According to NYT [1](I can't force myself to watch this), "Nowhere in the video did he refer to protecting the environment or public health, twin tenets that have guided the agency since its founding in 1970."
I am not sure what's the point of EPA at all, if it's goals now are create jobs etc.
With all these changes happening in the U.S, I just keep saying to myself;
"This is what the American people want. This is the choice of the people. It's democracy in action and this is what the American people voted for, adults with eyes wide open."
Between Citizens United, voter suppression, gerrymandering, the electoral college, and the two party system, I think it's a stretch to call what America has a democracy.
This is NOT democracy in action.
The US is only nominally democratic. What little democracy you had over there has been completely hijacked by monied interests and the propaganda has always been extreme.
There are much better functioning democracies in the world. Unfortunately for everyone, the US isn’t one of them.
In Switzerland the presidency is rotated every six months between the biggest parties. They have public referendums four times per year. Unsurprisingly, they have highly functioning institutions.
That's just arguing over semantics, which just isn't helpful. US has one democratic action still in operation - voting for the president. And people voted for Trump having seen exactly what kind of administration he would lead - so this is what they get. So yes, this is democracy in action, even if other nations do it better.
People think they have voice and choice, but in reality there is no choice. This is not what majority of American wants. Trump didn't win because he is good, he won because people didn't see any fruitful policies from Joe Biden/Kamala Harris.
>>People think they have voice and choice, but in reality there is no choice.
They could have chosen not to vote for Trump. That was always an option.
>>Trump didn't win because he is good, he won because people didn't see any fruitful policies from Joe Biden/Kamala Harris.
So what was that vote then? Out of spite? I could believe that in 2016 - but now I absolutely don't. People have seen what 4 years of Trump look like, and they voted to have that again. Biden being or not being competent has literally nothing to do with it - everyone who voted for Trump did so because they saw what his 4 years of presidency looked like and they like it. If they say otherwise they are just lying to themselves first and foremost.
I'm almost certainly not the intended audience for the EPA's press release, but it's remarkable how many of these bullet points read like "Remove the ban on orphan burning machines to ensure American small businesses have access to alternative heat sources".
You might think I'm exaggerating, but here are a few real bullets from their list:
> Reconsideration of Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards that shut down opportunities for American manufacturing and small businesses (PM 2.5 NAAQS)
Opportunities for them to decrease air quality?
> Restructuring the Regional Haze Program that threatened the supply of affordable energy for American families (Regional Haze)
Definitely looking forward to some more regional haze
> Reconsideration of Mercury and Air Toxics Standards that improperly targeted coal-fired power plants (MATS)
Who doesn't love mercury and other toxins in their air?
> Reconsideration of wastewater regulations for coal power plants to help unleash American energy (Oil and Gas ELG)
Presumably unleashing it directly into our water supply
Obviously the wishy-washy wording in each of these bullets (reconsider, restructure, etc) leaves a lot of leeway for how much actual change will happen. But it's pretty remarkable to me that the premise is getting rid of wasteful, unnecessary regulation but the actual topics are things like unhealthy particulate matter and toxins in the air or coal plant waste in the water. Where to draw the line can and should be a topic of reasonable debate, but one would think any effort to move the line towards "more stuff in your air and water" would take a more tactful approach.
Tangential to the press release itself, but it's a very interesting note on coordinated messaging that the phrase "Biden-Harris administration" still remains ubiquitous among Republican sources despite being a relatively uncommon way to refer to past Presidential administrations and something that came up basically out of nowhere last year when Biden stepped aside and Harris became the nominee. There's clearly a style guide and man are they sticking to it.
I’ve read that due to the abundance of natural gas, it’s simply not economical for companies to mine for coal or burn it. So I doubt many companies will be firing up new coal plants.
But then again, was that mainly because of regulations?
Coal is a bit of a side issue here, sure - it's not as economical in the US as it once was and is dying off in any case. This deregulation will extend the runtime of existing coal fired power as the regulations requiring rolling increases to carbon storage over time for coal power are being removed.
However regular oil and gas, which is expanding, is also having clean air regulations torn up:
* Reconsideration of regulations throttling the oil and gas industry
* Reconsideration of mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program that imposed significant costs on the American energy supply (GHG Reporting Program)
* Reconsideration of Biden-Harris Administration Risk Management Program rule that made America’s oil and natural gas refineries and chemical facilities less safe (Risk Management Program Rule)
The first two allow for greater emissions during extraction and no requirement to record or report.
The third I threw in to highlight what appears to be fairly loaded language .. rolling back a Risk Management Program that made refineries less safe ?
