Where do you think water pollution starts? People running sewer pipes from their “compounds” directly into the Bay or major streams and rivers? That is NOT how it happens. You can look it up. The Bay is a good example – some of the worst pollution comes from ditches on agricultural land.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. What about this what about that?

          Trump is NOW in office and it is his administration that is currently responsible. I am not giving a pass to past administrations. I am saying the current administration is doing even LESS and cutting staff and scientists and budget only benefits one group: polluters who don’t take action and no one holding them accountable.

          I lived in PA until I joined the Navy at 19. I remained a resident until retirement in 2008. I am disgusted by my former home for not doing what is required to protect the Ches Bay. I also believe the EPA’s enforcement is lacking and that they should be pushing PA. If PA then decides to do nothing, then let the lawsuits fly. As it currently stands, IMHO, VA and MD should be suing the EPA for not fulfilling their mandate of enforcement.


          1. The EPA should be taking its enforcement actions seriously. But under this regime, even more so than previous, is doing nothing to protect the bay or the environment in general. They already have a mandate to do so, but they are punting for fear of pissing off the polluter in chief.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s