10 ms·
EPA says it will eliminate its scientific research arm
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago[flagged]
- maximilianburke 1y agoIt’s because he only knows how to destroy, not build, and destroying is always easier than building. It may be impactful but it is going to set America back decades.
- jimt1234 1y agoReminds me of reading about Karl Marx in college. As I recall he basically made a name for himself talking shit about capitalism. Then, people said, "Bro, if capitalism sucks so much, why don't you come up with something better?" And that's how The Communist Manifesto was born, which was a total disaster, and set humanity back generations. Talking shit and tearing stuff down is easy. Building something is hard.
- malfist 1y ago>Bro, if capitalism sucks so much, why don't you come up with something better? That totally happened.
- jvanderbot 1y agoHe's destroying for various reasons yes. But he knows how to build. Perhaps not personally, but he can wrangle a system to do things for him, mostly for him perhaps. OK completely for himself, but that's not to say he can't.
- jvanderbot 1y agoThe book Why Nothing Works is worth a read.
- maximilianburke 1y agoThe only thing he has ever directed that has been a net positive to society, Operation Warp Speed, is something he disowns because of the rabid anti-science stance of his base.
- redeeman 1y agodoes he actually disown it? i thought he keeps up being proud of that despite his base hating it?
- jvanderbot 1y agoWhile a politician. You do realize he built many things or headed the building of many things prior to being a politician? In some cases to net good for the world, unbelievably. It's easy to vilify him for political or personal choices but that's not to say he can't do things.
- myvoiceismypass 1y ago> he built many things or headed the building of many things prior to being a politician Are you talking about the gaudy casinos he bankrupted with the half-billion dollar head start his daddy gave him?
- jvanderbot 1y agoYou're talking tropes. Life is more complicated. Read the book "Why nothing works"
- booleandilemma 1y agoThe irony of you saying that about a real estate mogul.
- tzs 1y agoWhat would you expect a competent opposition to do?
- UltraSane 1y agoSelect a candidate that would not lose to Trump.
- RRWagner 1y agoBe better (like doing it at all) of saying what they have accomplished. People don't know what they zone know. Make a list of things accomplished and say it out loud. Humility could be another way that democracy dies.
- jimt1234 1y agoFor starters, anything.
- DistractionRect 1y agoLike? It's hard to do anything when the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are all controlled by the same party. Until midterms, there's not much that can be done at the federal level. States can oppose some issues, and some States are, but what exactly do you think the opposition can/should be doing that they aren't already?
- jimt1234 1y agoIMHO, it's already too late for the midterms. In fact, it's probably too late for the 2028 presidential election, too. Democrats need to connect, and that connection isn't from showing up, out of nowhere, three months before an election and taking policy. The connection starts years before the election, by associating oneself to the things the voters also associate with. I think one of the most brilliant things Trump ever did was to get involved with WWE. That started the connection with Rural America. It was long before he ran for president, and it wasn't boring policy talk. It was, "Look at me! I'm your guy! I'm into wrestling, just like you!" Now, this is nothing new - Clinton played the sax on Arsenio Hall. But I think the Democrats are just terrible at it. And here's a great example: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMIuyMQRAq1 https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMIuyMQRAq1
- riveralabs 1y agoThere’s not a lot the opposition can do. Elections have consequences and now people are gonna have to live with it. People stayed home or decided to vote against their own interest. It’s not like there wasn’t a previous track record to compare. Selective amnesia is not an excuse.
- Alupis 1y agoFrankly, the Democratic party epically and massively failed their constituency by first running a mummy and then attempting to run perhaps the most unlikable, unrelatable, disconnected candidate of my lifetime - that literally zero people voted for. It's not the people's fault, it's the party's... the party thought everyone would just jump when told to do so. Democrats deserve better.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jfengel 1y agoSeventy million people voted for her.
- rockemsockem 1y agoI voted for her, but I didn't do it because I *wanted* her.
- Alupis 1y agoIn the primary? No... 70 million people were forced to vote for her in the general. That's why Democrats lost this election. It's comments like yours that make it really seem like the Democrat Party hasn't learned a damn thing from this ordeal.
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y agoI don’t think it was “for” her. Most votes against Trump.
- 1y ago
- yongjik 1y agoTo be fair, it's hard for the Dems to do anything effectively when a sitting president attempts to overthrow an election, fails, and then half of the voters think "You know what, I want that guy to lead our country again." Not that they're blameless, of course - they had four years to throw Trump in prison, did nothing, and now we're reaping the result. But the problem goes much deeper than the Dems being incompetent. In a functioning democracy, voters aren't supposed to elect someone who literally committed treason, just because the alternative is "unlikeable" (what the fuck does that even mean, next to Trump).
