Source: EPA (Twitter)
One model of the popular news is based on 'fear' -- propagating/inciting fear -- to get the most 'eyeballs' on a given story. The thought is to produce news which is extremely controversial in nature and install fear into the story, while receiving the most 'eyeballs' from a given audience. Don't forget to run ads on the sides of the articles to generate revenue. Each of us react differently to news. Take for instance the headline shown below of a recent news article from USA Today shown below:
Source: USA Today
Regardless of the degree of reaction (negative/positive), each of us would be well served to take a pause and consider the degree of threat each story poses to our daily life/safety or to our environment. In the blog post below, I offer a video in which a former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency offers an opinion on the degree of truth behind news bites regarding 'Proposed' changes by either a federal agency (EPA, FDA, USDA, CDC, etc.) or a presidential administration (such as President Trump's administration currently).
Repeal or Not Repeal?
The news is good at producing eye-catching headlines like the one displayed above. Further, at first sight the headline implies that the 'proposal' to 'repeal' or 'make changes' is absolute and without question. In previous blog posts on this site, this is not the case at the outset. More complications come into play when changing or repealing a law which has been enacted. I came to the understanding of this reality last year while listening to a series of online webinars from the American Association of the Advancement of Science(AAAS). The Facebook page for the AAAS has a series of webinars which can be viewed on demand.
Dr. Rush Holt, the current CEO of AAAS engaged in a discussion in which he described the reality of repealing or changing a current law enacted by a federal agency or congress -- which was extremely informative. But why should we be listening to Dr. Rush Holt -- the CEO of AAAS? The reason is that prior to a career spent in research at Princeton University, Dr. Rush Holt (who is a physicist) served as a U.S Representative for New Jersey's 12th congressional District from 1999 to 2015. During his tenure in congress, Dr. Holt learned a tremendous amount regarding the processes which turn the wheels moving the country forward on a day to day basis. Therefore, when Dr. Holt says that laws are in place which can only be replaced by laws which are "better" for the environment -- then I tend to believe him.
Although, what if people (readers) choose not to believe him. Fair enough. You may choose to believe the next source I have to provide. Below is a video of a recent interview between veteran reporter Stephanie Ruhle and former EPA Administrator Christine
Wow.
In the video above, former EPA Administrator Christine Whitman points out the overall complications with the previous EPA Administrator - Scott Pruitt. Namely, that on a day to day basis, Administrator Pruitt would announce publicly that he was going to 'repeal back an Obama administration regulation'. Although, as pointed out by former congressman Rush Holt above, that statement is usually followed by legal action -- especially, if the new guidelines put the nation at greater risk of environmental damage.
Remember, to repeal or replace a regulation, the new proposed regulation cannot due more damage to the environment than the previous (or replaced) regulation did.
Additionally, former EPA Administrator Christine Whitman points out that the overall approach to changing (repealing or modifying) an existing regulation has to be done by the following approach: "This is why we think that the existing regulation is bad for the environment and here is the study to back up this assertion" -- along that avenue of reasoning. Otherwise, the regulation will not be changed at all.
Example-Court Rules against Electric Companies?
Yes, the headline is written correctly. For all of the news of 'roll-backs' or 'repeals' happening in the Trump Administration, the reality is the opposite. An example is a lawsuit just ruled against by a panel of judges in Massachusetts. Here is the news brief from 'Politico Energy' sent yesterday morning via e-mail to subscribers:
COURT SAYS MASSACHUSETTS CARBON CAP APPLIES TO UTILITIES: Massachusetts' top court on Tuesday ruled that electric utilities are indeed subject to the state's major climate change law, including a shrinking cap on carbon emissions imposed last year following an order from Republican Gov. Charlie Baker. The New England Power Generators Association and GenOn argued that the cap cannot apply to the electric sector because it is already regulated under another part of the state law. But the seven-member Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the two parts of the law "complement each other," adding: "Given that the electric sector is one of the largest in-state greenhouse gas emission sources, it would make little to no sense for the Legislature to have excluded it from the critical emission reduction requirements."
The case did not meet the criteria for a reversal or repeal on the ban. Why would it? As former EPA Administrator points out correctly, a large percentage of large (huge) corporations are actually falling in line with new environmental regulations (even those set in place by the Obama Administration). Only the 'outliers' who are in jeopardy from not keeping up with the changing (sustainable) measures are crying out and lobbying the Trump Administration. Which is attempting to 'roll back' or 'repeal' to protect these dying companies.
In fact, a critical statement made in the video above is that the 'route' or 'method' taken by the Trump Administration is not correct and often fails in courts (i.e. a legal battle) - which is not surprising. I have been saying all along over the past two years that the greatest threat to the Trump Administration is the lack toward attention to detail. Which specific departments like the State Department and other federal agencies can greatly assist in creating legislation which will actually challenge existing regulations. Although, the change has to be grounded in 'sound science'.
Speaking of regulations and emissions, in the same e-mail sent yesterday by Politico Energy, a short poll was taken on emission standards and pollution linked to higher adverse health incidences. Here is the excerpt as reported by the journalist shown below:
HOW ACE IS PLAYING OUT: EPA's own estimates on its proposed Affordable Clean Energy plan to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants is turning off voters, a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll found. When asked whether EPA "estimates that the proposal could, in some scenarios, increase annual premature deaths from certain particulate emissions by up to 1,400 by 2030" would make voters more or less likely to support the plan, 30 percent of respondents said it would make them "much more likely to oppose" the plan. Fifteen percent said it would make them "somewhat more likely" to oppose the ACE plan, while 9 percent and 13 percent said it would make them "much more likely to support" or "somewhat more likely to support" the plan, respectively.
Asked a similar question about agency estimates that the proposal could reduce 2030 carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 1.5 percent from projected levels without the existing Clean Power Plan, 15 percent of voters said that knowledge would make them either "somewhat more" or "much more" likely to oppose the plan, while 45 percent said the opposite. The poll was conducted Aug. 28-31, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. It surveyed 1,964 registered voters.
Not surprising to say the least.
Conclusion...
The overall approach by the Trump Administration has met considerable opposition in courts. Which is not surprising given the lack of evidence to support such repeals. If the science was questionable, then a reasonable argument could be made. But as I mentioned above and in previous blog posts which can be found here, the efforts have been largely unsuccessful -- especially since large corporations are already moving toward investing in sustainable energy technology. Shell announced earlier this year such efforts. Still, the Trump Administration chooses to argue with congress over science which is settled.
The world is composed of many parts moving at varying speeds. Different nations move at different speeds with regard toward implementing more sustainable policies at various levels within their respective government. The United States is one nation moving forward -- not necessarily leading the sustainability future. Although, over the past few years, investments into a more sustainable world have been made and are continuing to be realized. We should be investing in a green future. With that being said, the next time that news is aired which is counter toward forward progress, take pause and think about the probability of the adverse impact actually becoming a reality. There are certain steps in place in congress to ensure that forward progress is inevitable. That is where we should spend our focus and energy on.
Related Blog Posts:
EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%
French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations
Conservatives are calling on President Trump to fire EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt over Renewable Fuel Standards
Parameters: Oil vs. Corn based Ethanol - A Tug-Of-War between Trump Administration and Congressional Leaders
Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure
Thoughts: Trump Administration Realizes Renewable Energy Is Here To Stay?
Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice
Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan
EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?
EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation
How Can The Paris Climate Agreement Be "More Favorable To The U.S."???
Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future
Iraq Has Enough Oil To Support The World For 4 Years -- What?
Is 94 Million Barrels Of Oil A Large Amount? That Is The Global Daily Demand!
What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?
READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!
No comments:
Post a Comment