GREAT NEWS: Trump is cutting 16 regulations to every new one.

[GMDino]

In the first 100 days Trump signed 28 laws.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-100-days-congress-regulations-laws-signed-repeal-obama-2017-4/#the-president-signed-hr-609-on-march-13-the-bill-designates-a-department-of-veterans-affairs-healthcare-center-in-butler-county-pennsylvania-the-abie-abraham-va-clinic-1

Quote:While Trump has signed 28 congressional actions since taking office, none are major pieces of legislation. Slightly under half are rollbacks of Obama-era regulations. By contrast, Obama signed the stimulus package into law before his 100th day.

Here are all the laws Trump has signed leading up to his 100th day: 

Five (5) were repeals of regulations.

Quote:Trump signed H.J.R. 40 on February 28. The bill, which is now law, repeals an Obama-era rule which prohibited the mentally disabled from being able to purchase firearms. Obama signed the executive action, which mandated that the Social Security Administration submit names of mentally ill individuals to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, following the San Bernardino terrorist attack in 2015.


Trump signed a congressional action repealing an Obama-era regulation which prevented coal-mining companies from dumping debris and toxic waste into nearby streams and waterways.



On March 27, Trump signed a resolution which repealed an Obama rule, known as the "blacklisting rule," which prevented the government from working with contractors who had been in violation of labor laws, had engaged in wage theft, or were responsible for workplace safety violations in the last 3 years.



Trump authorized the repeal of another Obama-era rule which mandated that all states issue ratings for teacher-prep courses within their borders.



Trump signed a House resolution that abolished Obama-era hunting restrictions on national wildlife refuges in Alaska. The rule was intended to protect predator species like wolves and bears from being hunted. The rule that Trump repealed also imposed a ban on aerial hunting, live-trapping or baiting predators, and from hunting those predators while they were near their dens or cubs.

Wow. 

Then there was one (1) EO to look into another repeal.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/28/list-trumps-executive-orders.html

• Quote:An order requiring every agency to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to evaluate regulations and recommend rules for repeal or modification. 

  
  
  

Finally there is this bit:

http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/18/trumps-budget-hikes-regulatory-spending

Quote:Despite promising to roll back the federal regulatory state, President Donald Trump's first budget proposal would increase regulatory spending by more than 3 percent—double the increase approved by Congress during Barack Obama's final year as president.


If Congress were to enact Trump's budget as written, the federal government's regulatory staff would fall by half of 1 percent, but the total amount of taxpayer money spent by regulatory agencies would climb to $69.4 billion. That's up from $65.9 billion in 2017 and $63.7 billion in 2016, according to researchers at the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy at Washington University in St. Louis and the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center in Washington, D.C.

Researchers from the two schools have been tracking the so-called "regulatory budget" since 1959. Regulatory spending by the federal government has increased 20-fold during that time.

This year's report examines 77 different federal agencies involved in regulating social affairs (things like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or the Food and Drug Administration) or economic affairs (the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the like).

The overall increase in regulatory agency spending masks some areas where the Trump administration has proposed cuts. The Environmental Protection Agency, for example, would face $4.1 billion in spending cuts and would lose an estimated 4,000 employees under Trump's budget. In other areas, the administration has taken direct steps to reduce regulations, as when it worked with Congress to kill several major Obama-era regulations with the Congressional Review Act. Trump's appointees at the Department of Education, the Federal Communications Commission, and elsewhere have indicated a desire to wipe more regulations off the books.

The Washington University/George Washington University report isn't counting the number of regulations, though. Instead, it's counting the actual cost of enforcement, in terms of taxpayer money spent and government employees hired.

Under that calculus, Trump's regulatory cuts are being offset by the president's plan to spend more money and hire more people to regulate immigration.
"Regulators who focus on immigration, such as those at the Coast Guard, Immigration and Customs Emforcement, Customs and Border Patrol, and the
Transportation Security Administration are budgeted for increases of around 10 percent or more next year," Susan Dudley, one of the report's authors, noted in a summary posted at Forbes.

