It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump signs House Joint Resolution 38 Say goodbye to protection for streams near coal mines

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   


Disapproving the Stream Protection Rule

This is what the Stream Protection Rule previously provided for:

  • Provide for pre- and post-mining monitoring of drinking water for toxic contaminants
  • Protect approximately 6,000 streams and 52,000 acres of forest
  • Promote the protection of perennial and intermittent streams, especially headwater streams that are vital to maintaining clean water down river
  • Require streams disturbed by surface coal mining be restored
  • Make use of advances in information, technology, science and methodology


Oh the horror. [/sarcasm]
This was too much for the coal industry. Their lobbying of the Trump camp has paid off handsomely.

Here is the White House on the signing: Putting coal country back to work.

Sad day for our environment.




posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Olivine
"Making America Polluted Some More" f'ing idiot.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Unfortunately, more of the same is coming next week.

Reuters

The EPA was told to expect 2 to 5 Executive Orders in the coming days that will reshape the agency.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   
That ok !

As long as Trump doesn't forbid the citizens from "suing" the factories that dump the waste, the removal of government oversight is fine.

That's how it should be. They have the right to pollute, we have the right to sue for compensation. When these two forces compete, we get a balance that the society wants.

No company is going to pollute the stream, if the lawsuit will cost them more than their profits earned from that pollution.

So, you don't need a law, the government just needs to get out of the way.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Oh the horror.



This joint resolution nullifies the Stream Protection Rule finalized by the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement on December 20, 2016.


December 20 2016. Hmmmmmmmm so much horror, horror everywhere, i will be back i just horrored in my pants and its horrible.

You guys make it so easy.
edit on 16-2-2017 by muSSang because: (no reason given)


+1 more 
posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   
If this bill actually added any protection to the environment, why wasn't it passed long ago when the Dems had their majority?

It was nothing bit a partisan jab at the incoming Trump administration and was swatted away as such,

There are already laws and regulation adequately protecting the environment in place.

Meanwhile the worthless Dems and Obama never did help those people in Michigan get safe drinking water.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

No use explaining it, their heart controls their mind.

A picture book will help.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I don't get why democrats don't want unemployed blacks, mexicans, & other victims classes from getting jobs. Why do these environmentalist hate minorities? Those are good jobs.
Why do they like high energy prices that hit the poor and minorities the most?

Environmentalist would legislate themselves into 400spft dorms if they had the chance. I had a professor who espoused how great it would be if we all lived in high rise dorms to save energy to save muh environment.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Olivine

Reducing regulations on coal isn't going to matter. We could remove all of them, and natural gas would still be a better energy source. We've long since entered the period in the US where coal is being phased out. Both coal regulations or the lack of them becomes less and less important by the day.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
If this bill actually added any protection to the environment, why wasn't it passed long ago when the Dems had their majority?

If I remember correctly, President Obama was dealing with an US economy on the brink of collapse when the Democrats held a majority, along with Republicans who stated from the outset of his administration that their only goal was to block him at every turn.
Sound familiar?


It was nothing bit a partisan jab at the incoming Trump administration and was swatted away as such,

How exactly is protecting our nation's watersheds a 'partisan jab'?


There are already laws and regulation adequately protecting the environment in place.
Yes, but the language in 1977 Surface Mining and Reclamation Act was vague. The Stream Protection act provided specific language.


Meanwhile the worthless Dems and Obama never did help those people in Michigan get safe drinking water.

Never?
Let's agree that the water problem in Michigan is a big problem that isn't going to be solved overnight. Otherwise, why doesn't Trump make it happen? Does he not care about those residents?

You should not call Dems worthless. We are your neighbors and fellow Americans. We too, live here, go to work, and add to the GDP of this great (great right freaking now, btw) nation.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

That ok !

As long as Trump doesn't forbid the citizens from "suing" the factories that dump the waste, the removal of government oversight is fine.

That's how it should be. They have the right to pollute, we have the right to sue for compensation. When these two forces compete, we get a balance that the society wants.

No company is going to pollute the stream, if the lawsuit will cost them more than their profits earned from that pollution.

So, you don't need a law, the government just needs to get out of the way.




The only problem with that is, money doesn't bring your health back.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: jellyrev
I don't get why democrats don't want unemployed blacks, mexicans, & other victims classes from getting jobs. Why do these environmentalist hate minorities? Those are good jobs.
Why do they like high energy prices that hit the poor and minorities the most?

