E.P.A. Dismisses Academic Scientists from Major Scientific Review Board
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/grandbanks.htm
"The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) formulated a mathematical model of the cod fish population which they used to calculate the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The U.S. government had a similar concept which was called optimal yield. ...
In 1989 the DFO advised that the total allowable catch (TAC) of codfish should be 125,000 tons. The Canadian Minister of Fisheries thought this figure was too low and arbitrarily increased it to 235,000 tons. In the course of DFO management the TAC was often set by negotiation between the DFO, the fishing industry and politicians. The DFO, using their defective model, was setting setting the TAC too high. The politicians responding to pressure from the industry increased the TAC from the already too high figures. The net result was that in the last years of codfishing on the Grand Banks the catch was about 60 percent of the population instead of 16 percent. The collapse was catastrophic.
In January of 1992 the DFO was advising that the TAC should be 185,000 tons. By June of 1992 the DFO was advising that the cod fishing should be stopped."
25 years later, the cod haven't recovered to healthy levels. In 1989 the industry representatives probably thought that getting politicians to discount the scientists' advice was a victory.
There was some concern that Cod had been permanently dislodged as a predator in the ecosystem, but there has been good news recently.
"The E.P.A. routinely stacks this board with friendly scientists who receive millions of dollars in grants from the federal government. The conflict of interest here is clear."
Yes, how dare they put scientists on the "Scientific Advisory Board". What we really need is businesspeople from the coal industry!
Is there no shame? No limit to the blatant disregard for science and public safety in favor of coal companies?
No.
I'm quite sure men in the smoke filled rooms are right now bellowing "This is OUR TIME! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!"
If you're not a cynic, you're still fucked.
Public choice theory[0] goes a long way.. not sure if this is an improvement, but the lack of progress on actually addressing climate change, instead of just debating is, is peculiar.
Maybe even more so with health care/insurance, since people who are dying can see themselves die every day, while it's a bit easier to ignore "the environment."
I'd like to see states, probably led by California, possibly with New York and Washington, start their own single-payer system, open to any state that wants to join, contribute and comply. Because I'm kinda tired of being a football kicked back and forth every two years for nothing but political points.
The end-position that you describe would be terrible, but it's very possible. But I don't think the states would go down without a fight, and I don't think the Supreme Court should ever be looked at as a slam-dunk; many Presidents have learned that lesson.
It would be a very awkward argument that the Feds know garden hoses best, at the same time that the Feds are saying that States know health care best. And courts so far have shown themselves willing to consider what this administration has said in recent history about the Muslim/Travel ban to judge intent and constitutionality. So the two self-contradicting points of view ("We know best," "they know best") are likely to get some scrutiny.
Just because things look dark doesn't mean it's over. Even if you're a cynic.
Are there no significant projects that could be accomplished through private funding? No public outreach campaigns? etc
There were hundreds of millions of dollars going to Clinton's campaign and other anti-Trump PAC. That kind of money put on issues could go a long way.
Not to mention the fact that EPA's budget was $8,139,887,000 in 2016 with 15k employees. They are still a significant force in the country. https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget
If we're just talking about marketing alone I'm pretty sure there is still a significant amount of work that needs to be done just to convince the public (and not just your everyday simpletons) that this is something serious that requires a top heavy government approach. Cleary many influential people still believe otherwise and they have influence in American politics.
If you look at other controversial issues in America that have made progress over the years, across both parties, such as gay marriage [1] and marijuana [2] it's clear that opinions can change.
[1] http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/29/publi...
However, the EPA is still bound by existing law, which may mean that activists could force their hand through lawsuits.
The Administrative Procedure Act[1] may provide some leverage. If I understand it correctly, federal agencies can't just do whatever they like; they have to have good reasons and some sort of legislative mandate.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(...
This is how it feels to people of any particular regulated industry---that they're being reproached by who may have quality credentials, but honestly don't know anything about the byplay common in the industry day-to-day and whose goals clearly diverge from that of professionals.
Having regulators with interests that diverge from people in industry is exactly the point; the things they are doing are often dangerous, reckless, and careless. It does not matter if it's "standard industry practice" or part of the "byplay common in the industry day-to-day". In fact it's crucial that regulators ignore this; we didn't particularly care that it was commonplace to put asbestos or lead in products when it started killing people, we just stopped it.
I don't care if it's "commonplace in the industry" to hash passwords with MD5 and leave a telnet port on the database server open to the Internet. It should be criminal because of how careless it is with people's personal data and I wish there were more regulators in the IT industry to come down on people who do it.
The US is a democracy in name only.
