Leaked Document: Deep EPA Climate Budget Cuts Looming

epa-logo[1]

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Fox News claim a leaked EPA draft budget proposal document promises deep cuts to the EPA budget, particularly climate related activities. But the Heartland Institute think the reported cuts don’t go far enough.

Environmental programs face deep cuts under budget proposal

Published March 03, 2017

WASHINGTON – The Trump administration would slash programs aimed at slowing climate change and improving water safety and air quality, while eliminating thousands of jobs, according to a draft of the Environmental Protection Agency budget proposal obtained by The Associated Press.

Under the tentative plan from the Office of Management and Budget, the agency’s funding would be reduced by roughly 25 percent and about 3,000 jobs would be cut, about 19 percent of the agency’s staff.

The draft proposal would cut the EPA’s annual budget from about $8.2 billion to $6.1 billion. Proposed cuts include reducing the climate protection budget by nearly 70 percent to $29 million, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative by 97 percent to $10 million and environmental justice programs by 79 percent to $1.5 million.

Also targeted for steep spending rollbacks are the agency’s monitoring and enforcement of compliance with environmental laws, as well as regional projects intended to benefit degraded areas such as the Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound and the Gulf of Mexico. A program dealing with San Francisco Bay that received $4.8 million last year would be eliminated, as would initiatives for reducing diesel emissions and beach water quality testing.

But the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, said the proposal didn’t go far enough.

“If Donald Trump and Scott Pruitt are serious about ending the national scandal that is EPA, they will accept nothing less than a 20 percent cut this year and make this year’s cut the first step in a five-year plan to replace the organization,” said Joseph Bast, the group’s president.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/03/environmental-programs-face-deep-cuts-under-budget-proposal.html

I don’t think there is any acceptable compromise on this issue. Any cut to the EPA budget will upset greens and Democrat supporters. No cut to the EPA budget will upset Trump supporters, many of whom are utterly fed up with excessive EPA interference in their lives. A lightweight cut to the EPA budget would upset everyone.

Advertisements

204 thoughts on “Leaked Document: Deep EPA Climate Budget Cuts Looming

  1. I hope these leaks can be plugged, but if true, let the cuts begin! It can’t happen soon enough!

    • “Under the tentative plan from the Office of Management and Budget, the agency’s funding would be reduced by roughly 25 percent and about 3,000 jobs would be cut, about 19 percent of the agency’s staff.”

      A good start! Do the same for the next 3 years and the US would be an even better place.

      • A start. But, not “A good start!”.
        During 2013 Govt. Shutdown (if only it had continued) — Over 93% of EPA Employees Considered ‘Non-Essential’.

        Excluding the Military, and knowing U.S. Govt. Bureaucracy, that percentage would apply to almost all of Fed. Another example: “95 percent of Department of Education employees were deemed “non-essential” during the government shutdown”

      • We also need a serious adult conversation about what constitutes “clean enough”

        Concentration threshholds for substances/”pollutants” in air and water have continually ratchetted downward as analytical techniques have become more and more capable of measuring ppb and even ppt concentrations. This is madness

        The human body (and the entire biosphere) has evolved to tolerate wide ranges of various substances, without demonstrable harm. Many of the substances on the EPA list of “toxins” (a complete BS/emotional designation) are in fact essential nutrients for animals, humans, and plants. CO2 is the most perfect example of this insanity. Our bodies exhale CO2 at greater than 10,000 ppm, and yet EPA has the gall to claim it is an atmospheric “pollutant” at 400 ppm.

        EPA was directed by Congress to include cost/benefit considerations in all their regulations, yet that has been totally ignored for the last 8 years at least.

        Engineering standards of performance need to be imposed on EPA regulations

        And, BTW, most of their functions should be conducted at the state level.

        Fire da bums, or defund their federal programs and move their positions to Oklahoma, Texas, North Dakota, Alabama, and the Aleutian Islands [places mentioned with endearment!]

      • “Concentration threshholds for substances/”pollutants” in air and water have continually ratchetted downward as analytical techniques have become more and more capable of measuring ppb and even ppt concentrations. “

        I believe that the EPA works according to the discredited ‘Linear No threshold’ principle beloved of authoritarian regulatory agencies, originally devised for radiation exposure but now adapted to permit swingeing regulation of any and every substance the EPA decides it wishes to interfere with.

        Amongst other things it is the basis of the Computer games models that are used to make unsubstantiated claims about NoX and pm2.5 reducing life expectation that is currently in use to fraudulently stigamatise users of diesel vehicles.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/

      • geologyjim says:
        “Concentration threshholds for substances/”pollutants” in air and water have continually ratchetted downward as analytical techniques have become more and more capable of measuring ppb and even ppt concentrations. This is madness.”

        So true Jim, and well stated. I am an operator and manager for a public drinking water system. Drawing a water sample to submit for compliance testing is now fraught with the danger that a few molecules of some regulated “pollutant” may drift into the sample on the air. Don’t fuel your car and then take a sample unless you have surgically scrubbed. Don’t have cigarette smoke on your clothes. Don’t be thinking lewd thoughts lest they pollute the sample.

        One thing driving this lunacy is the rule written into the Clean Water Act that requires a pool of new candidate pollutants to be identified on a five year cycle. Some of those candidates always appear in regulations as new pollutants, and may indeed be controlled to ppb or ppt concentrations.

        Dan

      • Funny, in US Army in the early ’80s we had a water testing kit that weighed a couple pounds and was so simple a monkey could use it properly, only way to contaminate a sample was intentionally. Just how have we “advanced” to this silly point in the 21st Century? I feel your pain, in the past I have worked for a friend who owned and operated a small municipal water company and the amount of total crap you have to deal with from Feds and state agencies is sad.

      • Heartland’s Joe Bast says Trump and Pruitt should accept nothing less than 20% cut. Looks like they don’t have to, if the leaked proposal is for 25.6% cut. So why is there a paragraph above saying that Heartland says the cuts don’t go far enough?
        Personally, I’d like to see the climate part of EPA’s budget cut 99.44%.

      • Proposed limits for PFOAs: 70 parts per trillion. The average Joe or Jane Public cannot comprehend parts per million let alone ppt. PPM equates to one square-one square-in roll stretching from New York City to London!

