Indeed, thats' exactly what is said above.
on the contray I'm just trying to pick the bones out of your viewpoints and see where your thought train is going. I know you have an issue with Trump and his environmental flights of fancy (as do I) but there is also a legacy of fault and failure within the EPA and to some degree I can sympathise with the tenets of HR1430 and to some degree HR1431 - especially when you review the SST sub-committee hearings! I just don't think that reverting to the mandated BOSC panel profile is a step in the wrong direction until we know who the new panelists will be - that is my issue with the NY Times article. Knee-jerk reactions are not productive.
As I said I am not trying to be contentious I am interested in the topic and trying to pick the bones out of an issue which needs to be looked at with calm heads. I have no issues with people looking vociferously at environmental impacts of industrial activity but am interested in the real world applications and implications of scientific method in the industrustrial and environmental processes.
But once again you ignore the history of the industrialists, and the environment, and the current actions of Trump that favor the industrialists not the environment, or the science of the matter. Ever since the EPA was founded by Nixon, and the Clean Air Act was signed, the air has improved. However, once again we are seeing an increase in air pollution. My G/F just went to California for a few days, and she was telling me of the pollution one can see from the air as they were landing. It was like a dirty brown layer over the city of San Jose. Here in Central Oregon at a elevation of 4300 feet we have days when the pollution blows in from the valley, and we have the "warnings". Even the lakes at this elevation have mercury warnings, and this is a result of the wind blowing the pollution up over the mountains not only from the West side, but from China, and Asia. Recent studies show where 43% of the groundwater sources are polluted, and other parts of the country, such as Iowa, are even worse. And we have no major industry here in Central Oregon.
And now we are to return to the "good ol days" where industry reigned supreme? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. And as I said before, the EPA has gone overboard in the past, like my example of the definition of a "wetland", yet for the most part they have done good. I do not believe placing industrialists in the issue with their profit interests, and their disdain for the environment, is good for the country. The contentions they would create, thus justifying the actions of Trump, can only add to the confusion, and the further loss of a healthy environment.
And the idea that one can just up and sue these industries, shows a lack of understanding of our legal system. As an example, a paint company recently received their settlement of a case with Trump. The original debt was around 34,000 dollars. The Court ordered Trump to pay $300,000 dollars of which over $260,000 in attorneys fees. Then you have the case of the Court battle regarding the use of asbestos, and mesothelioma. 30 years since asbestos was done away with, a minimum of 30 billion spent on Court cases, and no end in sight. Then there was the Agent Orange matter.