What do we think about Scott Pruitt, the new EPA boss pick?

bluebarchetta wrote: I am for any political appointment that allows me to enjoy automobiles and motorcycles as freely and inexpensively as possible, regardless of any real or imaginary threat to the environment. Can't wait to log back on here tomorrow morning - to a site called Grassroots Motorsports - and read about how misinformed, ignorant, and selfish I am for wanting unfettered access to participate in grassroots motorsports.

I just love how reasoned and informed your opinion is, and how you spend so much time supporting it with in depth information.

I am interested in motorsports and do a bit of racing and a lot of wrenching. But I'm also aware of its impact and am not so blind as to think that the only important thing in the world is my hobby and my "free and inexpensive" access to it.

"And, how he might have a positive effect on reining in an out of control EPA"

Nope. Whole pile of nope to this guy. We're totally screwed and nope nope nope.

bluebarchetta wrote: I am for any political appointment that allows me to enjoy automobiles and motorcycles as freely and inexpensively as possible, regardless of any real or imaginary threat to the environment. Can't wait to log back on here tomorrow morning - to a site called Grassroots Motorsports - and read about how misinformed, ignorant, and selfish I am for wanting unfettered access to participate in grassroots motorsports.

You want to enjoy things regardless of the [real] consequences? Seriously? I kinda admire your selfishness. Where does it stop? I want unfettered access to drink alcohol while driving a car. Can we take away all DUI/DWI laws?

If you all want REAL change in the "climate change" front, STOP BUYING STUFF FROM CHINA... Seriously. The US is minor league compared to the nations that actually produce things. Vote with your money, the only real way to vote anymore... Refuse to buy oil that was produced in a way that you disagree with. Refuse to buy ANYTHING that was produced/sourced/manufactured/created in a way that you disagree with. Sounds simple but it is not, I know.

Basically I think of it this way:

We now a have an Anti-EPA lobbyist that is going to be the head of the EPA.

Think about that for a minute.

Better put Erin Brockovich on speed dial.

z31maniac wrote:

captdownshift wrote: A fox watching the henhouse. I'm not a fan at all. Oklahoma has had over 2,000 earthquakes a year each of the past 2 years and it's all but certain that it's due to fracking and recently several have started to cross 5.0 on the ricter scale. In fact Oklahoma has more 5.0+ quakes then California, Washington state and Alaska combined this year. And we want to an Oil man in charge of the department of interior and another as head of the EPA. No thanks, big Berkeleying no thanks.

This. I can't wait to get out of this state and idiots the general public put in office. It's embarrassing.

Funny that you say that. My buddy who lives in Oklahoma talks like it's the best state in the Union.

In reply to Ross413:

It isn't that simple. I have tried. I went to Lowes to buy a ceiling fan several years ago and was not going to buy one made in China. Guess what, I left without getting one. I later sprung on a Casablanca fan from First Tuesday, but suspect it was made in China. When we fill up, how do we know how our oil was produced. It all comes out of the same pipelines and goes to different stations.

Ross413 wrote: If you all want REAL change in the "climate change" front, STOP BUYING STUFF FROM CHINA... Seriously. The US is minor league compared to the nations that actually produce things. Vote with your money, the only real way to vote anymore... Refuse to buy oil that was produced in a way that you disagree with. Refuse to buy ANYTHING that was produced/sourced/manufactured/created in a way that you disagree with. Sounds simple but it is not, I know.

Too late. I try hard to buy things made in USA, Canada, Germany, Australia, etc. Most of the time it is impossible or unaffordable. Even my Carhartt stuff isn't made in USA.

In reply to Ross413: I hope you are aware that contrary to what some may have you believe, the US in fact does still "make stuff". We make a lot of stuff actually. More stuff even than China. The difference being that we make big, expensive, durable goods that most citizens don't buy (bulldozers and 747s and the like) while most of the crap, small, disposable E36 M3 that we snap up on Black Friday at Wally World is from China.

Ross413 wrote: The US is minor league compared to the nations that actually produce things.