      • Gil says, “Personally, I’d like to see the climate part of EPA’s budget cut 99.44%.”
        Heartland would like to go further, Gil. According to the final part of president Bast’s statement,
        “…make this year’s cut the first step in a five-year plan to replace the organization”.
        20% per year for 5 years obliterates the EPA, Gil. Hasten the day. But not too hasty. These are people with families at stake here. They should be given fair warning of pending doom and gloom.

      • Graham commented: “…These are people with families at stake here. They should be given fair warning of pending doom and gloom….”

        Agree. They should be given the same consideration as the scientists, professors, and businesses that were abruptly axed, pilloried, ostracized to feed the AGW demon.

      • I think Gil’s intention was to purify the EPA to the same purity that Ivory Soap achieves. Hey, I enjoyed the joke!

      • The Democrats say we have a great job market with full employment, with the longest sustained job growth in record. So these experts should get snapped up within moments of their termination.

        Seriously though, after the scurrilous way the state and regional epa employees behaved during the flint water crisis, there is clearly plenty of dead weight just covering their own butt and collecting a paycheck. I have a friend that works for the department of labor, and he tells me that 20% of the govt employees do 80% of the work. Most are just there to do as little as they have to not to get fired.

    • It’s about time these the EPA climocrats go find real jobs and do something productive for a change.

      • Most of them will just migrate to another Federal department. Same pay grade (well, some will get a promotion), same lack of accountability. They’ll still be living off the idiot (their view) civilian population.

    • jim2 et al,

      cut all you want, but, most likely, as far as I am concerned, it will not be enough … because the REAL ROOT of the problem is CONGRESS.

      Congress, if they can get away with it, DOES NOT want to make a decision on ANYTHING; not on legislation issues; not on budget issues. Therefore, with this “escapist” mindset, IN ORDER TO AVOID SCRUTINY [read: voting scrutiny], they have passed off ALL that they can to these unelected, unaccountable massive federal bureaucracies … and hope that “We The People” do not notice. So far, to overstate the obvious, they’ve been pretty good at it; however, we shall see whether the DJT admin can make a dent [and more].

      Note: the emblematic EPA, power hungry dictator-wannabes, just happens to be one of the most egregious offenders … because so much of what they do impacts the daily lives of so many citizens.

      Rest assured, until “We The People” in sufficient numbers stand up to the offending members of Congress they will revert to their insidious practice … as soon as this “cutting phase” has passed.

      Note: this same thing happens at the State and Local levels … whenever and wherever “good people” stand by and do nothing. This should surprise no one as our human history is filled to the brim with such examples.

    • These bureaucrats in the EPA invent problems, so they can justify their paychecks. This so-called “problem” of CO2 emissions wil be taken care of by trees and other green things.

    • IMHO, yes. Easier to just zero it out and start over some years later…
      Do the same with the Dept. of Education. Didn’t have one before Carter and it was better then.

      • Agree. Eliminate it and then start over with carefully selected staff, loyal to the US and the Administration. Perhaps consider sunset riders to all new regulations, i.e. if the program cannot be defended periodically, it will just be removed from the regulations. This will eliminate nonsense such as CO2 “pollutant” regulation continuing forever.

  2. With the just released disclosure that along the Intercoastal Waterway in Galveston County that there are open air pits full of dioxin contaminated sludge, I would think that there are enough “surplus” bureaucrats available to get some field experience in remediating contamination. I’m sure the budget could support the costs of shovels and wheelbarrows. Since Texas currently has a huge surplus in nat gas, incinerating the sludge wouldn’t necessarily be a problem.

    A direct hit by a hurricane would put thousands of tons of that toxic crap in the Gulf. You could kiss shrimp, oyster, fish etc. out of the gulf goodbye for decades. The BP blowout would pale in comparison.

    • wsbriggs – Please get a grip. Those pits have been there since the 60’s and have already been capped. Several hurricanes crossed the site before they were capped with no resulting shrimp kissing. Hyperventilating like yours is what has earned the EPA its reputation.

      • Thanks, I was about to post the same thing. I don’t even live in Houston (although I travel there from time to time) and I’ve known, like everyone else, that the Intercoastal down there has been an incredibly contaminated cesspool since at least the mid-1980’s. (don’t doubt what you say about the 60’s, 80’s is just when I found out about it)

        It is actually a good bit better now than it was then, but I still wouldn’t eat anything that came out of that water.

        And so NOW, just when Pruitt has announced budget cuts, is the first time in 50 years someone suddenly wants to make a national story out of it?

      • Wasn’t it “”previous administration”” who blocked all oil companies from new exploration in Gulf; except for very company responsible for blowout? And not a peep out of EPA…

        Makes one wonder where loyalties of EPA lie? We the People or Foreign Interests.

      • WWWS “And so NOW, just when Pruitt has announced budget cuts, is the first time in 50 years someone suddenly wants to make a national story out of it?”

        similar to the CBS story last night on CBS radio – 10 minute segment on the plight of illegal immigrants from central america detained by ICE under the Trump administration – even though they have been detained for more than 9-10 months –

      • Sorry Paul, the site of which you write is just off of I10, the site of which I write is visible from the air. The contamination levels contents are posted online.

        Use Google Earth
        GE coordinates – 2914’28.39″N, 95 2’27.42″W

        Hall’s Bayou Dump Site

    • Sorry wsbriggs but ‘contaminated’ is not a convincing enough. If you want to forward a claim that it would be worse than the BP blowout (which was not blown out by BP) you have to put up a contamination level and a volume so we can check the veracity of the assertion. The main result of the Deepwater Horizon blowout was a massive fertilisation of fish life in the Gulf. I don’t think that is what you had in mind.

      Dioxin contamination is very serious. Let’s see some serious numbers and then let’s assess the risk, and how to deal with it.

      • It’s hard to imagine that an organization such as the EPA charged with making sure that we could have clean air and water, to blow so much money on such a bogus effort as renewable energy, while long time problems haven’t been addressed, or when they were, in such an incompetent manner as the Gold King Mine.

        Crispin, just because the agency is a fraud, doesn’t mean that there aren’t locations where serious problems exist. The Hall’s Bayou Dump Site consisting of open pit paper making sludges containing dioxin in ppb amounts is one of them.

        Give the states the money to fix the problems – I wouldn’t give it to the EPA – but I’d sure love to watch some of those feeders at the public trough have to done hazmat suites and work the day through getting the site that should have been eliminated decades ago remediated.