- rockemsockem 1y agoAll they needed to do was have a primary, but they didn't
- jeffbee 1y agoThat's a pretty stupid benchmark. A president who just nukes Chicago would also be "impactful".
- WarOnPrivacy 1y agohttps://archive.fo/xva9m https://archive.fo/xva9m
- wpm 1y agoHow stupid
- Herring 1y agoStep 1: Point at immigrants/trans/blacks/etc Step 2: Cut taxes on the rich. <---------- You are here It works every time. Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson said: “If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”
- yakz 1y agoLet’s see how the rural poor feel when their hospital closes, they can’t get medicaid, health insurance is wildly out of reach, they have no ability to borrow money thanks to insane medical debt that they can never repay, and their wages are garnished for student debt from a degree they never finished. How long until debt becomes a crime? We’re gonna recreate serfdom in the USA.
- jimt1234 1y agoThe trend you described has been going on since Reagan, and the "rural poor" haven't budged. I have no expectation that attitudes will change in Rural America, not matter how bad things get.
- Herring 1y agoWay longer than that if you want to get technical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_conquer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_conquer In a nutshell that's why the South is so poor. They've been falling for this for generations.
- sokoloff 1y agoIt turns out when the other party runs on “we’re smarter and have better ideas than you and 25% of you are deplorable”, that people tend to increase their support for their current party rather than deciding “you know what? They’re right; we should switch to follow those coastal elites…”
- Herring 1y ago
- jleyank 1y agoIt's really depressing how the US system seems to have existed "on belief". Once somebody set out to damage or destroy it, away it went. Pretty much without a whimper. As I recall, the system was set up with 3 branches of government in tension. Obviously, that was naive.
- jabjq 1y ago[flagged]
- ujkhsjkdhf234 1y agoThe taxpayer was lied to repeatedly and under the belief of many many many lies, unwittingly voted to get rid of it.
- jabjq 1y ago[flagged]
- ujkhsjkdhf234 1y agoAre you saying they weren't lied to? Like Trump saying he knew nothing about Project 2025 which was a lie.
- nosianu 1y ago> Are you saying they weren't lied to? I think Trump & team have been very open about their intentions. There's even his entire first presidency to look at. At most, some of his voters might be surprised that he actually follows through on exactly what he promised (for example some of those voting for him now surprised about being targeted by ICE, including farmers fearing for their cheap workforce). So sure, lots of lies, on the other hand and at the same time everything was planned and prepared quite openly.
- intended 1y ago
- userbinator 1y ago[flagged]
- consumer451 1y agoThis is such a simple trick. Politicize something, then call it politicized, and move along with a shrug. I assume that mathematics will become "politicized" very soon. Please note that this is not an attack on the parent, just an observation of what appears to be happening all around us.
- userbinator 1y agomathematics will become "politicized" very soon It was already politicised long ago. Remember the "maths is racist white supremacy" crap?
- globalview 1y agoA lot of comments are rightfully pointing out the destructive nature of this move. But looking at it from another angle, is it possible this is a symptom of a deeper problem? What if a significant portion of the electorate no longer believes institutions like the EPA are neutral arbiters of science, but instead see them as political actors pushing an agenda? If that belief is widespread, is an action like this seen not as 'destruction', but as 'dismantling a biased system', even if it seems counterproductive to the rest of us?
- throwawaymaths 1y agocan we imagine no other ways besides the EPA to take care of the environment? if we can't, then it was always a precarious situation.
- ImaCake 1y agoArguably, institutions like the EPA exist to moderate extremes. The EPA simulatenously prevents industry from causing cancer clusters and extinctions while also preventing eco-terrorism. All the science, surveys, and purple prose done by the EPA and consultants is arguably kinda bullshit, but it is very useful bullshit because its a whole lot better than assassinated mining executives and hospitals full of throat cancer victims.
- throwawaymaths 1y agowow. so as our society our only options are "do nothing" or "murder executives". i am sorry for your worldview.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoWhat do you suggest as the alternative? I'm genuinely curious.
- ImaCake 1y ago>our only options are "do nothing" or "murder executives". Well no, we can have some form of mediator institution which arbitrates such debates peacefully. You could also setup a ritualised debate implicitly agreed to by both parties so you could do this without an EPA - this is essentially how humans did things before we invented rationalised nation states. You should avoid silly personal attacks, you might get better responses from people.
- consumer451 1y agoOne of the most onerous regulation regimes in the USA comes from the FAA. When people question these regulations, and the cost of certifying aircraft and aircraft parts, someone always rightly responds "these regulations are written in blood." The same can easily be said about environmental regulations, except in their case, the pool of blood is orders of magnitude deeper. Do people really think that President Richard Nixon created the EPA to stick it to big business?