Rather than cutting the regulatory state, then, Trump's first budget plan is better understood as a shifting of regulatory priorities—a shift in which the increases overwhelm the cuts.

The biggest increases are within the Department of Homeland Security, where regulatory agencies would see a 13.7 percent increase ($4.1 billion, equal to the cuts at the EPA) this year, followed by a planned 5.9 percent increase next year. Staffing at DHS is expected to grow by more than 2,300 people under Trump's budget.

One big caveat: All of this assumes that the budget eventually adopted by Congress will include the cuts proposed by the White House. That is, to put it mildly, far from guaranteed.

Trump's presidency has been unique in many ways, but his regulatory budget follows a long-term trend. According to the report, Obama increased federal regulatory spending by 13 percent ($6.8 billion) during his eight years in office, while staff levels increased by 7 percent. George W. Bush set a faster pace, hiking regulatory spending from about $25 billion in 2000 to more than $47 billion by 2008, an increase largely driven by the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA during his presidency.

When Trump accepted the Republican nomination in Cleveland last year, he promised that "we are going to deal with the issue of regulation, one of the greatest job-killers of them all." In some ways he's done that. But his budget still fits snugly into a 60-plus-year trend of a federal government that spends more of your money to stick its nose into more of your business.

You're welcome!

[GMDino]

So much winning.  Are you tired of winning yet?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-epa-reverses-decision-to-delay-smog-rule-after-lawsuits/ar-AApmfiT

Quote:The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reversed a decision to delay an Obama-era rule requiring states to curb smog-causing emissions, one day after 15 states sued the agency over the move.



The EPA announced the decision to go ahead with the so-called "2015 Ozone Designations" late on Wednesday, saying it showed the agency's commitment to working with states.

"We believe in dialogue with, and being responsive to, our state partners," EPA Chief Scott Pruitt said in a statement.

Pruitt in June had announced the EPA's intention to delay the ozone designations - in which existing smog pollution is measured in parts of the country to determine where cuts must be made to meet tougher air quality standard - by one year to October 2018.


A group of 15 mostly Democratic states, along with the District of Columbia, filed a suit on Tuesday saying the effort was illegal.


The administration of President Donald Trump has been seeking to roll back a wide array of environmental regulations imposed by former President Barack Obama, as part of a broader agenda Trump says is aimed at sparking economic growth. 


But the efforts have triggered pushback by Democratics and conservation groups who are concerned about the impact of greater emissions on public health.



The EPA's website says breathing air containing ozone "can reduce lung function and increase respiratory symptoms" like asthma.

[*Nately120*]

(07-22-2017, 01:59 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 7 years from now is a long way off.

Did you forget to add the 8 years of Pence that is going to follow the 8 years of Trump?  

(07-22-2017, 03:16 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Ssssswwweeeeeettt. 

I have been wanting a less fuel efficient vehicle, more pollution in my air and water, more predatory lenders, and wall street regulations back to the good ole 2008 style.

What's the big deal about protecting our air, water, and the very soil that is America?  It's not like anyone fought and died for this land we're destroying, or anything.

[Dill]

(08-03-2017, 11:25 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Did you forget to add the 8 years of Pence that is going to follow the 8 years of Trump?  



What's the big deal about protecting our air, water, and the very soil that is America?  It's not like anyone fought and died for this land we're destroying, or anything.

It's "our" land when foreigners attack or there is an earthquake or hurricane, but private property when it comes to environmental regulation.

[GMDino]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/08/epa-report-shows-economic-growth-environmental-rules-can-co-exist/550154001/

Quote:The Trump administration’s argument that “job-killing” environmental regulations are stifling U.S. economic growth is being undercut by … the Trump administration.


A new report from the Environmental Protection Agency found that since Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, the economy has more than tripled and the number of vehicle miles traveled every year has nearly doubled — all while the nation’s population and annual energy consumption has surged.


At the same time, the levels of six key air pollutants — carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide — have declined dramatically.