I don't disagree with the main point of your message, however, the US is not "Minor League"

But back to the subject of Scott & his appointment.

I don't know much about him, BUT from what I've seen of Trump's appointments he's looking for the best person for the job and isn't repaying political favors and he hasn't been bought by the lobbyists. You know he's actually appointed a couple of Democrats, or so I've heard. This gives me confidence that this guy is there for a good reason.

Trump actually seems to be doing what he said he would do. I do know that every mortgage application I make, across the board, the company the people are working for has absolutely started booming and they are already planning for expansions. That's great!!

Of course it's a little early for the naysayers and the yaysayers, as he hasn't actually taken office and none of his appointees have actually had time to do anything yet. Let's give it some time.

My #1 problem with most of the EPA/Green left and all is the inability to get unbiased, non-politically driven data. The studies are funded by grants, given out by people with an agenda. If you don't think that has an impact, you're more naive than I thought.

I'm of the belief that we do need to be as environmentally friendly as we can. The problem is, there are so many people that have different ideas of what that means. not to mention the reality that things we did yesterday to help, actually made things worse (60's and 70's emissions regulations for instance) and the ever changing goal-posts of what is deemed "bad".

Look, my father was taught (in the 60's) that we were headed for a global ice age in 50 years, and that by the year 2000 the world's population would be 15 billion and there would be no resources left for human kind. That all the polution we were putting into the air would cause the sun to dim, cooling the planet killing off vegetation. Now we're told the opposite.

Ross413 wrote: If you all want REAL change in the "climate change" front, STOP BUYING STUFF FROM CHINA... Seriously. The US is minor league compared to the nations that actually produce things. Vote with your money, the only real way to vote anymore... Refuse to buy oil that was produced in a way that you disagree with. Refuse to buy ANYTHING that was produced/sourced/manufactured/created in a way that you disagree with. Sounds simple but it is not, I know.

The thing is, it's not climate change I'm worried about with this guy. Yes that's a thing we need to worry about long term, but with the current EPA appointment I'm more worried about smog, horrid toxic dumping in our local environment, etc. Someone that chooses not to listen to established scientific consensus on major environmental issues should not be in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency.

KyAllroad wrote: In reply to Ross413: I hope you are aware that contrary to what some may have you believe, the US in fact does still "make stuff". We make a lot of stuff actually. More stuff even than China. The difference being that we make big, expensive, durable goods that most citizens don't buy (bulldozers and 747s and the like) while most of the crap, small, disposable E36 M3 that we snap up on Black Friday at Wally World is from China.

I agree that the US does still "make stuff", we just consume way way way more stuff than we make. point is, stop supporting people, via your money, that are not in agreement with your principles. Keep making more stuff, we obviously want, just make it worth your principles...

"I don't know much about him, BUT from what I've seen of Trump's appointments he's looking for the best person for the job..."

Nope.

spitfirebill wrote: In reply to Ross413: It isn't that simple. I have tried. I went to Lowes to buy a ceiling fan several years ago and was not going to buy one made in China. Guess what, I left without getting one. I later sprung on a Casablanca fan from First Tuesday, but suspect it was made in China. When we fill up, how do we know how our oil was produced. It all comes out of the same pipelines and goes to different stations.

I know it is difficult, but what is more difficult...? Buying stuff from people/places you support(with your money) OR Making the government make more regulations to offset peoples unwillingness to buy stuff from people/places they support.

I am not an ideologue, I get that it is not all USA or bust. There is a point in which people need to be aware of their own decisions, and how that affects the stuff they believe in/vote for/preach about...

dculberson wrote:

Ross413 wrote: If you all want REAL change in the "climate change" front, STOP BUYING STUFF FROM CHINA... Seriously. The US is minor league compared to the nations that actually produce things. Vote with your money, the only real way to vote anymore... Refuse to buy oil that was produced in a way that you disagree with. Refuse to buy ANYTHING that was produced/sourced/manufactured/created in a way that you disagree with. Sounds simple but it is not, I know.

