Hacker News Reader

Comment by rokosbasilisk | Hacker News Reader

Just to add a reality check, the epa isnt some noble organization , they are highly political and often incompentent.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/10/431223703/...

Regardless, the EPA has done vastly more good than harm[1] and the remedy for bad speech is always more speech--not censorship.

1:https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-epa-first-40-...

That chemical spill was a disaster caused by an accident when the EPA was trying to manage the wastewater from a gold mine. The wastewater was created by unregulated gold mining in the 20s. Trump wants to return us to those days when industry was unregulated and created the pollution that has taken decades to clean.

Can you prove that. It sounds like he's doing exacting what obama did before.

Im pro environment but Im not naive to think you can separate corrupt politics from this.

From https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy:

>For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.

Hardly. The man he has installed as the transitional leader of the EPA is a firm climate change denier, but is also strongly opposed to the Endangered Species Act as a violation of property rights. The nominee to head the EPA is not much better. This administration represents a clear and present danger to the environment and every species on the planet. I think Obama was just a tad better.

That mine spill was a major cock-up by the EPA. They even admitted it was. They were warned it could happen.

It's not helpful to try and explain that away.

Can you explain to me the thinking that leads from the EPA made a major mistake to the EPA should be dismantled because it seems irrational to me.

It is irrational, but no one in your parent chain said EPA should be dismantled. You introduced that claim to move the goalposts of the argument.

Actually, prior to the EPA property rights were the method of pollution control. However, under property rights there was 0 pollution allowed. Courts began to consider that some pollution must be allowed to allow the economy to thrive.

So the EPA came into formation not exactly for the purpose to stop pollution, but to decide just how much is allowable.

As opposed to every other government organisation in Washington which are all totally apolitical, and totally competent.

The focus isn't on what the EPA does or doesn't do, but on what the administration is trying to do, whether that actually matches up with how business is usually done in the organisation, and how this looks to the rest of America.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com