PDA

View Full Version : Lost in the fiasco of Trumps deplorable statements



LeeG
08-16-2017, 02:36 PM
Trumps executive order revokes Obamas that required infrastructure projects like bridges, roads, pipelines to figure in environmental changes due to global warming in order to speed up construction. Think of 50-80 yr old bridges and roads washed out and not building them for conditions that are anticipated but for the last century.
Yeah, who needs science advisors. Just get the contracts rolling.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-infrastructure-idUSKCN1AV1ZI

The Obama-era standard required that builders factor in scientific projections for increased flooding and ensure projects can withstand rising sea levels and stronger downpours.

It required all federal agencies apply the standard to public infrastructure projects from housing to highways.

Rafael Lemaitre, former director of public affairs at FEMA who worked on the Obama-era order, said Trump is undoing "the most significant action taken in a generation" to safeguard U.S. infrastructure.

"Eliminating this requirement is self-defeating; we can either build smarter now, or put taxpayers on the hook to pay exponentially more when it floods. And it will," he said.

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/joel-scata/trump-revoked-flood-protections-millions-americans

Unfortunately, President Trump’s actions today likely mean that HUD’s proposed rule that incorporated the flood protection standard into their criteria for funding public housing will never be adopted. Presently, over 11,000 HUD-funded public housing units are located in the 100-year floodplain. And public housing once it is severely damaged, often takes years to rebuild, if it is rebuilt at all. This leaves working families stranded. Therefore, revoking of the flood protection standard is likely to hit low-income Americans the hardest.

http://www.rff.org/research/publications/trump-s-regulatory-reform-process-analytical-hurdles-and-missing-benefits

Ultimately, the fundamental problems with Trump’s new approach to regulatory reform are that regulations can be eliminated that have larger benefits to society than costs, and that new regulations will face three times the analytical hurdles—or more—than they did previously. Under these circumstances, it is hard to see how statutory goals will not be compromised or whether agencies will be able to issue even highly beneficial rules. Indeed, because agencies usually make rules that are required by law, there is a real question about how many regulations would even be subject to elimination under these executive orders—the language is quite emphatic that nothing in the orders is meant to contravene such laws.

Given all this, the result may be regulatory gridlock from so many new requirements for agencies, greater hurdles for issuing new regulations, and likely budgetary cutbacks that will make it very difficult to meet both process and statutory goals—putting American public health, the environment, and overall social welfare at risk.

skuthorp
08-16-2017, 03:57 PM
Pull it all down……...

LeeG
08-16-2017, 04:45 PM
It's not like any of us will notice whether a replacement bridge lasts 30 or 60 yrs. Do it now, do it quick, do it cheap.

Peerie Maa
08-16-2017, 04:47 PM
It's not like any of us will notice whether a replacement bridge lasts 30 or 60 yrs. Do it now, do it quick, do it cheap.

You got kids, grand-kids? Whither their taxes?

I know, IRONY

LeeG
08-16-2017, 05:06 PM
You got kids, grand-kids? Whither their taxes?

I know, IRONY

Indeed. It took a long time for the regulatory culture of James Watt to lead to the Deepwater Horizon Disaster. Trump and Pruitt have that potential.

PeterSibley
08-16-2017, 05:20 PM
Bring back Love Canal, make America Great Again!


https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002566509/love-canal-a-legacy-of-doubt.html?mcubz=0

ahp
08-16-2017, 08:36 PM
There was blame to go around in Buffalo concerning the Love Canal. The canal had been drained and the chemical company ( I don't remember the name. ) had placed steel barrels of toxic chemicals in it and covered it over with earth. This was legal at the time.

Years later the City of Buffalo decided to build a low income housing development there. The chemical notified the city about the buried toxic chemicals there, even though they had no legal obligation to do so. The City of Buffalo told the chemical company to mind their own business.

Garret
08-16-2017, 08:44 PM
There was blame to go around in Buffalo concerning the Love Canal. The canal had been drained and the chemical company ( I don't remember the name. ) had placed steel barrels of toxic chemicals in it and covered it over with earth. This was legal at the time.

Years later the City of Buffalo decided to build a low income housing development there. The chemical notified the city about the buried toxic chemicals there, even though they had no legal obligation to do so. The City of Buffalo told the chemical company to mind their own business.

Of course there was blame to go around! That's exactly why a federal solution was necessary. Rivers don't much care about political boundaries...