|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
In general I don't have an opinion because I need more information to be well informed.
Things that jump out:
The co-litigator campaign contributions is a good example for why government power should be restrained.
I'm a fan of making the head of the EPA somebody who doesn't like the EPA. I'd prefer the agency not exist and an Amendment to the Constitution declaring that the federal government is prohibited from operating within that space (adding to our rights).
This makes me think you are not a rational actor in thought, and are only in it for the LOLs. You have an agency which, cumbersome or not, is in charge of protecting the environment yet you want to put in charge of that agency someone who actually does not give a single fuck about the environment and is actually paid to do so by his contributors.
This does not compute, it does not make actual sense. It is akin to putting John Gotti as the head of the FBI in the 70's/80's.
The single biggest consequence of this rationale is that his contributors which of course happen to be notorious polluters can simply do their normal doing, but now legally. Like Flint, but everywhere. LA Smog, welcome right back in full power. Rivers? Hah! More like fluid trashcans amirite
Without the EPA I cannot trust businesses to suddenly start giving a fuck about the environment because they have shown to not do so unless it is firmly in their bottom line, like some eco conscious outlet. And waiting for the market to a) have the knowledge to choose properly and float to top the businesses they should and b) weed out the polluters before they completely destroy the environment is in my vie a completely inefficient and ineffective way of doing things
|
Reply With Quote