The number of unhealthy air quality days annually in 35 of America’s largest cities has fallen significantly while the visibility at national parks across the country once shrouded in haze has improved substantially, the report said.


“The U.S. leads the world in having clean air and a strong economy due to implementation of the Clean Air Act and technological advancements from American innovators,” EPA’s Trends Report declares.

Environmentalists have seized on the report as evidence that efforts by President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to roll back a slew of Obama-era rules designed to protect air, water and public health are grounded in flawed logic and should stop.

“Pruitt is selling an old line that the economy and the environment are in conflict. The data over the last 50 years shows it isn’t so,” said David Doniger, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “You can have a cleaner environment and a strongly growing economy.”
It’s an argument that Pruitt himself made when he addressed EPA staff Feb. 21 shortly after he was sworn in.


“I believe that we as an agency, and we as a nation, can be both pro-energy and jobs and pro-environment. But we don't have to choose between the two,” he said.

But Pruitt, with the fervent endorsement of Trump, has made it clear he wants to roll back several key Obama-era regulations and stop others from taking effect.

The former Oklahoma attorney general sued the agency he now runs more than a dozen times to halt the implementation of a number of regulations including one involving ozone.

Pruitt had announced plans in June to delay for an additional year an Obama-era rule requiring states to curb smog-causing emissions such as ozone.It was set to take effect this fall. But he withdrew the proposal last week, a day after 16 states supporting the new standards sued the agency over the move.

He’s talked about revisiting auto emissions rules though he told Reuters recently that nothing is currently under review.

Pruitt also tried to suspend Clean Air Act limits on methane leaks from oil and gas facilities but a court rejected his argument.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt (Photo: Susan Walsh, AP)

The move on methane was part of a larger effort by Trump to roll back Obama’s climate change initiative. So was the president’s decision to begin rolling back the Clean Power Plan and opting out of the global treaty known as the Paris Accord to limit carbon dioxide emissions.

“I am taking historic steps to lift the restrictions on American energy, to reverse government intrusion and to cancel job killing regulations,” Trump said in March as he signed an order to undo the Clean Power Plan while members of his cabinet including Pruitt and a group of coal miners looked on.

Undoing climate change initiatives are aimed in part to help the ailing coal industry, seen as a major contributor to air pollution.

Ross Eisenberg, vice president of Energy and Resources policy for the National Association of Manufacturers, agrees the Clean Air Act has been instrumental in reducing pollution over the past 47 years. So too, he said, has been industrial innovation thathas led to cleaner and more energy-efficient products.

But the new smog rule, which would lower the concentration of ozone from 75 to 70 parts per billion, will hurt the nation’s industrial sector because of the billions it will cost to implement especially in the West and Midwest where air quality has made compliance challenging, he said.

“We reduced ozone substantially over the past 40 years. The Clean Air Act has unquestionably worked,” Eisenberg said. “But the problem is all of the big things you can do to reduce ozone pollution have been done. The marginal changes that you can make these days are going to cost a whole lot more than the low hanging fruit you could have done in the ‘80s and the ‘90s.”

Those views were echoed by Howard Feldman, senior director for regulatory and scientific affairs for the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group representing the oil and gas industry. 

He said the new smog rules would "needlessly (burden) the states and businesses with potentially enormous costs." And he pointed out the industry has spent more than $321 billion since 1990 modernizing its facilities to reduce harmful emissions.

But Bill Becker, the former executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said the EPA report should convince the administration to be more aggressive in improving air quality and public health.

"You don’t take a successful program, recognize that it’s been working in terms of reducing emissions with an expended economy and then somehow decide to retreat as the administration is suggesting," he said. "The Trends Report is reaffirming that it should be full speed ahead in the way we’ve been doing things because it’s been working."

Sign Me Up

[GMDino]

So let's talk about coal now:

http://finance-commerce.com/2017/08/trump-wont-change-rules-for-coal-plants/

Quote:Trump won’t change rules for coal plants



WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has rejected a coal industry push to win a rarely used emergency order protecting coal-fired power plants, a decision contrary to what one coal executive said the president personally promised him.

