Home | About | Donate

Trump EPA's 4-Year Strategic Plan Doesn't Mention 'Climate.' Not Even Once


#1

Trump EPA's 4-Year Strategic Plan Doesn't Mention 'Climate.' Not Even Once.

Jake Johnson, staff writer

"This wasn't an oversight, this is a deliberate strategy by this administration."

Scott Pruitt

#2

Trump’s 4-Year strategic plan is to loot as much as he can, while creating as much KKKaos along the way. IMPEACH the FUCKING MORON NOW!


#3

And I thought the Bush II administration was degenerate. This new administration has to be the most destructive that I have seen and this is # 11 for me. Wow, the nightmares that I envisioned when the cabinet member names were introduced are coming true. Sell off or tap resources from protected lands, check; deregulate woefully inadequate regulations, check; pick up the neocons murderous agenda, check, tax cuts for the insanely wealthy, check; massive unaffordable increases for military spending, check, attacks on alternative news on the net, check and countless others. Need I list more? We are witnessing the de-construction of all the positive civil rights and environmental action and regulations put in place in the last 60+ years or so. I remember when the air in my city, Albuquerque was too polluted to see in the valley from my high school’s elevated location. It has improved greatly since then with car pollution and air quality controls put in place. I hope the youth of today take note as they watch the once decent, sort of, US become a fascist nightmare of a place with which to call home, really, take a good look.


#4

The only 4-year strategic plan that Trump ever undertook was to grab as much p*ssy as he could whilst in “military” school.


#5

Trump EPA’s 4-Year Strategic Plan Doesn’t Mention ‘Climate.’ Not Even Once

Well, if you were a corporate-fascist would you mention it?


#6

Perhaps all the fracking operations surrounding Pruitt’s place in Okie-ville, the armpit of our nation’s midrift, will continue to crack the Earth’s crust causing fractures and fissures that will gobble up his and his moneyed pals palatial estates falling into massive craters opening up as a result of ongoing massive earthquakes. A hurricane decimating not only Mal-y-Loco but the golf resort in NJ would be in order for both these climate change deniers. Their hubris is diabolical…pure evil. Their sole motivation is the MONEY…nothing more, and certainly nothing less.


#7

Maybe…
Depends on what you think the eventual end game will be. Granted such a philosophy leads to disaster but that’s probably a given anyway so perhaps the country best positioned to use up the last of the fossil fuels will be the last man standing at the end of the world hoping for some sort of divine intervention. I agree that profit is a motive for some (Trump for sure) but for others there may be another armageddon like scenario. I don’t think that anything a presidential administration does can be boiled down to a single motive. A good example is the disastrous Bush II second Iraq war. There were a whole bunch of individual motives that led to that stupid decision and there are a whole bunch of different motives that lead to global warming denial and continued fossil fuel exploitation.


#8

Bottom line in the Iraq incursion: OIL and lots of it. Afghanistan: OIL pipelines and MINERALS and proximity to Iran. It is ALWAYS about the money no matter the rhetoric spouted to substantiate the moves. Denial would mean having to INVE$$$T in curbing pollution, retrofitting industrial operations to reduce pollution, and being compliant with environmental rules and regulations…do away with those rules/regs and the world is your oyster… As for the cost to humans and all life, who give a Sxxt…


#9

Really? We went to Afghanistan for oil? That’s interesting considering that Afghanistan literally has zero oil reserves or pipelines… Like did it ever occur to you as why a country in the middle east was the poorest country on earth?

You are so mainstream it is unbelievable. Your general message is adequate, but your evidence to back it up is fallacy.


#10

PIPELINES, not oil. And at present DJT and any number of slobbering corps covet the mineral wealth in that country. (I should have said NATURAL GAS pipelines but my fingers got ahead of my brain.) EVIDENCE follows:

“This conclusion is reinforced by reports indicating that the United States had made the decision to invade Afghanistan two months before the 9/11 attacks. At least part of the background to this decision was the United States’ long-time support for UNOCAL’s proposed pipeline, which would transport oil and natural gas from the Caspian Sea region to the Indian Ocean through Afghanistan and Pakistan. This project had been stymied through the 1990s because of the civil war that had been going on in Afghanistan since the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.” https://www.globalresearch.ca/did-9-11-justify-the-war-in-afghanistan/19891

And history will reveal to you why Afghanistan is so “poor” (centuries of invasions and marauders due to its geographic position along major trading conduits is one big reason). The land is not arable nor the climate suitable for “mainstream” crops that can be exported, thus the thriving opium trade (poppies are drought-resistant and self-propagate, which makes them ideal for the area).


#11

Unfortunately that conclusion doesn’t make a lot of sense given that the contracts had not been finalized to start the project until 2002 and the project did not officially begin construction until 2015. So 12 years of war, and no beginning or attempt to make arrangements yet we are fighting there?


#12

Since when has the “finalization of contracts” especially in far off remote regions stopped the US?

Leave it be.


#13

That’s why I’m saying its odd. In the 12 years the US was there, zero progress was made on the pipeline. If that’s the only reason we went there, then we prohibited the progress.


#14

Criminal.


#15

EPA, we don’t need no stinkin EPA.