Environmentalist would legislate themselves into 400spft dorms if they had the chance. I had a professor who espoused how great it would be if we all lived in high rise dorms to save energy to save muh environment.


I'm not sure why you are singling out Americans by color and heritage, but the Stream Act would have created as many jobs as the coal industry would lose according to CNBC (note the right-friendly source).

Really, the only reason this Act was repealed was because he could. For spite.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Olivine

Reducing regulations on coal isn't going to matter. We could remove all of them, and natural gas would still be a better energy source. We've long since entered the period in the US where coal is being phased out. Both coal regulations or the lack of them becomes less and less important by the day.

So, so true. Thanks for posting.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


Steam coal - also known as thermal coal - is mainly used in power generation.
Coking coal - also known as metallurgical coal - is mainly used in steel production.
source
i was just wondering what the heck is coal used for and saw your post...
If steel is involved, then it must coincide with Trumps plans for more construction jobs, i'm guessing.
other uses from source link,

Activated carbon - used in filters for water and air purification and in kidney dialysis machines.
Carbon fibre - an extremely strong but light weight reinforcement material used in construction, mountain bikes and tennis rackets.
Silicon metal - used to produce silicones and silanes, which are in turn used to make lubricants, water repellents, resins, cosmetics, hair shampoos and toothpastes.

further on topic, i need more info for me form an opinion.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Doom porn thread!! Republicans want death and mayhem!! Democrats love the children and gays, I've got thanks so op!



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Olivine

Each State has a local 'epa'.Unless you are pro-doubling-up on waste, this is a good thing.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: peppycat

Most coal is used for power generation. It's used in manufacturing too, as you mentioned it's used in steel. I think it's used in a few more things too, but I couldn't tell you what. The vast majority though is used for electricity.

There is a lot of coal in use in the world right now. The thing is though, if we haven't hit peak coal demand yet, we will in the next couple years. We've definitely hit peak supply on the US side because we've found better power options. Coal is going to continue to be used for electricity in the US for the next 30 years (and probably 100 in the world), but the amount mined is going to keep dropping.

I think a bit more long term than most people do, I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not, but it's how I see things. When I think about policy, I think about the impact it's going to have 50 years from now. I'm all for conserving the environment but I don't think coal regulations are going to have any impact on that in either direction. They're going to have less and less impact by the year. Might as well cash in on coal for one last hurrah while we still can.

It's not part of Trumps plan specifically though, Trump probably doesn't even know what coal is used for. The Republicans have campaigned for years on loosening regulations as part of their plan to get coal miners back to work. It's a pretty big industry in Appalachia such as where I live. It's known as the "War on Coal". To say emotions run hot on the subject would be an understatement... coal mining disappearing has basically resulted in the type of mass poverty you normally only associate with middle of nowhere Louisiana and the people know it. For the last 4 years for example, there have been signs on every road into my county saying in big red letters "You are now entering Obama's No Jobs Zone". It's the Republicans single biggest campaign promise in the region, and it's why Hillary lost all of Appalachia, I don't think she got a single county.

The coal promises run much deeper than one President. Personally, I think they're a bunch of BS because as I said, coal doesn't have a bright future. But to the people who have made careers of coal mining now (and there are a lot of coal mining families) they mean everything.
edit on 16-2-2017 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   
He's truly mental.

And I'm tired of the Trumpster's ridiculous rationalizations.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Thank you for your reply, It helps me to put things into perspective.
concerning the environment, OP topic...
I am not aware of the impact mining companies have or have had on the environment and I will have to look into that soon, but I am running out of steam for these, (political) topics at the moment

again thank you, Aazadan, for your post and reply.

edit on 16-2-2017 by peppycat because: brain is tired



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
He's truly mental.

And I'm tired of the Trumpster's ridiculous rationalizations.


They should just get to the point and say, "If President Trump says it's good, so do I!". No rationalization beyond that statement is needed.

After signing this Executive Order today, the Coal Mining people one-by-one verbally expressed their appreciation to Donald Trump for saving their jobs. That made me feel happy for them, and thankful (again!) that Hillary Clinton didn't win. I remember a Town Hall last year where she said that putting coal miners out of business, was one of her goals. What a NASTY woman she is.




top topics



 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join