The thing is, it's not climate change I'm worried about with this guy. Yes that's a thing we need to worry about long term, but with the current EPA appointment I'm more worried about smog, horrid toxic dumping in our local environment, etc. Someone that chooses not to listen to established scientific consensus on major environmental issues should not be in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Ok, I used "climate change" there as a general idea. I fully understand it is a bigger issue than that. I also believe that MANY environmental issues go by the wayside because "climate change" is touted as the end of the world... Really if there is more attention paid to the smaller issues the bugger ones are easier to solve.

Coming from the agricultural side of things, I'm cautiously optimistic, that this appointment is the best chance to see a death to EPA's power grab with their "technical" change to the definition of Waters of the US.

On the automotive side of things, I'd much prefer the EPA to stop blindly adopting CARB's standards, do their own damn research, and help set standards applicable to individual states, or the US as a whole, not just accepting one state's rules as gospel.

I read about this at work a few days ago and texted the wife the exact phrase used by Captain Downshift; "Talk about the fox guarding the hen house...".

I live near a particularly heavily polluted section of the Illinois river, near a few coal-fired power plants and chemical manufacturing facilities. Also the company I work for has an electric arc furnace that in 1 minute of operation uses enough electricity to power the entire city of Peoria (population 100,000+) for a month (I have been told). Then there's the reheat furnace that guzzles natural gas like there's no tomorrow, thousands of gallons of oil and grease and the four motors that drive the mill rated at 2,250 horsepower each.

I make a good living and am able to support my family and we enjoy quite a high standard of living. But more and more my growing concern for the environment makes me feel like a hypocrite. Here I am working in an industry the exists and profits through the rapid use of fossil fuels and does more than their share to destroy the environment.

I refuse to fall back into poverty and I will not subject my children to what I went through but, I'm reaching a point where I'd be willing to take a cut in pay to leave the rolling mill and go to work at a hydro-electric plant or some other facility that, to my limited knowledge, seems more environmentally friendly.

TL/DR:

Not a fan at all of Trump's appointment of this willfully ignorant individual whose pockets are stuffed with money from "big oil".

"I'd much prefer the EPA to stop blindly adopting CARB's standards" does not match with "set standards applicable to individual states, or the US as a whole".

In reply to The_Jed:

I have had a similar crisis of conscious. I wish I knew of a way to apply my engineering skills and abilities to a field where more "green energy" was being applied. But I'm told my degree is wrong, experience isn't respected in this way, et cetera. So, well, I'm doing what I can for as long as I can.

In reply to ProDarwin:

Ok, not "minor league", but, we are a major league nation blind folding ourselves to what we are supporting outside of our borders...

In reply to pres589:

Sure it does, California can keep their CARB regs, Montana can have MARB regs, or Ohio can have OARB. It'll never happen.

They set national standards now, but based on research done in California for California, if the want to do the national standards, they should be just that, national, not California's standards applied to the nation.

In reply to Ross413:

ppm seems like an odd axis label.

Bobzilla wrote: My #1 problem with most of the EPA/Green left and all is the inability to get unbiased, non-politically driven data. The studies are funded by grants, given out by people with an agenda. If you don't think that has an impact, you're more naive than I thought. I'm of the belief that we do need to be as environmentally friendly as we can. The problem is, there are so many people that have different ideas of what that means. not to mention the reality that things we did yesterday to help, actually made things worse (60's and 70's emissions regulations for instance) and the ever changing goal-posts of what is deemed "bad". Look, my father was taught (in the 60's) that we were headed for a global ice age in 50 years, and that by the year 2000 the world's population would be 15 billion and there would be no resources left for human kind. That all the polution we were putting into the air would cause the sun to dim, cooling the planet killing off vegetation. Now we're told the opposite.

We're told the opposite because we have more information now than we did before. We learned. When I was 4, I thought that chocolate milk came from brown cows. Then I learned that it comes from regular milk and chocolate syrup. Because I was wrong before doesn't mean I'm wrong now.

Actually, we're not told the opposite. We're told the same--we need to reduce carbon emissions. The result is different.