So the community got together and formed the pool-pissing committee; the goal of which was to cut down on the general amount of pool-pissing that was being done. They would do this by hiring some local experts from the town to measure the pool water regularly, and tell everyone when somebody had taken a leak in it, and to the best of their ability, who was responsible.
Right away, some chronic pool-pissers were caught and yanked from the pool. This was very embarrassing for them, so everyone paid attention when it happened, and so the new standards of pool play caught on very quickly and were known by everyone. Soon the water cleared up, and people were able to enjoy the pool again. It wasn't perfectly clean, but it was much, much better than before, and it was improving every day. This worked pretty well for a long time.
A few people didn't like the pool-pissing committee. Some people didn't like the idea that someone could tell them what they could and couldn't do in a pool. Others were mad because every once in awhile, the committee would accuse them of having peed in the pool when they had only peed a little bit, while Jimmy over there drank a whole 2 liter bottle of mountain dew before he swam and let it all out through his bladder, but the committee didn't catch him and that wasn't fair.
But by far, the people who hated the pool-pissing committee the most were the biggest pool-pissers. The pool-pissing committee was always bothering them, they complained, embarrassing them in front of their friends, and cruelly yanking them out of the pool. All they wanted to do was play in the pool, and didn't they have a right to do that? So what if a little pee leaks out every now and then. Worse (they argued), if the committee was allowed to yank anyone who peed out of the pool, then pretty soon the pool would be empty and the community center would be bankrupt.
Of course the solution was simply to not pee in the pool (as most of the rest of the community was able to handle this just fine), and to hold it until afterwards, but that really cuts into out pool-playing time, the pool-pissers whined.
So the pool-pissers got together a plan: They would band together and take over the pool-pissing committee-- but first they had to convince the other pool-goers that this was a good idea.
"The system is rigged!" the pool-pissers squawked. "The pool-pissing committee gets paid to test the pool! So you see, they all have a stake in the outcome of the piss tests! This is a conflict of interest! They're on the take!"
A lot of the swimmers began to nod their heads-- this sounded really unfair. They started to worry if the pool-pissing committee could be trusted.
"We're being paid to do our jobs," said the pool committee. "That's not a conflict of interest. And we all signed up for this job because we care about having a clean pool."
But the swimmers didn't hear them, or maybe they didn't care because they were all very worried that something unfair might be happening. And they were right, something very unfair was happening, but it wasn't what they were thinking of.
"We should kick out these crooked pool experts from the pool committee," said the pool-pissers. "They don't know the reality of what it's like to be a swimmer, or how hard it is to hold your pee. Besides, us swimmers have the biggest stake who stays in the pool. It would be much more fair to put swimmers on the pool committee".
This sounded reasonable to everyone and soon enough the pool experts were sent away, and the pool committee was filled with swimmers. Someone noticed that everyone on the pool committee happened to be swimmers who had been caught many times pissing in the pool, but it was decided that this was okay because they knew the most about pool-pissing, so it made sense that they were on a committee about pool-pissing.
Almost immediately, the pool turned bright yellow and smelled rancid. Nobody was really sure why. Some swimmers kept saying something about strengthening the pool committee, but it seemed clear that pool committees didn't work, because we have a pool committee, and look how yellow the pool is.
Many people got very sick, and the mystery of why the pool turned yellow remains to this very day.
Why is that the ONLY rational response? What removal mechanism do you propose?
They aren't going to impeach the president for doing things they largely agree with.
No way. Republicans would burn down this country rather than admit they have a bad president.
There is enough of an argument that he's violating the emoluments clause that if congress wanted to they could almost definitely use that as grounds for impeachment.
Grounds for impeachment are whatever the House decides are grounds for impeachment.
I reminded him that many of my own family members, people that he trusts, work in scientific endeavors; a marine biologist, for example, who has dedicated his life to the wellbeing of the various Pacific salmon species, for the sake of our food supply and forest health. He just lumped me into the second category, insisting that salmon are only managed for profit. That the funding for wild salmon research was being redirected towards improving the yield of fish farms, to the detriment of both the forests of western Canada, and to the detriment of the families and communities that live off of the wild salmon fisheries.
We don't talk much anymore. In order to convince people like this to support science, instead of attacking it, we must convince them of two things: that "real, working" scientists have a conscience, and that they have the power to follow their conscience without losing their status as real, working, scientists.
The more effective strategy, which Trump employed, is to find people on the edge of indecision in opportune areas and tailor your message to their interests.
Well, that's disgusting. What you're intimating is that if you cannot convince someone that they're wrong, you want nothing to do with them. Horrid.
Instead of always being right, how about you try tact? Ask non-related questions, and show interest in his chosen hobbies or field of study/work.
The above is no reason to /disconnect/ from another human being. It's reason to get to know them better. Lead by example, not by force-feeding them your dogma.
