New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

EPA Science Said Trump’s Coal Rule Would Kill 1,400. So the EPA Ditched Science.

sensible don

Governor
Supporting Member
And the base will clap, cheer and defend the King of Coal

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/trump-epa-estimate-coal-pollution-deaths-science.html

Donald Trump wants to let old coal plants remain in operation longer than existing federal rules would allow. To rationalize such a policy, the White House encouraged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to produce research showing that the economic benefits of keeping the sky sooty would outweigh the cost to public health.

This proved difficult. On the one hand, the U.S. economy doesn’t actually have much need for coal-fired power plants. On the other, EPA scientists found that keeping these uniquely dirty energy providers on the grid will cause 1,400 more Americans to perish from premature deaths every year.

The EPA’s findings unsettled the White House. This president may believe in cutting “red tape,” but even Donald Trump isn’t comfortable arguing that victory in “the War on Coal” is worth 1,400 civilian casualties per annum. So the administration decided to bite the bullet, admit its error — and order EPA scientists to engineer a lower body count. As the New York Timesreports:

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to adopt a new method for projecting the future health risks of air pollution, one that experts said has never been peer-reviewed and is not scientifically sound, according to five people with knowledge of the agency’s plans.


… The broader significance is that the new modeling method would most likely be used by the Trump administration to defend further rollbacks of air pollution rules. It has been a constant struggle for the E.P.A. to demonstrate, as it is normally expected to do, that society will see more benefits than costs from major regulatory changes.



The new methodology would assume there is little or no health benefit to making the air any cleaner than what the law requires.

In other words: The EPA has set an official legal standard for what qualifies as a “healthy” level of particulate matter in the air. But that level itself reflects industry group pressure and economistic cost-benefit analyses; in truth, there is no level of air pollution that is “healthy” for human beings. So when the agency estimates the public-health implications of regulatory changes, it acknowledges that levels of pollution within the “safe” range can still result in premature deaths.

The Trump administration has decided that this methodology is outrageous. As William L. Wehrum, the current EPA air-quality chief — and former fossil-fuel-industry lobbyist — explained to the Times:

[Wehrum] noted that, in some regulations, the benefits of reduced particulate matter have been estimated to total in the range of $40 billion.



“How in the world can you get $30 or $40 billion of benefit to public health when most of that is attributable to reductions in areas that already meet a health-based standard,” he said. “That doesn’t make any sense.”

Here, Wehrum displays contempt for the public’s intelligence. Arguing that there can’t possibly be large health benefits to reducing pollution in areas that already “meet the health-based standard” makes exactly as much sense as arguing that there can’t possibly be traffic deaths on roads where everyone obeys the speed limit. Sixty-five miles an hour may be the “safety-based standard” for highway driving in a legal sense — but that doesn’t mean that it’s “safe” in some absolute, scientific one. And the same goes for levels of particulate matter in the air. The question in both cases is how much death we’re willing to tolerate. The Trump administration’s problem is that it doesn’t wish to admit that it is willing to kill thousands of Americans to keep its coal-industry patrons in the black.
 

RickWA

Snagglesooth
And the base will clap, cheer and defend the King of Coal

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/trump-epa-estimate-coal-pollution-deaths-science.html

Donald Trump wants to let old coal plants remain in operation longer than existing federal rules would allow. To rationalize such a policy, the White House encouraged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to produce research showing that the economic benefits of keeping the sky sooty would outweigh the cost to public health.

This proved difficult. On the one hand, the U.S. economy doesn’t actually have much need for coal-fired power plants. On the other, EPA scientists found that keeping these uniquely dirty energy providers on the grid will cause 1,400 more Americans to perish from premature deaths every year.

The EPA’s findings unsettled the White House. This president may believe in cutting “red tape,” but even Donald Trump isn’t comfortable arguing that victory in “the War on Coal” is worth 1,400 civilian casualties per annum. So the administration decided to bite the bullet, admit its error — and order EPA scientists to engineer a lower body count. As the New York Timesreports:

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to adopt a new method for projecting the future health risks of air pollution, one that experts said has never been peer-reviewed and is not scientifically sound, according to five people with knowledge of the agency’s plans.


… The broader significance is that the new modeling method would most likely be used by the Trump administration to defend further rollbacks of air pollution rules. It has been a constant struggle for the E.P.A. to demonstrate, as it is normally expected to do, that society will see more benefits than costs from major regulatory changes.



The new methodology would assume there is little or no health benefit to making the air any cleaner than what the law requires.

In other words: The EPA has set an official legal standard for what qualifies as a “healthy” level of particulate matter in the air. But that level itself reflects industry group pressure and economistic cost-benefit analyses; in truth, there is no level of air pollution that is “healthy” for human beings. So when the agency estimates the public-health implications of regulatory changes, it acknowledges that levels of pollution within the “safe” range can still result in premature deaths.