The Energy Department says it considered issuing the order sought by companies seeking relief for plants it says are overburdened by environmental rules and market stresses. But the department ultimately ruled it was unnecessary, and the White House agreed, a spokeswoman said.

The decision is a rare example of friction between the beleaguered coal industry and the president who has vowed to save it. It also highlights a pattern emerging as the administration crafts policy: The president’s bold declarations — both public and private — are not always carried through to implementation.

President Donald Trump committed to the measure in private conversations with executives from Murray Energy Corp. and FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. after public events in July and early August, according to letters to the White House from Murray Energy and its chief executive, Robert Murray. In the letters, obtained by The Associated Press, Murray said failing to act would cause thousands of coal miners to be laid off and put the pensions of thousands more in jeopardy. One of Murray’s letters said Trump agreed and told Energy Secretary Rick Perry, “I want this done” in Murray’s presence.

The White House declined to say whether Trump did initially agree to Murray’s request for help. But in a statement on Tuesday, administration spokeswoman Kelly Love wrote that the proposal was not the right way to support the coal industry.

“Whether through repealing the Clean Power Plan and the ‘Waters of the U.S. Rule,’ removing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, or signing legislation to overturn rules and policies designed to stop coal mining, President Trump continues to fight for miners every day,” she wrote in an email to the AP.

Energy Department spokeswoman Shaylyn Hynes said the agency was sympathetic to the coal industry’s plight, but likewise did not support the proposal.

“With respect to this particular case at this particular time, the White House and the Department of Energy are in agreement that the evidence does not warrant the use of this emergency authority,” Hynes said in a statement Sunday.

A spokesman for Murray Energy, Gary Broadbent, declined to comment on the letters or the administration’s response.

The aid Murray sought from Trump involves invoking a little-known section of the U.S. Federal Power Act that allows the Energy Department to temporarily intervene when the nation’s electricity supply is threatened by an emergency, such as war or natural disaster.
Among other measures, it temporarily exempts power plants from obeying environmental laws. In the past, the authority has been used sparingly, such as during the California energy crisis in 2000 and following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The Obama administration never used it. The Trump administration has used it twice in seven months in narrow instances.

Murray’s company is seeking a two-year moratorium on closures of coal-fired power plants, which would be an unprecedented federal intervention in the nation’s energy markets. The company said invoking the provision under the Power Act was “the only viable mechanism” to protect the reliability of the nation’s power supply.

Murray told the White House that his key customer, Ohio-based electricity company FirstEnergy Solutions, was at immediate risk of bankruptcy. Without FirstEnergy’s plants burning his coal, Murray said his own company would be forced into “immediate bankruptcy,” triggering the layoffs of more than 6,500 miners. FirstEnergy acknowledged to the AP that bankruptcy of its power-generation business was a possibility.

Murray urged Trump to use the provision in the Federal Power Act to halt further coal plant closures by declaring an emergency in the electric power grid.

After a conversation with Trump at a July 25 political rally in Youngstown, Ohio, Murray wrote, the president told Perry three times, “I want this done.” Trump also directed the emergency order be given during an Aug. 3 conversation in Huntington, West Virginia, he said.

“As stated, disastrous consequences for President Trump, our electric power grid reliability, and tens of thousands of coal miners will result if this is not immediately done,” he wrote.

Murray’s claims raise the possibility that Trump was warned against the move by his advisers — some of whom are known to be more cautious — or that he simply made assurances to Murray to avoid immediate confrontation. The people who worked on the decision most directly were Perry, Michael Catanzaro, who works under National Economic Council director Gary Cohn as the top White House energy adviser, and Perry’s chief of staff, Brian McCormack, U.S. officials told the AP. They spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal policy considerations by name.