        The BP blowout was not the environmental catastrophe that it was claimed, just like the Exxon Valdez spill was made worse by the EPA, they did it to the BP blowout – Wild Well or Boots & Coots could have capped it within a week. Stopping work to have “hearings on the catastrophe” made it the problem it became.

    • Incineration is not supposed to work for dioxins. They are pretty stable. But they must react with something, otherwise they would not be poisonous. Maybe EPA should finance a research how to neutralize dioxins.

      • Curious George
        March 4, 2017 at 11:26 am

        “Incineration is not supposed to work for dioxins. They are pretty stable. But they must react with something, otherwise they would not be poisonous. Maybe EPA should finance a research how to neutralize dioxins.”

        Dioxin can be neutralized with a catalitc process at 300-500°C, where metal dust is added.
        So-called Hagenmeier process.

  3. Trump the builder !
    When “The Donald” was making money, building new, the first step after planing would be DEMOLITION, which is something I would think he is very successful at, but now, the heavy machinery has yet to arrive on site, lets all wait a little while, he has as yet to get his drivers into their hardhats.

  4. “I don’t think there is any acceptable compromise on this issue. Any cut to the EPA budget will upset greens and Democrat supporters. No cut to the EPA budget will upset Trump supporters, many of whom are utterly fed up with excessive EPA interference in their lives. A lightweight cut to the EPA budget would upset everyone.”

    Hear, hear!

  5. The EPA itself is not BAD — the manner in which the EPA has been [mis-]used by activists, inside and outside of government, is the problem. Sue-and-settle collusion, which should be investigated and prosecuted, is the problem. EPA overreach, such as the EPA’s WOTUS Rule, is the problem.

    In a deeper sense, it is also the use of runaway epidemiology, the madcap science that manages to find every substance investigated to be a mass murderer thus allowing the EPA to begin the cycle of regulation and over-regulation, that is the problem.

    Having the EPA involved in climate science is and was simply a power grab by the environmental movement.

    • “The EPA itself is not BAD”

      Got to disagree. The EPA is Progressive-Liberally Polluted. EPA employees had a moral and ethical choice. Do their jobs, non-politically refusing to (willingly) kowtow to Obama Administration’s “Go Green” / Man-made Global Warming Scam. Instead, they chose to sell their soles. They should have remember they work for We the People.

      The last straw was when EPA came out with non-sense Carbon was Hazardous material! EPA completely ignoring, we use that vary “Hazardous material” to filter both our Air and Water of pollutants.

      [Their soles, their feet, their hearts, and their minds. 8<) .mod]

      • The real problem is that 95% of our college courses are taught by Democrats. We see how it contaminated “science”- Environmental Science (Prof. Ehrlich) or Climate Science (Prof. Mann). A developing country ruler once said: When I need socialists, I send my students to study in the West. When I need capitalists, I send my students to study in the Eastern Europe.

    • Yes, indeed!

      Environmental epidemiology is another pseudo-science field where most studies are based around computer models of hyperventilated mortality attributed to miniscule concentrations of “toxic chemicals/fumes” (defined ad hoc to suit the press release)

      Epidemiology is based on the untestable notion that there is no “inconsequential” lower threshhold of concentration or exposure to anything.

      Same scam has been promulgated in the radiation-exposure scam

      T’row da bums out. Transfer funds to the States to oversee their own environmental concerns.

      • One big problem has been the “Delaney Amendment” which allows testing rats (preferably Canadian rats) with enormously unrealistic doses of a substance to see if it can result in cancer. If so, it can result in banning the substance. Another big problem is doing experiments
        looking for rates of morbidity or mortality in rats and then inferring the same would occur in humans.

    • Kip,

      The easiest way to avoid that corruption of purpose is to eliminate the function entirely. Otherwise you are fighting human nature and political nature. The agency will ALWAYS be turned into what it has become and for the same basic reasons. Just zero it and move on.

  6. Leaking is now the American way. Forget honesty, integrity and following rules. Just leak away. What a joke.

    • I keep wondering if the leak might be a purposeful ruse and not revealing all of the final intentions.

      • Leaks are the time honoured political device for assessing how much opposition there is to an idea before proceeding. This allows the plan to be adjusted.

      • Pop, No. The cuts are not big enough to do a deliberate leak for. If Trump had said 10% even that would be a lightning rod for enraged Dems.

  7. The proposal does seem a bit restrained for an initial funding measure. As lobbying would tend to restore levels, it appears to be unambitious.

  8. Trump should turn almost all of fed EPA to the states.
    Tell them, “You’ve got 3 years then it’s your problem.”
    I wonder if Michigan could have stopped the Flint drinking water problem if they had fed EPA money and their hundreds of lawyers?

    • Yes, it is out of control in California especially. They have numerous environmental agencies that deal out favors as well as punishments:

      The U.S. EPA
      Cal Air Resources Board
      Cal Dept of Conservation
      Cal Dept of Toxic Substances Control
      Cal Dept of Water Resources
      Cal EPA
      Cal Integrated Waste Management Board
      Cal Dept of Health Services
      Bay Area Air Quality Management District
      South Coast Air Quality Management District
      etc….

      Can you say redundancy, redundancy, redundancy?

      • Possibly nitpicking here, but…

        I think you are being redundant yourself. Cal ARB and Cal DTSC are parts of Cal EPA. Also, BAAQMD, SCAQMD and the other air pollution control districts are regional organizations that mostly implement local air quality policy instead of making policy (Cal ARB’s role). So, while there may be some redundancy among them, their roles are not redundant.

      • “This product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer.”

        The first time I saw that label I knew the Granola State had finally gone off the deep end for good. How does just one state ‘know’ something the other 49 don’t? ~¿~

      • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(1986)

        The list of chemicals that if present require a warning label is nearly 1000 items long, and apparently changes yearly. Saccharine was on the list until 2010. I’ve heard it still contains many items that (like Saccharine) are only carcinogenic at massive dose levels, yet are expected to be warned of if present in parts per trillion.

        The whole thing has turned into a joke in California, with the usual Leftist Lawfare crap and companies posting warnings regardless of whether there are any carcinogens, just to hold off the scores of crazed lawyers. (Disneyland has a warning that covers the WHOLE park)

        Of course, Cali’s madness doesn’t end at their borders. Many products that MIGHT end up sold in California have started putting the warning labels on just in case, which is how I’ve come to see them here in Indiana.

