Home | About | Donate

On Way Out the Door, Trump EPA Rejects Tightening Deadly Soot Pollution Standards

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/12/07/way-out-door-trump-epa-rejects-tightening-deadly-soot-pollution-standards

1 Like

Trump, Inc., aka the Republican party “leaders”, only care about their masters–not the rubes they can sucker into voting them into office. Reducing stack emissions cost profits and that displeases their masters, ergo this headline. No surprise here. And, of course, as the article mentions there is the demographic component to consider…

1 Like

Typical of the MSM, so Trump’s EPA is adhering to the same standards set in 2012 by the Obama-Biden EPA. Exactly when did the ‘scientists’ decide that 2.5 particulates was harmful ? Last night ? Why didn’t demented Joe and the Hope and Change fraud set a more stringent standard ? Joe had 47 years to promote clean water and clean air but he did vote for a war in Iraq. Naturally, Joe was never in Vietnam.

1 Like

American Mussolini ? Carol i’m surprised you didn’t use the Hitler analogy. The Donald was demonized BEFORE he ever took office. No wars were initiated by the Donald unlike the neocon war criminals yet the MSM was very quiet during that period. The propaganda spewed by the NYT has been relentless and their bias has been exposed. When the false flag of 911 occurred, the paper of record fell in line with the corrupt administration 's fairy tale explanation. Where was the outrage ? Only when the public chose an outsider, a non politician did the MSM conspire to remove an elected pol. Oh, I forgot, the Russians. Nice try Hillary. Save your spleen for the real issue, a controlled press.

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-epa-costs-idUSL1N2IO32C

Trump’s EPA to finalize rule making it harder to issue new curbs on air pollution

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will finalize on Wednesday its overhaul of how it measures the costs and benefits of proposed new curbs on pollution, a move that is likely to sap the agency’s power to impose tough future regulations, according to a source familiar with the process.
[…]
The rule would require the EPA to weigh the economic impact of a proposed rule without factoring secondary public health benefits, which have previously been used to justify expansive regulations, according to the source
[…]
Roy Gamse, an economist and former EPA deputy assistant administrator for Planning and Evaluation, told Reuters the rule could make it harder for the EPA to adopt new curbs on industrial pollution. “The only purpose in making this a regulation seems to be to provide a basis for future lawsuits to slow down or prevent future administrations from regulating,” he said.