environmental thoughts

The Trump administration is going to have to stock up on scientists and administrators who are savvy to this game, and they are going to be very hard to find, as there’s very little incentive to not play along.

There’s going to have to be a massive effort to pick apart failing climate models and questionably-adjusted data. They’re going to have to find people willing to expose the current regime’s blatant abuse of logic in generating inflated “costs” of global warming, while largely ignoring the co-benefits of fossil fuel power, like doubled life expectancy and undreamt-of wealth.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/309484-trumps-epa-pick-will-make-obama-regret-his


In a statement released Thursday from his transition team, Trump said:

"For too long, the Environmental Protection Agency has spent taxpayer dollars on an out-of-control anti-energy agenda that has destroyed millions of jobs, while also undermining our incredible farmers and many other businesses and industries at every turn."

In that same release, Pruitt claimed that: 

"The American people are tired of seeing billions of dollars drained from our economy due to unnecessary EPA regulations."

Are the costs of reducing the global and national health burden due to unhealthy environments too great?

To the contrary: several studies show that environmental regulations save us far more than they cost. Not only do they prevent premature deaths, but such regulations help us avoid heart attacks, respiratory illness, hospital and emergency room visits and lost work days.
On top of that, these regulations often create jobs.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/309808-dismantling-epa-regulations-hurts-both-health-and