    • hundreds of lawyers
      ================
      you solve drinking water problems with engineers. they know how to actually clean things up. lawyers WANT drinking water problems so they can sue.

      Cleaning up the EPA begins and ends with making it an engineering problem, not a policy problem. The policy was set years ago by Congress. Then a mountain of self-serving bureaucrats went about putting their own spin on what Congress wanted, expanding the EPA in ways never intended by Congress.

      Congress wanted to get rid of clear environmental problems. Congress never intended that regulations require the air, land and water to be so clean that US citizens would be barred from using their own lands for the pursuit of happiness. But this is what happened. Every year the clean environment must be made even cleaner, until in the end the environment ends up like your Grandmother’s sofa. With a protective cover, that no one is allowed to sit on.

      Why? Because bureaucrats want regulations. They want to be gatekeepers, not facilitators. They want to have the power to say “thou shall not”. In effect, they want to add to the 10 commandments, with thousands of new commandments.

      We saw this in the EU, where the elected government and thus the people have zero power. THe European parliament is simply a talking shop, a figure-head without any power. The true power behind the EU are the bureaucrats that set the regulation, because the regulations determine in minute detail how every EU citizen must run their lives.

      And how did this start? The EU never started out as a government, it started out as a trade agreement, that morphed into the true government of Europe. A government beyond the control of its citizens. This is the same model the EPA adopted, where by regulating the air, land and water they can control every citizen in the US.

      Thus Brexit, thus Trump.

      • Precisely why I voted for Brexit. And it’s beginning to look like Theresa May is the perfect candidate for the job.

      • Well said!

        But I’d add that the progressives in Congress, both the R-type and the D-type, wanted the EPA’s relations with the ordinary citizens to occur without the Constitutional protections that are afforded those accused of crimes. This was done in the interest of efficiency. This was further amplified by the presumption that the EPA would become an expert in scientific affairs. The results are as terrible as you might expect if you have any knowledge of world history. The determination that CO2 can be regulated as a pollutant is a perfect example of the Alice in Wonderland world we have created.

        I would also argue that the EPA doesn’t have any simple criteria like “clean”. That would be too easy to refute. Instead, they bury their power in obscure science, like the significance of the Spotted Owl, or the results of running 103 global circulation models that have been fitted to periods where global average temperature and CO2 concentration have both risen. And when the EPA is responsible for a damaging pollutant spill, as occurred in the Animas River in Colorado, surprise! They can’t be prosecuted because they don’t want to be prosecuted. Sovereign Immunity it’s called.

        Thus Brexit, thus Trump.

      • lawyers WANT drinking water problems so they can sue.

        BINGO! And lawyers overwhelmingly support Democrats.

      • “Why? Because bureaucrats want regulations. They want to be gatekeepers, not facilitators. ”

        Have a look at the Clean water rule. A horrendous amount of words. Designed by EPA bureaucrats for their own benefit – certainly not for the benefit of the people.

        Environmental Protection Agency
        40 CFR Parts 110, 112, 116, et al.
        Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘‘Waters of the United States’’; Final Rule

        It is a good thing that Trump has put an end to that:
        Trump takes away EPA “right” to control every puddle in USA: WOTUS executive order

        EPA really need some trimming.

  9. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/03/white-house-proposes-steep-budget-cut-to-leading-climate-science-agency/?utm_term=.3094509448bc

    White House proposes steep budget cut to leading climate science agency

    “The biggest single cut proposed by the passback document comes from NOAA’s satellite division, known as the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, which includes a key repository of climate and environmental information, the National Centers for Environmental Information. Researchers there were behind a study suggesting that there has been no recent slowdown in the rate of climate change — research that drew the ire of Republicans in Congress.”

    end excerpt

    • That is a tricky one. The satellites are a great tool, and need continued funding. The managers within that group are the problem that needs to be resolved.

      • And that is precisely the job DJT excels at, removing those who are a drag and putting in place those who can and want to do the job needed.

    • TA, am I to glean that cooking the books didn’t draw your ire? Your NWO core subjects are on display. A couple of generations of designer brains have brought us to this. Re the meagrely 25% cut, I could find 25%to cut even if you wanted to maintain all the functions they have had.

      • “TA, am I to glean that cooking the books didn’t draw your ire?”

        I don’t know what you are referring to, Gary.

  10. EPA 27% cut, NOAA 17% cut and NASA cut of the Earthe Sciences Div will prove very costly for those who exaggerated and modified data/results. They did it to themselves.

    • will prove very costly
      ============
      what NOAA did was to fail to comply with a request (subpoena) from the chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology; betting heavily that Hillary was a shoe-in.

      Congress sets the funding for NOAA. Congress has a legal duty to ensure this funding is spent properly, and Congress has the legal authority to do so.

      It should be no surprise that any agency that fails to heed the summons of Congress should find its funding cut off.

      • Oroville dam restored in 1 weekend
        ============
        I find that hard to believe. The regulators are more concerned with the possibility a few fish might be harmed by the waters returning to normal. Zero regard for the life and property of the hundreds of thousands of people at risk downstream of the dam.

        Move the regulators families to Oroville for a government paid vacation and see how long it takes to get the dam repaired.

        The problem is that you cannot sue the government no matter how much harm they do. So regulators are free to do great harm in the name of doing good.

        Better yet, require that every regulator be a licensed engineer and as such personally responsible for any harm they do through regulation. Seriously, engineers can be sued personally if they make a mistake and someone is harmed.

        Make the regulators personally responsible for any harm their regulations create. Require that every regulator be a licensed engineer with personal liability for any harm they do.

      • That’s a good recommendation Ferd. In fact we should require that all new hires be RPEs. Of course you might give any current regulators 2 or 3 years to become RPEs. In order to go along with Pres. Trump’s 2 for 1 plan transfer any of the current crop that decide to stay on to the position of De-regulator. All this group would be authorized to do is to recommend regulations for deletion/removal.

    • That story is unbelievable? Tens of thousands of people are potentially in danger, and they are worried about a few fish? I wonder who cared about those fish 75 years ago after the spring run off receded?
      Insanity!

    • To make that clear:

      Whenever you read ‘Wundersamer’ the / sark is on.

      lappeenranta

      is finno/ugrish

      and nobody knows where that language stems of.

      / use Google translator sound to hear it spoken /

  11. He doesn’t have to fire anyone, it’s easier to not fund them. Without work to do, it’s a layoff and requires much less oversight review.

