"I wanna poison all of you with chemicals and destroy all real science. I just need enough dumb trolls to do it!"
There are over a hundred reasons I can think of for wanting to see the end of Trump's miserable, regressive, autocratic reign. This despite the fact his Trumpkin zombies, lackeys and trolls have vowed a "civil war" if he isn'r re-elected. (Can we now agree they all need several rounds of ECT?)
But the top reason for Dotard's removal is that his odious administration has diminished the role of science in federal policy making to the extent it borders on the irrelevant. The tactics have included gutting or marginalizing EPA regulations, as I'd written about in previous posts, e.g.
And relentlessly lying on climate change and its impacts, e.g.
The rat-faced maggot Mick Mulvaney, head of OMB, admitted his churlish crimes in videotaped remarks at a Republican Party gala in South Carolina. - when he blabbed (just like he did when he admitted 'quid pro quo' was part of Trumpian policy):
"It’s nearly impossible to fire a federal worker. But by simply saying to people, ‘You know what, we’re going to take you outside the bubble, outside the Beltway, outside this liberal haven of Washington, D.C., and move you out in the real part of the country,’ and they quit. What a wonderful way to sort of streamline government and do what we haven’t been able to do for a long time.”
And relentlessly lying on climate change and its impacts, e.g.
The Trump Administration's Biggest Climate Lies | The Nation
Also halting or disrupting research projects nationwide, as well as relocating two agricultural agencies and their staff to the hinterlands of a red state - instead of D.C. These are vital agencies that fund crop science and study the economics of farming. (Nearly 600 employees had less than four months to decide whether to uproot and move. Most couldn’t or wouldn’t, and two-thirds of those facing transfer left their jobs.)The rat-faced maggot Mick Mulvaney, head of OMB, admitted his churlish crimes in videotaped remarks at a Republican Party gala in South Carolina. - when he blabbed (just like he did when he admitted 'quid pro quo' was part of Trumpian policy):
"It’s nearly impossible to fire a federal worker. But by simply saying to people, ‘You know what, we’re going to take you outside the bubble, outside the Beltway, outside this liberal haven of Washington, D.C., and move you out in the real part of the country,’ and they quit. What a wonderful way to sort of streamline government and do what we haven’t been able to do for a long time.”
Yes, Mick, what a wonderful way for a deplorable rat like you to remove dedicated scientists who'd been working their asses off - not for their own interest, but for farmers in flyover land. An exodus which has led to upheaval.
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture manages $1.7 billion in grants that fund research on issues like food safety or techniques that help farmers improve their productivity. The staff loss, employees say, has held up hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, such as planned research into pests and diseases afflicting grapes, sweet potatoes and fruit trees.
Meanwhile, political appointees have shut down government studies, reduced the influence of scientists over regulatory decisions and in some cases pressured researchers not to speak publicly. The administration has particularly challenged scientific findings related to the environment and public health opposed by industries such as oil drilling and coal mining. It has also impeded research around human-caused climate change (see previous link), which Trump has dismissed despite a global scientific consensus.
To fix ideas, the Economic Research Service, dozens of planned studies into topics like dairy industry consolidation and pesticide use have been delayed or disrupted. According to Laura Dodson, an economist and acting vice president of the union representing agency employees:
“You can name any topic in agriculture and we’ve lost an expert,”
“You can name any topic in agriculture and we’ve lost an expert,”
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture manages $1.7 billion in grants that fund research on issues like food safety or techniques that help farmers improve their productivity. The staff loss, employees say, has held up hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, such as planned research into pests and diseases afflicting grapes, sweet potatoes and fruit trees.
Meanwhile, political appointees have shut down government studies, reduced the influence of scientists over regulatory decisions and in some cases pressured researchers not to speak publicly. The administration has particularly challenged scientific findings related to the environment and public health opposed by industries such as oil drilling and coal mining. It has also impeded research around human-caused climate change (see previous link), which Trump has dismissed despite a global scientific consensus.
