Already legislation has been passed that allows streams around coal minds to be destroyed.
'The Environmental Protection Agency shall terminate on December 31, 2018.’
The same science committee with all the GOP science haters on it.
I hope they all enjoy drinking, eating and breathing their lobbyist provided dollar bills.
I rather liked the idea of an agency that spoke for the trees, streams and my lungs.
Well there goes some good american jobs. But it’s needed for us to become a third world country.
And they already have 3 co-sponsors. This bill is all but passed…
Sounds like a few Congresscritters want to brag to their constituents that they drafted a bill to eliminate the EPA.
For some reason, this pisses me off more than anything else that has happened so far since the election. The EPA has done more good during its existence than any government agency I can think of.
I’m reasonably partial to the FDA. As I understand it, it serves not just us but most of the world as well.
Interesting to me factoid: Trump’s Supreme Court nominee’s mother was head of the EPA under Reagan.
Stupid bitch.
I remember on NPR there was a report on a well to do or middle class Chinese family that came to live in America. One big reason why that well to do Chinese family came to America? Because in their native city the pollution is so bad that it is now a danger to the family and they do appreciate how good the environment is in the USA.
Really, the only reason why Republicans would fall for the sick propaganda of the polluters is a grossly misguided idea that jobs will be protected, in the short range and for the fossil fuel industry it can be; but overall, many other jobs that depend on having cleaner water, air and food that give us a sustainable economy will be negatively affected.
And this is also why I mentioned that well to do Chinese family, because with them also came money and new businesses and jobs to America.
Even more interesting:
Yeah, me too! I really detest these people, so very much…
ISTM that for those who prioritize profits and mythical “jobs” above the environment, etc. suffer from the sense that they personally will not be impacted in a negative way by the policy. Because they don’t personally live where a river might be polluted, or air might be poisoned. They, instead, live in “nice” areas where there are no factories or coal mines or oil refineries near by. Out of sight - out of mind (and consequently, out of their minds).
And yes, I understand the fundamental notion of “too much” regulation, but I would suggest there can also be “too little” regulation.
No, a major reason is the desire to stick it to the namby-mamby sissy environmentalists.
I am but a tiny bearing within one small cog of the machine, but eliminating the EPA would mean that everyone I work with would lose our jobs. We are dependent on these regulations to create demand for the products we produce. I could list probably 100x small businesses that would be out-of-business without the EPA. And that’s just in the air-emissions sector.
Again, the legislature is talking out of both sides of their mouths. Eliminating the EPA would kill many jobs in the country.
Q: Where do those Mirror-Largo Assholes think their air will come from? Nebulizers and plastic face masks???
Killing the EPA is some QUALITY Dumb-Assery…
Moved from Great Debates to the Pit.
[/moderating]
And one big item that the media virtually forgot to point out when Trump “saved” those new car jobs. Almost all those new cars are hybrids or next generation electrical ones.
Even those jobs that those new cars are bringing are likely to be lost if regulations are dropped because the regulation and the new ones that are in limbo regarding CO2 emissions were an important reason why Ford/Fiat, Chrysler and others are making the switch to Hybrids and electric cars.
So, not any attempt at all of acting like adults running the country, just running it into the ground out of spite.
That was the plausible reason, that there are also idiotic reasons was a given.
That’s gravy. The chance of making enormous profits in a very short time, combining a lack of environmental regulation and modern mining/extraction techniques, would make Croesus swoon.
Of course, modern techniques use about 1/10 the manpower of what was used back in the glory days, so I feel sorry for all the excited coal country folks lining up for nonexistent jobs while chanting Trump! Trump! Trump!..
And too, too bad for the complete, Industrial-Revolution shitholes their home regions will be in a few years.
So eliminating the EPA will help with the immigrant issue as well. Two birds with one stone. 
Also this fails to take account of the following.
So “eliminating the EPA will help create jobs” should be understood to mean “eliminating the EPA will help create profits for wealthy donors”