  12. It seems to be a “draft”. The question is who wrote it and who they are trying to protect. This may be something created as an appeasement, with the hopes it will be changed.
    I think once it hits the House and Senate floor more cuts will be added.

    The knives are drawn.

    michael

    • Disinfo, maybe.

      This IS a way for the dem-left to mobilize THEIR opposition efforts, e.g. fundraising and recruiting.

      Members of the deep state leaking docs like this to keep their jobs.

  13. … the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative by 97 percent to $10 million …

    Many of the folks who brought The Donald to power will feel betrayed. link

    • 97% of the GLRI is a socialist employment program for Democrats, so that they can be paid blog commenters.

  14. Heck, I’d be happy if they just repealed the light bulb rule. It’s the little nit picky rules and regs that make life more expensive for the average consumer. And these are things we can directly see, not like the big rules and regs the cost of which get passed down to consumers who pass it off as everything gets more expensive and not really knowing why.

    Telling us we can use any old cheap light bulb we want, now that’s something people will understand and support.

    • use any old cheap light bulb we want
      ==================
      where is the economy in a $5 compact fluorescent bulb as compared to 50 cent incandescent that lasts just as long?

      the phony economy printed for light bulb is nonsense. light bulbs in the house fail because you turn them on and off. very very few ever last the thousands of hours advertised on the labels.

      just like cell phone batteries. they last for years if the phone is kept plugged in all the time. but once you start cycling them, they rarely last the 2-3 years of your contract.

      Where is the truth in advertising? CF bulbs, lasts 10 thousand hours, or until you turn them on and off a couple of dozen times. Which ever comes first.

      • Actually you should switch over to LED replacement bulbs. They are pricy now, price has been falling, and no government mandate attached to them. I put several in at a business that was having problems with bulbs blowing, regular and cfl, 2 years on and all 5 LED bulbs are still working. This is in a commercial kitchen, heat a major issue.

      • Not sure where you shop, but I never paid $5 for a CFL. In fact, incandescents are over $1 apiece now. The CFLs are cheaper. Wait a while and the LED’s will come down—I find them on sale, but have yet to switch. My CFLs last a very long time. The boxful I bought on sale has lasted 5 or 6 years now. I haven’t bought additional ones in three or four years and still have a lot left. Some were the slow start ones and I gave up on those, but by and large, the CFLs worked pretty well except in the cold. Now, if we want to discuss the other uses for incandescent lights—like keeping stoplights warm so they don’t fill with snow, using them to heat reptile cages (halogens work for that now), or to keep the well house warm in the cooler weather, that was totally overlooked and no one cared about that. I will end up using a heater (1300 watt) to replace two 100 watt light bulbs when I run out of my very big stash of 100 watt bulbs.

        I agree that the advertising is deceptive—of course, it’s based on “models”, not actual testing, so what should we expect?

      • I never did like the light of CFLs, so we moved almost immediately to LED from Incandescent (we have a couple of CFLs). They last longer and the price (at least around here) is competitive.

      • I send people to Lowes to see how the different LEDs look, they have a nice big display that has 10 or 15 different bulbs. Then go to WalMart to buy them. Some are very “glare-ie” bright and others have a washed out bluish light. I got no complaints with any of them I have installed or use.

      • They do appear to be “brighter” or as you indicated “bluer”. I never saw “blue icecycle” lights until the LEDs came out. I suspect some folks like the blue tinge more than the yellow of the old incandescent ones.

        But I stick with Lowes. Only because that is the only store I do not mind “browsing” in. :-)

      • I spend a pile of money at Lowes, getting ready to do a kitchen remodel next month that is going to pile up the Lowes Card bonus points! That said, their LED bulb prices are almost double what the same bulb is at WalMart. Most people still flinch at the price on LED bulbs even after years of the expensive crap cfl bulbs.

      • Yea, I use to buy LED from Walmart as well as they were a lot cheaper. But not just in price. They failed twice as fast as those bought elsewhere, so I just decided to avoid the hassle and go with stuff that lasted. Even at Lowes the price is not bad in comparison to CFL (until you get into the specialty stuff).

      • I thought CF bulbs were of no use whatever until I realized they were the perfect shape for the nimnuls foisting them on us to sit on and pivot :)

    • There are an astonishing amount of petty idiocy rules by the EPA governing practically everything in our American homes.

      EPA decides to restrict how much water can be used; taps, sinks, tubs, showers, dishwashers, clothes washing machines, etc.
      EPA believes and insists that driving such rules down the throats of Americans and manufacturers will cause the manufacturers to innovate and achieve the demanded reductions.

      Every year, EPA challenges their teams to write up newer mandatory restrictions and to submit the necessary legal notices to be published in the Federal register. Writing new EPA regulations includes developing and presenting new research justifications to justify EPA’s latest requirements. EPA government employees are very thankful that NGO groups are willing to invent and document new rationales.
      These EPA teams and their leaders earn part of their yearly merit pay increases based on how challenging proposed reductions are.

      Across our entire EPA strangled market, builders must use existing technology while meeting EPA demands while delivering untold machines and plumbing devices that are quite ineffective and inefficient.
      EPA achieves significantly higher consumer costs for archaic designs that only meet EPA goals in a laboratory, not real life.

      • Atheo, you could not have described the , for that matter any bureaucracy better than that !!!

        The unelected EU parliament it the prime example.

        Having worked for a government at one time , there actually are departments within departments that spend thousands of hours investigating other departments to see “How do THEY do things” and don’t spend any time what so ever on their own mandates ! I was on a panel that actually did this and I never spend any time working the actual job I applied for. ( I protested after a while to no avail and I quit as soon as I found a way out.)

    • We owned a house built in the early 30’s. About 1960, I discovered a Mazda bulb (not sold in that area since the house was built) over a side porch used about once a month. It would be really stupid to replace that with anything other than a cheap incandescent. I want to make that decision, not leave it to some socialist slacker in DC. Bring back real light bulbs!

    • My point is, get out of my house and let me buy any light bulb I want. I prefer 3-way bulbs in my table lamps and decorative bulbs in my dinning room on a dimmer.

    • Your telling me!

      Tell Trump!

      / he’s hosting a homepage – more than once I visited! /

    • Paul Rechthaber besser Wessi DDR like immer alles besser wissen STASI 5.column.

      Google that to your native dinglish.