You'd probably benefit from some light reading:
How to Win Friends & Influence People: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01H38S9FY/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
Sure it is; finding out another person is incapable of rational thought is a great reason to remove them from your life. You can't fix stupid and why would you want to be connected to someone whom you're only ever going to continually disagree with because they lack the ability of reason?
> It's reason to get to know them better. Lead by example, not by force-feeding them your dogma.
You can't fix those people or lead them anywhere, they're the ones stuck in dogma, not him.
Sun Tzu's philosophy of "taking whole", of carefully manipulating your opponent into aligning their goals with yours, is the best strategy that I can come up with. But, because of the communication barrier between us, I am unsure of how to apply it.
There was plenty of opportunity 6 months ago during the election, when Trump presented it as part of his platform. Are you surprised he is doing what he said he would do to the environmental agencies? What makes you think the people who voted for him are not happy with his policy implementation so far?
There may be some surprised faces come midterms...again. I'm not a Trump fan, but he's doing some interesting things re: the economy (free trade only works if everyone plays fair, so he's trying to bully people). If the economy takes off (which could happen despite his economic policies) it will "trump" any of the terrible things he does to these agencies. Remember, standard Republican playbook is "government is bad", so the base doesn't really mind seeing the EPA things gutted.
Remember, standard Republican playbook is "government is
bad", so the base doesn't really mind seeing the EPA things
gutted.
The GOP has turned into a permanent opposition party, incapable of governing. IMO, anybody who earnestly casts a vote should vote for a Democrat, or some candidate willing to caucus with Democrats. Even if you're a classic small government, low taxes kind of person. Even if you're libertarian. Even if you're a conservative culture warrior.
Americans who vote for the GOP are like Venezuelans who vote for the United Socialist Party (of Maduro and Chavez). Both parties have crafted a political narrative that effectively immunizes them from criticism, even as they sink the country into political chaos. Anything they do wrong can be blamed on the opposing side, and the base largely accepts it, or at least acquiesces. Things won't turn around until the leftists in Venezuela hold their noses and vote for the capitalist "elite". Likewise, things won't turn around in the U.S. until those on the right hold their noses and vote for the leftist "elite". And in both cases they need to do so for as long as it takes for the broken party to re-internalize notions of compromise and power sharing.
People need to put their ideology on the back burner for a few election cycles and focus on rebuilding civic society. If you agree with that then I think your choice in the next election is an easy one. Don't listen to the rhetoric or campaign promises: focus on the past 30 years of legislative outcomes and political strategy. One major American party more than any other has systematically worked toward destroying, both rhetorically and in actuality, efficient governance and the legitimacy of political compromise. To do so they've had to attack the fundamental legitimacy of science, but science is just one of many victims along their path to power.
I wholeheartedly agree that we need to work together to wield whatever power we have, using all of our creative resources.
We need a cultural change. This is good news in that we know the long tail of society's critical judgement is, well, very long. Cf ads for pointless junk. "All we need to do" is provide something more compelling than what the machine is providing. We need new art. We need new music. We need new mainstream values. And by "values" I mean what is esteemed, and what is reviled. We'll never solve this as long as teachers are not paid and regarded as professionals. (This is about "convincing people," right?) We need to "fail 90% of the time" 10 times a day at trying anything that could possibly work. We need an Uber for activism. We need to forge a world where it's imaginable that a hunter in rural south Louisiana can be a globally-minded environmentalist without risk to his social standing. We need to suck it up and dump Facebook, or at least turn it against itself. The anti-intellectuals have changed normal, and we need to change it again. The good news is, we know how fast normal can change. If we can indeed claim the mantle of rational truth, then we need to use that to our advantage in every thinkable way. Break your bad habits, and help your friends break theirs. Eat better. Sleep better. We'll never win this if we're leaving anything on the table. I'm sick of feeling powerless and letting this go on. I know I'm not alone. We need to figure out how to channel this feeling into useful, radical action, and fast. And by radical I mean, unexpected, lateral, risky, uncomfortable. Conservative people like me (and I'm very risk-averse) need to get over ourselves and think of our children. I have two. At this point, we are leaving them a weaker democracy, a meaner society, and a metastasizing corruption. We make systems, we have resources, let's effing Xerox PARC this thing. I'll write code, I'll pay for hosting, I'll canvass. What? What do we need to do? How can we get together and change this game?
This is baseless fear-mongering.
Every administration has pressured the EPA to get the "right" results - or equivalently, to do the right studies - for the administration's political agenda. Hopefully this spurs people who believe in science, like you and me, to protect future science from nutjob politicians.
If you want politics and PC agendas out of research and scholarship, you have to fund it yourself.