Murray and his company have been impassioned supporters of Trump, donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign and inauguration, hosting fundraisers and embracing him as the rescuer of the Appalachian coal industry. The friendliness has been mutual: When Trump repealed an Obama administration regulation barring coal companies from dumping mine waste in streams, Murray and his sons were invited for the signing.

The Energy Department has already informed Murray it will not invoke the law, an official with knowledge of the decision told the AP.

Coal has become an increasingly unattractive fuel for U.S. electricity companies, which have been retiring old boilers at a record pace. At least two dozen big coal-fired plants are scheduled to shut down in coming months as utilities transition to new steam turbines fueled by cleaner-burning natural gas made more abundant in recent years by new drilling technologies.

Trump, who rejects the consensus of scientists that burning fossil fuels is causing global warming, has made reversing the coal industry’s decline a cornerstone of his administration’s energy and environmental policies. Since taking office, he announced that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate accord, and he has moved to block or delay Obama-era regulations seeking to limit carbon emissions.

Other coal executives have urged similar government intervention to save their businesses. In a speech last week, the CEO of Peabody Energy Corp., the nation’s largest coal producer, also said a two-year moratorium on coal-plant closures was needed.

Perry has already twice invoked the Federal Power Act in narrow ways at the request of utilities seeking to keep old coal-burning plants online past their planned retirement dates. In both cases, the utilities were allowed to continue operations at plants amid concerns that shutting them down could lead to regional shortages in electricity.

[GMDino]

And it's almost like I said this over and over when people screamed "regulations" every time a coal mine closed or a power plant closed or switched over.

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060059138

Quote:DOE report blames natural gas for closures


This story was updated at 11:46 p.m. EDT.

A long-awaited Energy Department staff report on electricity markets and reliability singles out natural gas — not renewables or environmental regulations — as the leading driver of coal plant closures in this decade, challenging the Trump administration's case for saving coal.

"The biggest contributor to coal and nuclear plant retirements has been the advantaged economics of natural gas-fired generation" fueled by the shale revolution, the report says.

The 187-page report, which DOE released tonight, was ordered by Energy Secretary Rick Perry in April to review the closure of "baseload" coal and nuclear plants and "market-distorting effects of federal subsidies that boost one form of energy at the expense of others."

But the staff report assembled a more comprehensive review of challenges facing the U.S. power grid, from cheap natural gas to fast-moving new generating technologies. While electricity networks are performing reliably now, future resilience cannot be taken for granted, DOE said.

The preparation of the Trump administration's first comprehensive energy policy review lit fires under Washington's energy lobbies as those who feared or welcomed President Trump's thumping advocacy for the coal industry fired salvos at each other.

The final report, a month late in delivery, makes no definitive proposals. Its most political input is the absence of any mention of climate change. A DOE official today said the study was not meant to create a fuel fight.

Several key recommendations are directed at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, including the need to review whether electricity markets are delivering secure and resilient electric power as change disrupts grid networks. A DOE official said they discussed the report with FERC today, adding that the policy recommendations could be used to nudge the agency into reviewing market price rules that are designed to give consumers low power prices, but may not incentivize future reliability investment.

The report questions whether coal and nuclear power plants should receive extra compensation because their fuel supplies are on-site but doesn't make an explicit recommendation on that point.

Perry himself sidestepped direct recommendations in a cover letter today, saying that it's "apparent that in today's competitive markets certain regulations and subsidies are having a large impact on the functioning of markets, and thereby challenging our power generation mix. It is important for policy makers to consider their intended and unintended effects."

DOE staff today said gas is by far the largest factor driving "baseload" plant closures, which Perry has defined as coal and nuclear units. But also in the mix is an anemic growth in demand for power, environmental regulations, and the operational and financial challenges some plant operators face when ramping up and down to accommodate a growing number of wind and solar units.

When asked why the report didn't have statutory and regulatory recommendations like the Quadrennial Energy Report issued by the Obama administration, officials said the staff report isn't an interagency exercise and they didn't want to trigger an Office of Management and Budget overview given the tight time frame.