      • Google says that means:

        Paul Rechthaber better Wessi DDR like always everything better STASI 5.column.

        Like the song said … “Well, it was clear as mud but it covered the ground” …

        Best,

        w.

      • QED Nothing more than a bureaucratic welfare program.

        Justice is a slippery word. I may think it is just that I can go to McDonalds and order a Big Mac, but I suspect the cow has a different opinion of the matter entirely.

      • “At the EPA, we see providing meaningful engagement for our most vulnerable and underserved communities as a fundamental part of fulfilling our mission to protect this country’s environmental quality and public health.”

        I think something needs to be done with the mission of EPA:

        “The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment.
        EPA’s purpose is to ensure that:
        – all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work;”

        That is an incredibly poor sentence, isn´t it?
        It can be interpreted in so many ways – and I guess that is what has happened in EPA.
        Their mission has been interpreted in the broadest possible way.

    • ANY program where “Justice” is used with an adjective needs to be abolished. The Department OF Justice is fine. FOO Justice is just a code word for Progressive Crap. “Social Justice” isn’t either, and “Environmental Justice” is uninvolved with either.

      • Environmental Justice (or Social Justice) relate to Justice just as a Straitjacket relates to a Jacket.

    • Yes. Just think how much America’s ‘carbon footprint’ will go down once tens of millions of illegal immigrants are deported, and are unable to return because The Wall.

      • Your religious crusade against all life on Earth is duly noted, so please continue to “think” plant food is pollution.

  15. “I don’t think there is any acceptable compromise on this issue. Any cut to the EPA budget will upset greens and Democrat supporters. No cut to the EPA budget will upset Trump supporters, many of whom are utterly fed up with excessive EPA interference in their lives. A lightweight cut to the EPA budget would upset everyone.”

    You cannot get along with the left. All you can do is destroy them and bury them. As a rule of thumb the louder the water melons protest any action the better. I believe the Water melons will be screaming and protesting a lot over the next few years and this document does not reflect the reality of what is to come.

    • Well, one has hope…

      My “best case” hope is that the present cut suggestion is just nuking the obvious bits. The rest keeps funding for the positions so that Trump can put his people into those positions to then figure out what / how to nuke it. It isn’t much good to nuke an agency that has put into force horrible rules that then survive in perpetuity since nobody exists to remove the rules.

      So in this rosy POV, I’d hope that the idea is “fund it but change the objectives to ‘how do we undo the damage and rules from this unit?’ THEN defund that unit”.

  16. The overstepping by the EPA is like me with dark chocolate, they just can’t keep their hands off.
    If you want them to stop, take away the funding.

  17. Heartland Institute: If Donald Trump and Scott Pruitt are serious about ending the national scandal that is EPA, they will accept nothing less than a 20 percent cut this year…

    Leaked document: Under the tentative plan from the Office of Management and Budget, the agency’s funding would be reduced by roughly 25 percent

    Huh? Heartland won’t take “yes” for an answer?

  18. I’ll believe Trump is serious about reining in the EPA when the apparatchiks responsible for this are eradicated.

  19. The EPA should be limited to monitoring the air and water quality as they cross state lines. If a river in state A is polluted when it flows into state B, then the federal government would require state A to correct the problem or lose all federal fundng. How the state did that would be left up to the state.

    What goes on within a state is not the Feds concern, and the feds should only be involved with states, never individuals or businesses. There is already a group that would ensure that big business, those capable of buyng off state legislators, would not pollute; class action attorneys – and there are lots of them.

  20. “agency’s monitoring and enforcement of compliance with environmental laws,”… It’s one thing to clean house of “activist” scientists… it’s another to dump heavy metals in water supplies and toxins in the air…

    As ususal we’re screwed by the Greenies on one side and the corporate Predators on the others.

    • “Corporate ‘predators'” have to breathe the same air and drink the same water we do, and I trust them to keep that in mind to some degree, though not 100%. I trust Greens about as far as I can toss a live bull up an empty silo.

      • Well .. actually no. Corporate HQ is hundreds or thousands of miles away… but glad you live in a world of purest motivations and enlightened altruism … try observing such altruism, in, say China, where there is no EPA to ever worry about.

  21. Trump needs to start an integrity initiative™ whereby government organizations and entities that leak are subject to internal fines and budget cut-backs. Not to mention firing and/or litigation of perps.

  22. A lightweight cut to the EPA budget would upset everyone.

    That line gave me a chuckle. It sounds like a socialist program. They are only happy when everyone is equally unhappy!

    I will wait and see about the cuts. I suspect they may be deeper than many yet believe. But like the old joke about 500 lawyers at the bottom of the sea……

    • EPA budgetbis roughly 4.1billion to state grants, and 4 billion discretionary. A 2 billion cut to discretionary is 50%, very significant. So is a 20 % reduction in headcount.

  23. For each EPA taxpayer-funded job cut, at the very least, several taxpaying civilian jobs will be saved. The news media will not report that aspect, because they only care about jobs that support their agendas.

    • How do you figure? I know many taxpaying civilian jobs that will be lost with these program cuts. A large number of EPA programs are carried-out by the private-sector.

      • “…Who will find other work…”

        Really? Billions of dollars in environmental research, sampling, testing, etc, is just going to be “found?” The Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, etc, are suddenly going to be cleaned-up and/or maintained by private entities? Or by “other work” do you mean getting laid-off and finding a different career?

      • Contractors working for government agencies WILL find other work. All those GS employees will hit the bricks, collect unemployment and when it runs out find a job. Drain. The. Swamp. Get it, yet?

      • No, working for government is not “private sector”, and they will find other work. Unless they have been scamming government agencies, which is highly likely for EPA,BLM,DpetInterior,USDA,FDA etc etc leeches.

      • “Billions of dollars in environmental research, sampling, testing, etc, is just going to be “found?””

        No. They’ll have to find real jobs.

      • MarkG I’m talking about “real jobs” in the private sector that will be lost.

      • 2hotel9, I don’t think you should try to classify what constitutes a “real job.” You seem to live in some fantasyland.

      • A “real job” is a job that someone else will willingly pay you to do, without the government holding a gun to their head. If these jobs are real jobs, someone else will pay them to do it. If not, we’re better off without them.

      • MarkG you’re clearly clueless about how the business world works. You and 2hotel9 should get a room and play video games all night long.

      • Clearly you are clueless. What is your GS rating? How long have you been sucking the blood out of American tax payers?