That sounds like a strong opinion held by some refinery owners that really wanted a program tanked. I admit to not having looked into the details, but that does raise an eyebrow.
maybe someone with real knowledge can add, but it appears : Coal power plants generate electricity to a grid connection in the common case; alternative sources of electrical generation have changed the economics in most North America markets in pure monetary terms, away from coal; coal plants are classic industrial infrastructure, they cost a lot of build but then operate in a steady way for a very long time, they sit in one location and never move. If all of that is true, then loosening the Coal Power Plant restrictions now seems like, not economic sense but literally a political gift to the incumbent, wealthy ownership. In some US coal states, the ownership of the coal plant is associated with long term political ties. It almost seems like loosening coal restrictions is a sort of political fiefdom guarantee, not an economic move.
Readit News
I am not sure what's the point of EPA at all, if it's goals now are create jobs etc.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/climate/epa-zeldin-rollba...
For your reading enjoyment: The Toxic Wave That Swallowed a Tennessee Town, https://oxfordamerican.org/oa-now/the-toxic-wave-that-swallo...
this is like DEA press-release about opening up pop-up fentanyl shops in every elementary school
"This is what the American people want. This is the choice of the people. It's democracy in action and this is what the American people voted for, adults with eyes wide open."
There are much better functioning democracies in the world. Unfortunately for everyone, the US isn’t one of them.
In Switzerland the presidency is rotated every six months between the biggest parties. They have public referendums four times per year. Unsurprisingly, they have highly functioning institutions.
That's just arguing over semantics, which just isn't helpful. US has one democratic action still in operation - voting for the president. And people voted for Trump having seen exactly what kind of administration he would lead - so this is what they get. So yes, this is democracy in action, even if other nations do it better.
They could have chosen not to vote for Trump. That was always an option.
>>Trump didn't win because he is good, he won because people didn't see any fruitful policies from Joe Biden/Kamala Harris.
So what was that vote then? Out of spite? I could believe that in 2016 - but now I absolutely don't. People have seen what 4 years of Trump look like, and they voted to have that again. Biden being or not being competent has literally nothing to do with it - everyone who voted for Trump did so because they saw what his 4 years of presidency looked like and they like it. If they say otherwise they are just lying to themselves first and foremost.
You might think I'm exaggerating, but here are a few real bullets from their list:
> Reconsideration of Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards that shut down opportunities for American manufacturing and small businesses (PM 2.5 NAAQS)
Opportunities for them to decrease air quality?
> Restructuring the Regional Haze Program that threatened the supply of affordable energy for American families (Regional Haze)
Definitely looking forward to some more regional haze
> Reconsideration of Mercury and Air Toxics Standards that improperly targeted coal-fired power plants (MATS)
Who doesn't love mercury and other toxins in their air?
> Reconsideration of wastewater regulations for coal power plants to help unleash American energy (Oil and Gas ELG)
Presumably unleashing it directly into our water supply
Obviously the wishy-washy wording in each of these bullets (reconsider, restructure, etc) leaves a lot of leeway for how much actual change will happen. But it's pretty remarkable to me that the premise is getting rid of wasteful, unnecessary regulation but the actual topics are things like unhealthy particulate matter and toxins in the air or coal plant waste in the water. Where to draw the line can and should be a topic of reasonable debate, but one would think any effort to move the line towards "more stuff in your air and water" would take a more tactful approach.
Tangential to the press release itself, but it's a very interesting note on coordinated messaging that the phrase "Biden-Harris administration" still remains ubiquitous among Republican sources despite being a relatively uncommon way to refer to past Presidential administrations and something that came up basically out of nowhere last year when Biden stepped aside and Harris became the nominee. There's clearly a style guide and man are they sticking to it.
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
I’ve read that due to the abundance of natural gas, it’s simply not economical for companies to mine for coal or burn it. So I doubt many companies will be firing up new coal plants.
But then again, was that mainly because of regulations?
However regular oil and gas, which is expanding, is also having clean air regulations torn up:
* Reconsideration of regulations throttling the oil and gas industry
* Reconsideration of mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program that imposed significant costs on the American energy supply (GHG Reporting Program)
* Reconsideration of Biden-Harris Administration Risk Management Program rule that made America’s oil and natural gas refineries and chemical facilities less safe (Risk Management Program Rule)
The first two allow for greater emissions during extraction and no requirement to record or report.
The third I threw in to highlight what appears to be fairly loaded language .. rolling back a Risk Management Program that made refineries less safe ?
That sounds like a strong opinion held by some refinery owners that really wanted a program tanked. I admit to not having looked into the details, but that does raise an eyebrow.