- tdullien 1y agoThank you for pointing out that it was Nixon that created the EPA.
- eviks 1y ago> someone always rightly responds "these regulations are written in blood." No, that's just a lazy ignorant response, there is not enough blood in the world to provide enough ink to write all those rules.
- knuckleheads 1y agoRan the math and and it's factually incorrect to say there's not enough blood in the world to write out all these rules. There's about ~8 billion people in the world today. Estimates say an average adult has 5 liters of blood in their body, so let's say 2.5 liters per person to account for children. That's about 20 billion liters of blood for available for your macabre comparison. Looking at the federal register[0] and running some javascript on the page [1], we get an estimate of 4.1 million pages in the federal register in it's whole history. We could get into page yields for various types of printing and how that effects how many pages could be printed, but at a generous one liter per page, it's obvious it could be done. Skipping some more estimates, but the federal register would require about 1 oil-drum of blood or 115 liters to write out, which would only take one person donating blood at the recommend safe rates about 40 years to complete by themselves. A long time for sure, but if you start today, you could hopefully see just how wrong you were before the end of your life. [0] https://www.federalregister.gov/reader-aids/federal-register-statistics/category-page-statistics https://www.federalregister.gov/reader-aids/federal-register... [1] $("tbody > tr > :nth-child(9) ").text().split("\n").map(function(l){return parseInt(l.trim().replace(",",""))}).filter(function(l){return l ? l: 0}).reduce(function(a,b){return a+b},0)
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- dfee 1y agoThere’s strong consensus in these comments. That gives me pause. Was the prior system good? Was it great? If so, was it optimal? If not, what does better look like? The discussion can splinter a thousand ways, and on HN it should as we seek truth.
- rezmason 1y agoShould we destroy the thing we're questioning before we have that conversation, or after it?
- ml-anon 1y agoEnlightened centrism at its absolute worst
- TrackerFF 1y agoTime to pull out Occam's razor again: A) The Trump admin has conducted rigorous analysis and audit of 55 years of EPA research, and concluded that it is so insignificant and ineffective that one can just dismantle the entire department. B) The Trump admin rubber stamps anything the Heritage Foundation / Project 2025 wants done, and are desperate to find money for their tax cut funding.
- slaw 1y agoBoth.
- impossiblefork 1y agoYou can't protect the environment without research. Without research you can't know what's dangerous. Even in tiny countries, for example Sweden, when we notice a statistical uptick of health problems in a particular area, we have government organizations that go there to investigate and figure out the cause.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- thomascountz 1y agoDuring the next administration, it will surely be a priority to restore the functions of government dissolved throughout these years. However, these functions will be filled by private companies and will come with a large bill to U.S. taxpayers. There's a large vacuum being left, with a talent pool of government-wage workers, and a new cohort of politicians whose campaigns will need funded.
- Gud 1y agoWhat makes you so confident these functions will be performed by private enterprise? Seems to me like a fading empire elected the wrong person to lead them due to nonsense reasons and will now stagnate faster.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- thomascountz 1y agoI have no stake in being right or wrong, which I think leads to sounding confident. But, I believe the incentives are there for privatization. Those opposed to the current administration will see restoration of gutted services as a win. Talent (researchers, scientists, and anyone with knowledge of processes) is being made available to the private sector. The private sector makes significant contributions to political campaigns and will want contracts in return. Therefore, a campaign can be sold as: "We will fix what has been broken, and bring back jobs to the critical areas of our sovereignty. We will make good on the promise of increasing efficiency and reducing waste by opening up opportunities across all areas of industry, both old and new. What we've witnessed over the past four years was the dismantling of the American dream. What we endured was "an honest day's work" being turned into "work a day and a half for half the pay". But now, we will rebuild. And as we do, we will no longer be vulnerable to the whims of ivory tower bureaucrats. We are taking the power back. We are keeping our taxpayer dollars focused where they should be. You are getting the respect you're owed and reminding Washington that they work for you."
- tremon 1y agoWhat makes you so sure there will be a next administration?
- oulipo 1y agoAmerica fucking itself in the ass, just for a few more dollars...
- devoutsalsa 1y agoNot the first time, not the last time.
- bamboozled 1y agoGod damn the stupidity is just out of control
- guru4consulting 1y agoThis is sad. I have worked with many federal agencies including EPA and have seen firsthand how large corporations try to influence or circumvent the law without regard for people or the environment. The EPA isn’t as bloated as people think. Contrary to public perception, there are many talented and hardworking federal employees. The real culprits are the large federal contracting companies that deliver subpar results and hide behind federal procurement bureaucracy. I wish DOGE would focus on that.