  24. The EPA’s political agenda focused on WOTUS and the endangered species act. The long-term goal was control over both land and water areas – both public and private. This was the driving force for the “sustainability” meme, including federal control of most of the USA’s natural resources. These are the areas where they should be cut way back, if not eliminated. Private land rights remain the fundament of a free and capitalistic society. Both were under siege.

    On the climate side of EPA there is need to re-evaluate the CO2 pollutant designation and remove it from the list. Climate science will be carried forward by the entrenched university cadre of alarmists regardless of what EPA does. Accordingly, the climate research function of EPA can be cut completely. All climate research funding can be cut drastically as much is unnecessarily redundant. How many government and university-based super computers running models with the same basic assumptions and data bases are really needed. Funding also can be redirected to natural climate variability, with emphasis on ocean patterns and cycles, the hydrologic cycle, and other components of the models that are obvious known unknowns. There are a lot of solid solar researchers who are not in the green blob, and they should be supported. Monitoring and improving the systems for the measurement of climate, atmospheric quality and water pollution remain essential components of the EPA mandate.

    Many of the biggest problems encountered today are related to man. Our waterways face huge issues with zebra mussels, asian carp, spiny shrimp and other invasive species. Similarly, there is a need to address the relationship between chemical farming and water and food quality. As a member of one the Lake Winnipeg research funding groups, I can attest that we have a real problem with not only water quality, but also ever-increasing runoff (flooding). These are fruitful avenues for research in many North American drainages. I really don’t care if the US maintains federal control over some of these issues, or mandates some to the states. Regionalization of some problems probably better defines the need for research/action, e.g. drainages, biomes, point-source air and water quality, and endangered species.

    I spent 35 years teaching and conducting research on the conservation of natural resources, and have been retired for 15 years. Much of the last 25 years has been wasted chasing the “political aspects” of the environment, rather than increasing the biological and physical knowledge necessary for proper management. The wheel-spinning in climate science has been unbelievable, and the lack of debate and character assassination of many good scholars disheartening. It is important that clean air and water remain the primary objectives of the EPA. I hope your POTUS can survive the political onslaught long enough to make positive headway in all matters environmental. Regards from the Canadian prairies, where the highest temperature on this date in history was 14C, and the lowest -38C; try going outside of that natural variability.

    • Bravo, well said. I don’t quite understand the “but also ever-increasing runoff (flooding)” component. Why is runoff “ever increasing”? Has rainfall been ever increasing in Manitoba or other prairie provinces? GK

      • Farmers grade the land to drain out low areas so they can seed them in the spring . This increases the amount of water that makes it into lakes and rivers.

    • I’m just an old retired nurse, but I dealt with the insane bureaucracy of government “regulation” from both state and feds, and am only too glad to have missed the “obummercare” mess. But I have a question, r2d2…

      You said: ” All climate research funding can be cut drastically as much is unnecessarily redundant.”

      Can you point out some NECESSARY redundancy here? In fact, I can’t think of anything paid for with stolen tax money that is in any way necessary. Voluntary association, individuals and companies paying for it with their own money… sure thing, but theft and the initiation of force are always wrong.

    • Thinking about what it would mean if the budget was cut more than 100%, I’m led to the conclusion that some claw back of previous funding might be considered. The Federal government had no problem with requiring wounded National Guardsmen who couldn’t complete their enlistment contract to pay back a proportionate amount of their enlistment bonus. This could be a very useful precedent when reviewing NSF, EPA, NOAA, and NASA activities.

  25. Never stop taking antibiotics half way through the prescribed course. It can enable the infection to rebound stronger. Let the reader understand.

  26. The corrupt bureaucracy needs to be broken. A modest cut in funding will not in itself break the cosy relationship between activist EPA administrators and environmentalist NGOs.

  27. It is normal for bureaucrats to respond to
    a request to propose a budget cut from
    ‘goals’ given in the request by Admin. Bureaucrats would brainstorm and give
    a cut they thought would look big enough to mgt but still keep the setup they wanted plus get rid of the people that probably should be kept. Just from Obama’s priorities I’d suggest cutting at least all the departments and personnel added since Dubbya and then cut back from there. Here the people you keep is important. Send NWO types to agriculture or some other place where they can’t do harm. Let attrition bite for a decade and hire more of your own people as needed.

    • I’ve been advocating that all positions created in the last ten years be eliminated. No need to fire anyone, just RIF them.

  28. 100% cuts to climate change I would get. 100% to enviro justice I would get. Some of those others bother me greatly.

    • Especially Chesapeake. There are still significant sources of contamination emanating from streams. Mostly fertilizers and pesticides now, less sewage. The buffer planting and artificial oyster reefs over the silt must continue.

      • But Libertarian Market fundies oppose all government programs on principle… better to drink raw sewage than using tax monies to remedy such conditions. These are the BFF of the Corporate Predator class.

  29. Excellent. Fire the weather modelers and such junk science idiots and use the money to restore the Chesapeake Bay and other much more worthwhile projects. In fact all the oyster beds and such should be cleaned up.

    • And why is that a NATIONAL issue?

      Surely the locals or the State can deal with their own Bay… Especially if the Feds are not sucking their money away as taxes to fund agencies like the EPA and others focused on political agendas…

      End the EPA. Hand the money back to the tax payers as a rate cut. Let the States solve their own problems and they can deal with any conflicts as neighbors do. Negotiate, agree to each pay half to fix the fence, or take it to court.

      • EM Smith you can take almost anything and argue that it isn’t a “NATIONAL” issue.

        What was “supposed” to happen was the elimination of the climate change garbage and regulatory over-reach. Much of what is listed in the leak is drastic cuts to legitimate programs.

        Oh great, “take it to court.” WTF kind of solution is that? Where do you think the $$$ is going to come from for those lawsuits? Taxpayer money to feed a small group of attorneys. Great idea.

      • “EM Smith you can take almost anything and argue that it isn’t a “NATIONAL” issue. ”

        Because the vast majority aren’t. The Federal government was given very few powers, because they were only supposed to be involved in things that actually are “NATIONAL” issues. It’s taken a century for ‘Progressives’ to completely turn that around to the point where who’s allowed in which bathroom is apparently now a “NATIONAL” issue.

