Some will, but most won't. A lot of the workers that are pumping toxins in streams, don't live in that area, and don't make the decisions. The owners of the company don't live in that area and could care less about the streams if it is making them money.
I'm not convinced of that. In Oil and gas I agree but they've ignored the rules and HSE standards for years to begin with in the US so that really won't change. Most of your other manufacturers will continue down the course they have set which includes being responsible members of the community. You'll find most of the plant workers do indeed live in the immediate area and while the owners may not the quickest way to sink a company is by making a mess of peoples backyard. They will not want you. Let me tell you, no one in this area is wanting the lead mines back after the huge brownfield site that has been left behind (entire towns ordered to evacuate and be shuttered a few years ago due to ongoing issues). The same thing will happen is coal mines reopen or start dumping toxins into waterways again. Oh some communities will be happy I'm sure but the bulk of them won't be.
We work with many utilities as a supplier and they are all very firm in continuing to exit coal and move to cleaner power. One CEO of a significant utility has told us directly: "Whatever this administration does it doesn't change the fact that climate change is real and at some point their will be carbon taxes and strict regulations. It may not be now or 4 years from now but within a decade there has to be. We will continue to move forward as we would if those things were going to put be immediately put in place."
Then again I work for one of those companies continually listed as one of the most ethical in the world so perhaps I'm brainwashed....
Full scope of budget cuts outlined by WaPo with what is getting cut by each department.
Quote:
On Thursday, the Trump administration released a preliminary 2018 budget proposal, which details many of the changes the president wants to make to the federal government’s spending. The proposal covers only discretionary, not mandatory, spending.
Quote:
To pay for an increase in defense spending, a down payment on the border wall and school voucher programs, among other things, funding was cut from the discretionary budgets of other executive departments and agencies. The Environmental Protection Agency, the State Department and the Agriculture Department took the hardest hits. The proposal also eliminates funding for these 19 agencies.
Cuts are not pretty with some agencies such as ones responsible for arts and culture being cut by 100%
Quote:
In total, the budget proposes to eliminate funding for these 19 agencies:
African Development Foundation
Appalachian Regional Commission
Chemical Safety Board
Corporation for National and Community Service
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Delta Regional Authority
Denali Commission
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Inter-American Foundation
U.S. Trade and Development Agency
Legal Services Corporation
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
Northern Border Regional Commission
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
U.S. Institute of Peace
U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
Well you don't need the State department to spend much if you spend a lot on the military. You basically need a 12 year old crabby teenage girl with an Iphone.
I wonder if the increase to defense spending is a precursor to an exit from NATO and a willingness to go on their own.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Yes, you are brainwashed, you've been listening to the EPA.
Well not really the EPA because they can be annoying in some of what they do (the intent is fantastic) but I have been brainwashed by science and have this weird desire to drink clean water and breathe clean air.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ernie For This Useful Post:
Well not really the EPA because they can be annoying in some of what they do (the intent is fantastic) but I have been brainwashed by science and have this weird desire to drink clean water and breathe clean air.
OK, I wasn't really accusing you of being brainwashed, I was using that as a nice segue to that clip of crazy Jimmy Inhofe, who was head of the EPA.
Anyways, I think maybe your trust of the manufacturing sector policing themselves for pollution etc. may be slightly justified, but I don't think that works at all in the O&G and mining sectors. Why do you think Trump is scrapping all the water protection acts? He's not doing it because he thinks the industries that are in positions to pollute them won't, because it's the right thing to do.
In defense of Trump on these cuts is that one method of effective cost cutting is cut everything and bring back the items that missing causes problems. You have to be careful here as things like the EPA are more long term affects and therefore harder to measure.
However coming in and cutting everything at least is a genuine budget cut over "finding efficiencies" that the right normally trots around. The contraction of government services will cut costs and identify what was needed.
So is it the best way to go about these things? No, but the effects of this will be clearly felt which should get a reaction from voters and in turn change the government going forward. And when the next government / house restores funding and scope to some of these agencies the end result will be improved efficiency and lower cost.
The human cost of these changes suck but it won't be all negative.
In defense of Trump on these cuts is that one method of effective cost cutting is cut everything and bring back the items that missing causes problems. You have to be careful here as things like the EPA are more long term affects and therefore harder to measure.
So, basically, Trump is going full Oiler.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to calf For This Useful Post:
