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: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Throes

People plugging in their hybrid electric cars have no idea 30% of that electricity they are consuming is due to coal!!


But also 70% other stuff, which may include a few percent renewable. The real issue is that the batteries from electric cars don't last long enough, and contain some seriously bad stuff to throw in landfills. Electric cars probably do more harm than good. If you really care about the environment the best thing to do, is to do is to buy a fuel efficient used car. The second thing to do is to buy a fuel efficient new car.

That's where the battles should be fought in the US. Obama caught a lot of flak over his oil independence plan early in his Presidency when he said people should just inflate their tires properly, but he wasn't off on the concept. If we want to reduce the pollution from vehicles, fuel efficiency is what we should be looking towards. The US has some of the lowest fuel efficient vehicles on the planet, and we could do better if we told the car companies they need to do better.

Green energy has it's place, but electric cars aren't green.


originally posted by: friendlymonster
Coal is in fact quite modest in terms of pollution. Coal is formed from past life forms. It is organic. There are traces of mercury in it but the concentration is very small. Stuffs used for making solar panels. Now THOSE really cause cancer.


It's not about total deaths. It's about deaths per kwH produced, because that's some measure of efficency. Blood for power. On that metric, coal is by far the worst offender.




posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   

What type of nation are we when we allow our leaders to sign into law a rule that makes it EASIER for mining companies to pollute local waterways? These same politicians will try to convince their voters that making it easier to pollute local streams is somehow good for them. Communities in West Virginia, Indiana, and Alabama with sky-high rates of cancer due to industry pollution shouldn't be presented with the false choice of accepting even more poison in their local environment or having a job. No one should be told that they have to put up with cancer-causing poison in their water, air, and land. It's shameful, and it's wrong.

source

This. One thousand times, this.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Olivine

The rule was put in place in Dec 2016. If Obama cared about the environment then why did he wait until the very last few weeks of his Presidency to do this?

I still maintain it was done on purpose to paint Trump in a negative light the moment he rescinded it. Thats further reinforced by the reaction from people who never bothered to see when the rule change was signed into effect.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Why isn't it okay for me to view his EO rescinding this Act 'in a negative light'?

Are you admitting that Trump signed the EO just because Obama enacted the original...for spite?
I hope not.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Olivine

The Stream Protection Rule didn't do anything. It was signed by Obama in the waning hours of his presidency and, thus, wasn't on the books long enough to make any difference. It was primarily a result of the EPA's bungling in Colorado, releasing millions of gallons of contaminated water from a detention pond into the Animas River. (Yes, the EPA... one of America's largest polluters.) The actual impact of the law itself was additional beauracracy and redundancy. Mines will still have to do everything the bill mandated and will still have to go through agency permitting processes with ACOE, DNR, and the EPA, but we're not going to go into a system in which yet another layer of red tape is added.

We need a lot more of these Joint Resolutions to scale back the redundancy and red tape.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Olivine
a reply to: Xcathdra

Why isn't it okay for me to view his EO rescinding this Act 'in a negative light'?

Are you admitting that Trump signed the EO just because Obama enacted the original...for spite?
I hope not.


No, Trump rescinded it because the original rule was goddamned stupid and bad for America. Had he left it in place, he'd have been supporting a bad law.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Olivine

Trump didnt sign an EO to do this. A resolution was passed by Congress that Trump signed. I am saying Obama put this in place knowing Trump would remove it, giving his opponents something else that is fake to bitch about.
edit on 22-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join