  30. “Leaked ” documents to Fox . Really ? Fox is Republican Party as CNN is Democrat Party . Planted maybe . I read this as fake news and from it bet they are going lite on the EPA . They are just trying to throw red meat to the people who see the EPA as anti -American bullies run by Eco grant takers. They are just softening people up to the broken promise of the un- canceled Paris Agreement . The Agreement will stand and the $Billion dollars in payments deferred .
    Now that Pruitt is embedded a few regulatory overreach changes will be temporarily addressed for show and a bit of expected union whimpering will occur but that is it .
    Obama hired thousands at the EPA and armed them while cutting the military budget 20% . Despite the all to familiar rhetoric as long as fuel producers needs are taken care of does anyone seriously think tax payers are going to see any difference ? No chance .
    Funny how “leaked ” documents are a concern when they are intended to damage Republicans but when used as public propaganda to push the Republican agenda
    not a peep .

    What happened to draining the swamp ? They can’t even get a Cabinet approved and the next exciting election cycle has started .

    • FoxNews is no more Republican than my dog is. They are just as big a pile of leftard enabling scumbags as anyone else in “media”.

    • Democrats have tried to change the language so much, that now a “News” organization is partisan. Fox is an equal opportunity reporter. Its COMMENTARY is right, but its news is simply news. That is what separates it from the rest of the riff raff. Their “news” is commentary.

  31. A check with the largest cut, the Great Lakes shows that the vast majority of money never goes to where it was intended. The Asian carp and zebra mussels get very little out of the budget. Instead the money goes to featherbedding and State and Federal salaries. Desk jobs.

    • To affirm your statement, I once worked for a State Dept of Education. They had a section that was federally funded (Special Ed). The grants came to them with the stipulation that “no more than 10% could be spent on administrative overhead”. The “administrators” took that to mean 10% HAD to be spent on administrative overhead, so they bought things they did not need, did not know how to use, and were woefully inadequate for the purpose they were purchased for.

  32. Maybe now the agency can refocus on real pollution instead of sunshine, rain, hail, sleet, snow, floods, storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, and plant food. Stop trying to regulate weather. It just makes a person or agency look stupid.

  33. Maybe now the agency can refocus on real pollution instead of sunshine, rain, hail, sleet, snow, floods, storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, and plant food. Stop trying to regulate weather. It just makes a person or agency look stupid.

    • Exactly. Sewage treatment and farm and urban water setbacks come immediately to mind. Reforestation of river and stream sides with indigenous trees, and when not available (American chestnut comes to mind), a substitute of similar shading and fodder also pops up.

  34. Heh.

    LEAKED by the opfor to mobilize the anti-cut ‘forces’.

    The ‘deep state’ is a long ways from being dead yet …

  35. “environmental justice” why not a 100 percent cut? As has been stated the Trump administration would be making a galactic error if it believes for a moment that it can buy friends among its enemies. The best approach is to eviscerate the worst excesses, publicize the waste at every opportunity, and redirect the spending to specific programs like lead abatement in Flint, MI. Let the opposition defend that.

  36. Line up Trump speaking in Detroit, Chicago, LA, Oakland, Atlanta, Newark, Flint, etc… housing upgrades, apprenticeship programs, union partnerships, rebuilding our cities. We spend many billions on climate change related programs. Many billions as in 20-30 billion per year. It is tucked into every nook and cranny of the federal budget. Let a river of money flow to the people who need it most. Better than flushing it down the climate bowl. Do it now so that we can run “Morning in America” before the mid term elections. Don’t overlook the obvious.

  37. Leaking a draft budget is classic balloon floating. Hes being consistent with his law and order theme. EJ programs are NOT statutory (law passed by Congress) programs and were used by BO and as early as Clinton as a tool to garner voting support. CAGW is also NOT a statutory program.

    In terms of the overarching approach, federalism rules the day in this administration.
    Every federal initiative concerning State primacy begins with … “how can i help you”.

  38. Like the President said….stop the climate change nonsense, and work on clean air and water in a sensible way, not fantasy, as it is now! Stop all “renewable subsidies”, and let private owners take on those risks as they choose. Invest in the US, and not foreign energy sources, whenever able.

  39. I heard this a week ago. It is a good, quite bold start I think. And I think, with Trump, he’s picking up speed in doing. And this is only his first month. Nothing like this has ever happened before as far as I’m aware, certainly in recent history.

  40. From today’s Wall Street Journal …

    How a Michigan County Road Got Stuck in Regulation Purgatory
    Building a direct path to a new mine makes perfect environmental sense, but the EPA hasn’t budged.

    It is scandalous that the federal bureaucracy can arbitrarily thwart such a valuable state-approved project—and then insist it needn’t answer for its decisions.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-a-michigan-county-road-got-stuck-in-regulation-purgatory-1488585470

    We’re from the government and we’re here to help.

    • I think the ENTIRE fed-gov is stuck in slow-walk mode; The original issuance of an experimental FCC Part 5 license (for 630m band operation) took a month 2 years ago. The renewal THIS year so far has seen 33 days and it only looks to be half way through their process in the “queue”.

  41. For instance, Russ Zimmer was named a PRP for a Superfund site at a battery cracking plant in Torrington, Wyoming. His contribution to the problem? He sold a bag of dog food in 1977 and a bag of seed in 1984, and took a third-party check as payment for the items. Since the checks had issued by the now-bankrupt company that had owned the battery cracking plant, Zimmer was sued as a PRP by another company caught in CERCLA’s liability scheme. Zimmer decided, on advice of counsel, that he should settle to avoid even more in legal costs. He agreed pay $3,500.19

    from: http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/how-rescue-superfund-bringing-common-sense-the-process

    EPA has been dysfunctional for a very long time.

  42. I wonder who finances the subsidies for wind, solar and other (e.g. geothermal) power plants at the Fed and state governments. Eliminating those subsidies would save billions immediately and trillions soon thereafter. Similarly with the almost $10,000 in price and taxes for electric cars.

  43. The reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind including the EPA has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. The federal government has accumulated a huge debt and to remain solvent they must stop waisting the tax payers money. Spending money to fight climate change over which mankind has no control is a total waste of money. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.

  44. I sure hope the former Mayor of Boulder’s job is on the list. Not that he wasn’t objective mind you. No, it’s just a funding thing you see. His name is Shaun McGrath. That’s capital S – h – a – u – n, capital M – c – capital G – r – a – t – h. Whaddya bet he lands on his political feet?

Comments are closed.