The Trump administration has decided that this methodology is outrageous. As William L. Wehrum, the current EPA air-quality chief — and former fossil-fuel-industry lobbyist — explained to the Times:

[Wehrum] noted that, in some regulations, the benefits of reduced particulate matter have been estimated to total in the range of $40 billion.



“How in the world can you get $30 or $40 billion of benefit to public health when most of that is attributable to reductions in areas that already meet a health-based standard,” he said. “That doesn’t make any sense.”

Here, Wehrum displays contempt for the public’s intelligence. Arguing that there can’t possibly be large health benefits to reducing pollution in areas that already “meet the health-based standard” makes exactly as much sense as arguing that there can’t possibly be traffic deaths on roads where everyone obeys the speed limit. Sixty-five miles an hour may be the “safety-based standard” for highway driving in a legal sense — but that doesn’t mean that it’s “safe” in some absolute, scientific one. And the same goes for levels of particulate matter in the air. The question in both cases is how much death we’re willing to tolerate. The Trump administration’s problem is that it doesn’t wish to admit that it is willing to kill thousands of Americans to keep its coal-industry patrons in the black.
Quantified projected body counts. Sounds rock solid to me.

[insert face palm here]
 

sensible don

Governor
Supporting Member
Quantified projected body counts. Sounds rock solid to me.

[insert face palm here]
Even Fox News talks about the damage coal plants do to air quality - oh my! They actually agree Coal is bad and take Trump to task for claims on clean air, showing Obama had better air record.



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-epa-close-to-gutting-obama-rule-on-coal-power-plants

The Trump administration is close to completing one of its biggest rollbacks of environmental rules, replacing a landmark Obama-era effort that sought to wean the nation's electrical grid off coal-fired power plants and their climate-damaging pollution.

The final Trump administration replacement rule, expected as soon as this week, instead would give individual states wide discretion to decide whether to require limited efficiency upgrades at individual coal-fired power plants.

With coal miners at his side, Trump signed an order in March 2017 directing the EPA to scrap the Obama rule. It was one of the first acts of his presidency.

His pledge to roll back regulation for the coal industry helped cement support from owners and workers in the coal industry, and others. Despite his promise, market forces have frustrated Trump's efforts. Competition from cheaper natural gas and renewable fuel has continued a yearslong trend driving U.S. coal plant closings to near-record levels last year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The final rule is expected to closely follow the draft released in August.

By encouraging utilities to consider spending money to upgrade aging coal plants, environmental groups argue, the Trump rule could prompt the companies to run existing coal plants harder and longer rather than retiring them.

"It's a rule to increase emissions because it's a rule to extend the life of coal plants," said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director of the Clean Air Task Force. "You invest in updating an old coal plant, it makes it more economic" to run it more to pay off that investment.

An Associated Press analysis Tuesday of federal air data showed U.S. progress on cleaning the air may be stagnating after decades of improvement. There were 15% more days with unhealthy air in America both last year and the year before than there were on average from 2013 through 2016, the four years when America had its fewest number of those days since at least 1980.

Trump has repeatedly claimed just the opposite, saying earlier this month in Ireland: "We have the cleanest air in the world, in the United States, and it's gotten better since I'm president."
 

RickWA

Snagglesooth
Even Fox News talks about the damage coal plants do to air quality - oh my! They actually agree Coal is bad and take Trump to task for claims on clean air, showing Obama had better air record.



https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-epa-close-to-gutting-obama-rule-on-coal-power-plants

The Trump administration is close to completing one of its biggest rollbacks of environmental rules, replacing a landmark Obama-era effort that sought to wean the nation's electrical grid off coal-fired power plants and their climate-damaging pollution.

The final Trump administration replacement rule, expected as soon as this week, instead would give individual states wide discretion to decide whether to require limited efficiency upgrades at individual coal-fired power plants.

With coal miners at his side, Trump signed an order in March 2017 directing the EPA to scrap the Obama rule. It was one of the first acts of his presidency.

His pledge to roll back regulation for the coal industry helped cement support from owners and workers in the coal industry, and others. Despite his promise, market forces have frustrated Trump's efforts. Competition from cheaper natural gas and renewable fuel has continued a yearslong trend driving U.S. coal plant closings to near-record levels last year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The final rule is expected to closely follow the draft released in August.

By encouraging utilities to consider spending money to upgrade aging coal plants, environmental groups argue, the Trump rule could prompt the companies to run existing coal plants harder and longer rather than retiring them.

"It's a rule to increase emissions because it's a rule to extend the life of coal plants," said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director of the Clean Air Task Force. "You invest in updating an old coal plant, it makes it more economic" to run it more to pay off that investment.