But readers should note that the erosion of science reaches well beyond the environment and climate: In San Francisco, a study of the effects of chemicals on pregnant women has stalled after federal funding abruptly ended. In Washington, D.C., a scientific committee that provided expertise in defending against invasive insects has been disbanded.
Industry groups have expressed support for some of the moves, including a contentious E.P.A. proposal to put new constraints on the use of scientific studies in the name of transparency. Perhaps the biggest enabler of cancers of all - the American Chemistry Council- praised the proposal by saying, “The goal of providing more transparency in government and using the best available science in the regulatory process should be ideals we all embrace.”
Translation: "The goal of shutting down scientific studies that expose our multitude of carcinogens is welcome and ought to be embraced by all industry titans and fellow polluters."
This PR agenda includes diminishing the impact of chemical toxins by soft soaping them, e.g
Recall also in one past post I linked to internal documents showing that political officials at the E.P.A. overruled the agency’s career experts on several occasions, including in a move to regulate asbestos more lightly, in a decision not to ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos and in a determination that parts of Wisconsin were in compliance with smog standards. The Interior Department sidelined its own legal and environmental analyses in advancing a proposal to raise the Shasta Dam in California.
This PR agenda includes diminishing the impact of chemical toxins by soft soaping them, e.g
Recall also in one past post I linked to internal documents showing that political officials at the E.P.A. overruled the agency’s career experts on several occasions, including in a move to regulate asbestos more lightly, in a decision not to ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos and in a determination that parts of Wisconsin were in compliance with smog standards. The Interior Department sidelined its own legal and environmental analyses in advancing a proposal to raise the Shasta Dam in California.
No surprise, given this, EPA staffing has fallen to its lowest levels in at least a decade. More than two-thirds of respondents to a survey of federal scientists across 16 agencies said that hiring freezes and departures made it harder to conduct scientific work. And in June, the White House ordered agencies to cut by one-third the number of federal advisory boards that provide technical advice
Betsy Smith, a climate scientist with more than 20 years of experience at the E.P.A. who in 2017 saw her long-running study of the effects of climate change on major ports get canceled.
“Now we feel like the E.P.A. is being run by the fossil fuel industry,” she said. “It feels like a wholesale attack.” After her project was killed, Dr. Smith resigned.
At a time when the United States is pulling back from world leadership in other areas like human rights or diplomatic accords, experts warn that the retreat from science is no less significant. Many of the achievements of the past century that helped make the U. S. an envied global power, including gains in life expectancy, lowered air pollution and increased farm productivity are the result of the kinds of government research now under pressure. In the words of Wendy E. Wagner, a professor of law at the University of Texas at Austin who studies the use of science by policymakers.:
“When we decapitate the government’s ability to use science in a professional way, that increases the risk that we start making bad decisions, that we start missing new public health risks,”
For reference, at the University of California, San Francisco, one such center has been studying how industrial chemicals such as flame retardants in furniture could affect placenta and fetal development. Key aspects of the research have now stopped. E.g.
All of which discloses we need to get rid of this pestilence of an administration as soon as feasible, hopefully by the time of the general election. One hopes the NY Times' David Brooks' forecast will come true: That is, the biggest landslide against a sitting president in American history. One can only hope!
See also:
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/09/794857523/trump-administration-proposes-major-changes-to-bedrock-environmental-law
For reference, at the University of California, San Francisco, one such center has been studying how industrial chemicals such as flame retardants in furniture could affect placenta and fetal development. Key aspects of the research have now stopped. E.g.
All of which discloses we need to get rid of this pestilence of an administration as soon as feasible, hopefully by the time of the general election. One hopes the NY Times' David Brooks' forecast will come true: That is, the biggest landslide against a sitting president in American history. One can only hope!
See also:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/opinion/trump-environment.html
And:https://www.npr.org/2020/01/09/794857523/trump-administration-proposes-major-changes-to-bedrock-environmental-law
No comments:
Post a Comment