The report, which also calls for revisiting nuclear regulations and permitting and siting requirements for new gas and power projects, will now be open for public comment, according to DOE.

This was the government report that Perry wanted.  

[Bengalzona]

There's a crowd that supports cutting regulations just because they believe there are too many regulations. For a lot of these folks, it is not even about which specific regulations get cut. It is just a numbers game. They have a level of trust in the politicians and business leaders who claim that things are 'too regulated'. Then they go down to get their Section 8 voucher or ammo for their AK and they can literally see the burdensome regulations for themselves.

Then, there are others who feel that we need a "regulation re-set". They believe we should just remove all or most existing regulations and then just add new ones as we need. I believe I'm safe in including my friend Lucie in this category. I'm not saying that I agree with this philosophy, but I can understand where they are coming from. It is sort of like wiping your hard drive and re-loading your OS. But very few of us would ever choose that option for our computer, much less our country.

And then there is the Montgomery Burns crowd. Their motivation should be pretty self-evident.

[Millhouse]

(08-24-2017, 11:17 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: There's a crowd that supports cutting regulations just because they believe there are too many regulations. For a lot of these folks, it is not even about which specific regulations get cut. It is just a numbers game. They have a level of trust in the politicians and business leaders who claim that things are 'too regulated'. Then they go down to get their Section 8 voucher or ammo for their AK and they can literally see the burdensome regulations for themselves.

Then, there are others who feel that we need a "regulation re-set". They believe we should just remove all or most existing regulations and then just add new ones as we need. I believe I'm safe in including my friend Lucie in this category. I'm not saying that I agree with this philosophy, but I can understand where they are coming from. It is sort of like wiping your hard drive and re-loading your OS. But very few of us would ever choose that option for our computer, much less our country.

And then there is the Montgomery Burns crowd. Their motivation should be pretty self-evident.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-24-2017, 11:17 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: It is sort of like wiping your hard drive and re-loading your OS. But very few of us would ever choose that option for our computer, much less our country.

But, it's like gettin a brand new computer! Just one that's a tad bit out of date. 

[Benton]

(08-24-2017, 10:10 AM)GMDino Wrote: So let's talk about coal now:

http://finance-commerce.com/2017/08/trump-wont-change-rules-for-coal-plants/

Mitch McConnell — who has profited about as much as anyone from coal companies — is married to Elaine Cho. Cho helps distribute tens of millions of dollars to companies that directly and indirectly end coal mining.

Mitch and Trump both got heavy support by miners and the industry who thought they were going to save their jobs. 

 I'm pretty sure coal lobbyists and voters in Appalachia are wondering how they got spit roasted this badly. I mean, there's bad, and then there's 'everything-you've-worked-for-gone-because-two-guys-just-tag-teamed-you' bad.

[Bengalzona]

(08-24-2017, 01:14 PM)PhilHos Wrote: But, it's like gettin a brand new computer! Just one that's a tad bit out of date. 

We should get another country's used set of regulations?

[GMDino]

(08-24-2017, 01:33 PM)Benton Wrote: Mitch McConnell — who has profited about as much as anyone from coal companies — is married to Elaine Cho. Cho helps distribute tens of millions of dollars to companies that directly and indirectly end coal mining.

Mitch and Trump both got heavy support by miners and the industry who thought they were going to save their jobs. 

 I'm pretty sure coal lobbyists and voters in Appalachia are wondering how they got spit roasted this badly. I mean, there's bad, and then there's 'everything-you've-worked-for-gone-because-two-guys-just-tag-teamed-you' bad.

You think the people who voted for Trump wonder about something.  That implies they think.

That's adorable.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-24-2017, 01:43 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: We should get another country's used set of regulations?

Didn't we already? 

Oh no he didn't.

[GMDino]

(08-24-2017, 01:33 PM)Benton Wrote: Mitch McConnell — who has profited about as much as anyone from coal companies — is married to Elaine Cho. Cho helps distribute tens of millions of dollars to companies that directly and indirectly end coal mining.