An Associated Press analysis Tuesday of federal air data showed U.S. progress on cleaning the air may be stagnating after decades of improvement. There were 15% more days with unhealthy air in America both last year and the year before than there were on average from 2013 through 2016, the four years when America had its fewest number of those days since at least 1980.

Trump has repeatedly claimed just the opposite, saying earlier this month in Ireland: "We have the cleanest air in the world, in the United States, and it's gotten better since I'm president."
Of course it’s dirty - especially the older plants. I’ve been in Tianjin, China in winter and witnessed the dark gray snow fall.

But actually specifically quantifying annual body counts is the stuff of morons and hacks, not “science”.

Put on your big boy pants and think critically for once.
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
And the base will clap, cheer and defend the King of Coal

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/trump-epa-estimate-coal-pollution-deaths-science.html

Donald Trump wants to let old coal plants remain in operation longer than existing federal rules would allow. To rationalize such a policy, the White House encouraged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to produce research showing that the economic benefits of keeping the sky sooty would outweigh the cost to public health.

This proved difficult. On the one hand, the U.S. economy doesn’t actually have much need for coal-fired power plants. On the other, EPA scientists found that keeping these uniquely dirty energy providers on the grid will cause 1,400 more Americans to perish from premature deaths every year.

The EPA’s findings unsettled the White House. This president may believe in cutting “red tape,” but even Donald Trump isn’t comfortable arguing that victory in “the War on Coal” is worth 1,400 civilian casualties per annum. So the administration decided to bite the bullet, admit its error — and order EPA scientists to engineer a lower body count. As the New York Timesreports:

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to adopt a new method for projecting the future health risks of air pollution, one that experts said has never been peer-reviewed and is not scientifically sound, according to five people with knowledge of the agency’s plans.


… The broader significance is that the new modeling method would most likely be used by the Trump administration to defend further rollbacks of air pollution rules. It has been a constant struggle for the E.P.A. to demonstrate, as it is normally expected to do, that society will see more benefits than costs from major regulatory changes.



The new methodology would assume there is little or no health benefit to making the air any cleaner than what the law requires.

In other words: The EPA has set an official legal standard for what qualifies as a “healthy” level of particulate matter in the air. But that level itself reflects industry group pressure and economistic cost-benefit analyses; in truth, there is no level of air pollution that is “healthy” for human beings. So when the agency estimates the public-health implications of regulatory changes, it acknowledges that levels of pollution within the “safe” range can still result in premature deaths.

The Trump administration has decided that this methodology is outrageous. As William L. Wehrum, the current EPA air-quality chief — and former fossil-fuel-industry lobbyist — explained to the Times:

[Wehrum] noted that, in some regulations, the benefits of reduced particulate matter have been estimated to total in the range of $40 billion.



“How in the world can you get $30 or $40 billion of benefit to public health when most of that is attributable to reductions in areas that already meet a health-based standard,” he said. “That doesn’t make any sense.”

Here, Wehrum displays contempt for the public’s intelligence. Arguing that there can’t possibly be large health benefits to reducing pollution in areas that already “meet the health-based standard” makes exactly as much sense as arguing that there can’t possibly be traffic deaths on roads where everyone obeys the speed limit. Sixty-five miles an hour may be the “safety-based standard” for highway driving in a legal sense — but that doesn’t mean that it’s “safe” in some absolute, scientific one. And the same goes for levels of particulate matter in the air. The question in both cases is how much death we’re willing to tolerate. The Trump administration’s problem is that it doesn’t wish to admit that it is willing to kill thousands of Americans to keep its coal-industry patrons in the black.
"EPA science" = left wing hack political activism. Only the dumbest of the dumb fall for this nonsense.
 

sensible don

Governor
Supporting Member
Of course it’s dirty - especially the older plants. I’ve been in Tianjin, China in winter and witnessed the dark gray snow fall.

But actually specifically quantifying annual body counts is the stuff of morons and hacks, not “science”.

Put on your big boy pants and think critically for once.
I wasn't the one who made the estimate - tell NY Magazine , the author and EPA Scientists - which I know you are much smarter than those pesky scientists - lmao
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
Of course it’s dirty - especially the older plants. I’ve been in Tianjin, China in winter and witnessed the dark gray snow fall.

But actually specifically quantifying annual body counts is the stuff of morons and hacks, not “science”.

Put on your big boy pants and think critically for once.
I had a buddy in Tianjin. He posted a pic and mentioned how that day it was so smoggy, he could look straight at the sun with no eye protection. :eek:
 

sensible don

Governor
Supporting Member
"EPA science" = left wing hack political activism. Only the dumbest of the dumb fall for this nonsense.
Once again we have another Science denier , when you were in high school did you deny the incline plane physics class, did you deny chemical reactions in chemistry class or just not take "no stoopid science stuff " It is amazing how the "greatest generation " denies science yet pops pills daily to stay healthy .....................ummm................I know that isn't science !
Maybe if Trump said science was good, then you would be a believer then - carry on and try and not use any items not developed by scientists since they are hacks and full of liberalism
 

sensible don

Governor
Supporting Member
I had a buddy in Tianjin. He posted a pic and mentioned how that day it was so smoggy, he could look straight at the sun with no eye protection. :eek:
But yet you clap and cheer for poor air quality caused by coal plants !

