Home | About | Donate

Senate Confirms Coal Lobbyist as #2 at EPA as Trump Moves to Slash Clean Air Rules


#1

Senate Confirms Coal Lobbyist as #2 at EPA as Trump Moves to Slash Clean Air Rules

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

As EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt faces mounting criticism for a controversial condo rental and calls for his resignation, President Donald Trump on Thursday ordered the agency to significantly scale back "


#2

Although Trump is a white supremacist and not a libertarian per se he has been willing to carry out the Koch brother’s libertarian agenda. This is yet another example of the Koch brother’s effort to gut all government environmental regulations which they believe are in conflict with economic liberty. Trump must be doing this to get Republican support as that party has now been basically captured by the extreme libertarians who are going along with the white supremacy and fascism of Trump since he was elected largely based on his overtly racist campaign pledges. The big problem of Trump and Republicans is the majority of Americans do not agree with them but by cleverly taking over a large number of state governments the Koch brothers and Trump are in pretty good position to keep power, particularly as extreme right wing judges are filling vacant court positions. They still have not permanently taken over the government however. People overcoming their apathy toward politics can still make a difference before they lose their country to the extremists on the right.


#3

And so, the Swamp deepens.


#4

Well I see my DINO Donneley voted to confirm, along with my DeVos loving Senator Todd (toady) Young. Just another normal day in Red state Indiana


#5

I feel your pain… I mean it…unlike someone else we all unfortunately know…
hint: his “spouse” continues to torture us with the self-pity party tour…


#6

This guy will be leading an army that no longer exists. Coal companies are contemplating bankruptcy proceedings, their stock prices are plummeting, and coal generating plants are closing. The market forces in this case seem to be taking care of it because saving a few thousand coal jobs is killing millions of clean, renewable jobs.
Privatizing profits and socializing costs - environmental destruction - is no longer viewed favorably.


#7

We tried and tried and it still took us 37 years to disable Diablo Canyon Nuke Plant.
Coal/Oil are going to be similar, we are going to have to put nails in the coffin.

Then…
For nearly two weeks in September 1981, thousands of demonstrators would attempt to block the gates, leading to the arrest of 1,400 protesters.

Now…
Fuel rods full of uranium pellets are pulled from the reactor, cooled in pools of water laced with boric acid, then transferred to giant concrete casks.


#8

Donneley, Heitkamp, Manchin. The blue dogs who will exert control over any D-Party Senate majority.


#9

What you are comparing is in no way even remotely related. Progressives are attacking coal and oil due to their CO2 pollution, which Diablo Canyon has produced a grand total of ZERO grams in 40 years.

The argument to remove Diablo Canyon has NOTHING to do with pollution, but rather the state requires the plant to make excessive changes to its infrastructure to sustain a potential 8.0 magnitude earthquake from the Hosgri-Shoreline fault. What I find extremely interesting is how literally no other piece of infrastructure in the entire state is subjected to this level of scrutiny. None of the refineries or chemical plants in LA have to meet the highest magnitude low risk scenarios that San Andreas presents, yet miraculously Diablo Canyon is subject to this scrutiny because of Fukushima.

Here’s some comparison between Fukushima and Diablo Canyon:

  1. Fukushima was hit by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and suffered zero structural damage that played a role in the meltdown- yet this event is being used in an argument that nuclear reactors do not have the necessary infrastructure to survive a 7.5 magnitude quake (I don’t quite see the logic there)
  2. Fukushima was hit by a tsunami with max wave height of 45 feet. Diablo Canyon sits on a 60 ft bluff. So how is it that a lower magnituide earthquake of closer distance to the shore will produce a tsunami of larger wave height than the Tohoku earthquake (I don’t quite see the logic here)
  3. Fukushima contained 6 BWR- boiling water reactors, whereas Diablo Canyon has pressurized water reactors. How is it that lawmakers are able to claim that Diablo Canyon has similar risk, when their reactor components and functionality is different? (I don’t quite see the logic here)

But do you know what the most interesting question I have is? Why is that California lawmakers have put so much focus on the possibility of a 7.5 magnitude earthquake and tsunami on the plant, yet the surrounding municipalities have ZERO plans in place in the event of a 7.5 magnitude and tsunami? As a state government how do you that? How do you so much preparation on a single plant over millions of Californians in the surrounding area?

Otherwise it looks to me that this government is extraordinarily biased against nuclear energy, and has come up with some ridiculous claims and comparison to get rid of the industry.


#10

Go back to your cube now

Tell me, can we put those rods encased in cement in your backyard. Maybe we make a little fort for the kiddies to play on

No need to get huffy, it’s not our fault you chose the wrong major in college


#11

I would have no problem with that seeing as living in my house would actually expose me to more radiation from radon than sitting next to rods sealed in 4ft of concrete. You know why they seal it in concrete? Denser materials block radiation. Now you can be hysterical and ignorant about nuclear science, but that doesn’t change the fact that those dry casks are most likely giving me about 8 milirems of radiation per year compared to the 250 milirems of radiation per year given to me for just living in the USA on this planet called earth.

I’m sorry I tend to have a problem with people who create issues because they don’t understand logic or science. It doesn’t make any sense to be critical of energy because you fear radiation even though naturally exposed levels are over ten times as high. Just as it doesn’t make any sense to kill a nuclear plant for catastrophic earthquake and tsunamis, when the very government who is essentially prosecuting doesn’t even have a plan in place for such a scenario on the surrounding neighborhoods.


#12

Oh and just fyi, in a recent development a judge ruled against the newest State plans to replace Diablo Canyon, because the state’s plan has zero guarantee that it wont rely on natural gas for replacement. See the problem is nuclear has never been replaced by anything but energy sources worth supplying large base-load power, because its generation is greater than the amount of solar and wind that is economically viable to replace it. Youd have to operate solar and wind at a loss for multiple years + construct energy farms for 10 years to match 16,500 GWh per year, which is why natural gas is replacing it.

I just find it funny how you condemn coal and oil, yet support plans to increase natural gas in a section that condemns fossil fuels.