Mitch and Trump both got heavy support by miners and the industry who thought they were going to save their jobs. 

 I'm pretty sure coal lobbyists and voters in Appalachia are wondering how they got spit roasted this badly. I mean, there's bad, and then there's 'everything-you've-worked-for-gone-because-two-guys-just-tag-teamed-you' bad.

Not to fear!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/22/politics/appalachian-coal-mining-health-study/index.html#ampshare=http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/22/politics/appalachian-coal-mining-health-study/index.html

Quote:The Trump administration has halted a study of the health effects of a common mining technique in Appalachia, which is believed to deposit waste containing toxic minerals in ground waters.


A letter from the Interior Department directed the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to "cease all work" on a study of the potential health risks of mountaintop removal mining for people living near surface coal mine sites in central Appalachia. The Interior Department acknowledged in a statement that it had "put on hold" $1 million in funding for the two-year project as part of a review of its grants, which is focused on "responsibly using taxpayer dollars."

"The Trump Administration is dedicated to responsibly using taxpayer dollars and that includes the billions of dollars in grants that are doled out every year by the Department of the Interior," the statement said.

Still, the National Academies -- a nongovernmental institution that researches and advises the government on science and technology -- plans to move forward with part of the research, and will hold previously scheduled public meetings this week in Kentucky, the Academies said in a statement.

Political reaction was swift to the Trump administration's decision to suspend the study of "the potential relationship between increased health risks and living in proximity to sites that have been or are being mined or reclaimed for surface coal deposits," which began last year and was expected to take two years to complete.


[/url]
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/05/politics/trump-battle-science-epa-energy-climate/index.html]The battle over science in the Trump administration

"Mountaintop removal mining has been shown to cause lung cancer, heart disease, and other medical problems," Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, the ranking democrat on the House Committee of Natural Resources, said in a statement.

"Clearly this administration and the Republican Party are trying to stop the National Academy of Sciences from uncovering exactly how harmful this practice is," Grijalva said.

"It's infuriating that Trump would halt this study on the health effects of mountaintop removal coal mining, research that people in Appalachia have been demanding for years," said Bill Price, Senior Appalachia Organizing Representative for environmental advocacy group Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign.

A growing controversy

Scientists estimate that mountaintop removal mining, a form of surface mining, has occurred on at least 500 Appalachian mountaintops. It became popular in the late 1960s as a way of harvesting coal deposits too thin to work from a coal mine.
In this form of mining, the land is first cleared of forests and vegetation, then explosives are used to break up the first layer of rock into smaller pieces known as "spoil."

A 2010 Government Accountability Office report, apparently the most recent available on the subject, showed that in 2008, West Virginia produced 69 million tons of coal from surface mining. Kentucky produced 51 million tons, while Virginia and Tennessee followed with 9 million and 2 million, respectively.

That soil and rock mixture is supposed to be returned to the land after mining is complete, but often is placed as fill in nearby valleys, which can also block headwaters of streams. In addition, when the mined coal is cleaned, a "slurry" of toxic hard metals such as lead, arsenic, manganese, sodium, and sulfate is produced that makes its way into local streams and ground wells. It's that toxic mixture that is believed to be linked to various health problems in the local Appalachian communities.

One study linked mountaintop mining to increased lung and kidney disease rates, as well as elevated death rates in surrounding communities. Another found an increase in birth defects.

"Stopping this study is a ploy to stop science in its tracks and keep the public in the dark about health risks as a favor to the mining industry, pure and simple," Grijalva said. "Every time some reckless industry hurts working people, this administration is there to provide political cover."

The National Academies statement said that the group's hope is that the Trump administration will resume the study.
"The National Academies believes this is an important study and we stand ready to resume it as soon as the Department of the Interior review is completed," the statement said. "We are grateful to our committee members for their dedication to carrying forward with this study."

Not "removing a regulation" but still helping the poor coal min owners to not have to worry about poisoning everyone around them.  #MAGA!