So breathing in that smog, dirty air doesn't hurt a person - right !
 

RickWA

Snagglesooth
I wasn't the one who made the estimate - tell NY Magazine , the author and EPA Scientists - which I know you are much smarter than those pesky scientists - lmao
Frankly, I most likely am. However, can you not even surmise that divining a precise number like 1400 per year is NOT science?

What’s wrong with you??
 

RickWA

Snagglesooth
I had a buddy in Tianjin. He posted a pic and mentioned how that day it was so smoggy, he could look straight at the sun with no eye protection. :eek:
Tianjin is a heckhole. I was on an engineering team for Motorola in the late 90’s supporting a Semi factory.
 

Colorforms

Senator
And the base will clap, cheer and defend the King of Coal

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/trump-epa-estimate-coal-pollution-deaths-science.html

Donald Trump wants to let old coal plants remain in operation longer than existing federal rules would allow. To rationalize such a policy, the White House encouraged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to produce research showing that the economic benefits of keeping the sky sooty would outweigh the cost to public health.

This proved difficult. On the one hand, the U.S. economy doesn’t actually have much need for coal-fired power plants. On the other, EPA scientists found that keeping these uniquely dirty energy providers on the grid will cause 1,400 more Americans to perish from premature deaths every year.

The EPA’s findings unsettled the White House. This president may believe in cutting “red tape,” but even Donald Trump isn’t comfortable arguing that victory in “the War on Coal” is worth 1,400 civilian casualties per annum. So the administration decided to bite the bullet, admit its error — and order EPA scientists to engineer a lower body count. As the New York Timesreports:

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to adopt a new method for projecting the future health risks of air pollution, one that experts said has never been peer-reviewed and is not scientifically sound, according to five people with knowledge of the agency’s plans.


… The broader significance is that the new modeling method would most likely be used by the Trump administration to defend further rollbacks of air pollution rules. It has been a constant struggle for the E.P.A. to demonstrate, as it is normally expected to do, that society will see more benefits than costs from major regulatory changes.



The new methodology would assume there is little or no health benefit to making the air any cleaner than what the law requires.

In other words: The EPA has set an official legal standard for what qualifies as a “healthy” level of particulate matter in the air. But that level itself reflects industry group pressure and economistic cost-benefit analyses; in truth, there is no level of air pollution that is “healthy” for human beings. So when the agency estimates the public-health implications of regulatory changes, it acknowledges that levels of pollution within the “safe” range can still result in premature deaths.

The Trump administration has decided that this methodology is outrageous. As William L. Wehrum, the current EPA air-quality chief — and former fossil-fuel-industry lobbyist — explained to the Times:

[Wehrum] noted that, in some regulations, the benefits of reduced particulate matter have been estimated to total in the range of $40 billion.



“How in the world can you get $30 or $40 billion of benefit to public health when most of that is attributable to reductions in areas that already meet a health-based standard,” he said. “That doesn’t make any sense.”

Here, Wehrum displays contempt for the public’s intelligence. Arguing that there can’t possibly be large health benefits to reducing pollution in areas that already “meet the health-based standard” makes exactly as much sense as arguing that there can’t possibly be traffic deaths on roads where everyone obeys the speed limit. Sixty-five miles an hour may be the “safety-based standard” for highway driving in a legal sense — but that doesn’t mean that it’s “safe” in some absolute, scientific one. And the same goes for levels of particulate matter in the air. The question in both cases is how much death we’re willing to tolerate. The Trump administration’s problem is that it doesn’t wish to admit that it is willing to kill thousands of Americans to keep its coal-industry patrons in the black.
Is this in addition to the millions that have died from his tax cuts?
 

RickWA

Snagglesooth
Do tell us what fault you find with their forecasting methodology.
1400 per month is far too precise a number and only the most willing of hive-dwelling insects would so cheerfully surrender capacity of intellect and accept it.

It’s stupid.

People who accept it are one of two things:

1) Likewise stupid
2) Slathered in agenda that finds such idiocy useful


I tire of you lemmings - particularly those among you who have worthless liberal arts degrees who seek to preach to me about science and scientific methodologies. Go smoke your dope and write bad poetry.
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
Science Denier !!!!!

(screams my base who thinks there are 8402 genders)

God we have one stupid clown car of democrats- turning into a railroad car.
 
Top