Image 01 Image 03

EPA bracing for a deluge of Trump executive orders

EPA bracing for a deluge of Trump executive orders

A bill to “terminate” the EPA is now making its way through Congress.

This may be the beginning of the end of one of the most business-crushing entities in the nation.

President Donald Trump is poised to introduce a series of executive actions aimed at scaling back Obama-era climate change initiatives.

The president intends to sign the actions during a visit to the Environmental Protection Agency headquarters to swear in Scott Pruitt as head of the agency, Inside EPA reported Tuesday, citing an administration source. The timing of the event has not been determined because the full Senate has not yet confirmed Pruitt.

The Hill reported on the Inside EPA report on Wednesday. The White House did not immediately return CNBC’s request for comment.

The source did not share the contents of the executive actions, but told Inside EPA they would “suck the air out” of the room.

I suspect the Conservative Carbon Tax will not be among those orders.

There have been accusations of internal leaks (possibly violating federal law) in the wake of the resignation of national security advisor Michael Flynn. Now, officials are concerned that leaks of this nature are also occurring at the EPA.

Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and oversight subcommittee Chairman Darin LaHood (R-Ill.) sent a letter to EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins on Tuesday asking him to investigate “a group of approximately a dozen career EPA officials … using an encrypted messaging application, Signal, to discuss potential strategies against any attempts by newly appointed political officials to redirect the EPA’s priorities.”

The letter cites a Politico report from earlier this month.

“Reportedly, this group of career officials at the EPA are aiming to spread their goals covertly to avoid federal records requirements, while also aiming to circumvent the government’s abilities to monitor their communications,” the GOP lawmakers wrote.

That allegation is more severe than the reporting in the Politico article, which said fewer than a dozen EPA employees are using Signal to discuss what to do if political appointees from the Trump administration undermine the agency’s mission or attempt to delete scientific data the agency has been collecting.

Finally, Florida’s Rep. Matt Gaetz recently introduced H. R. 861, a bill to entirely end the EPA.

The Environmental Protection Agency shall terminate on December 31, 2018.

Given how toxic the agency has been for this country, especially after the Animas River Spill and Flint Water Crisis, there is ample reason to hope President Trump’s pen will be able to ink the measure into law in the near future.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Trump could just put a priority on the EPA fulfilling it’s original/apparent duties before expanding it’s role.
But it looks like the EPA has a problem with the Federal Records Act that needs to be fixed.

    CloseTheFed in reply to Neo. | February 16, 2017 at 12:07 pm

    No, it needs to go, otherwise it will again mushroom out of control when Trump isn’t paying attention, or his successor inflates it.

      Dejectedhead in reply to CloseTheFed. | February 16, 2017 at 12:43 pm

      All agencies have mushroomed. They’re now actively fighting the President to maintain their status quo. The President will need to make sure he gets effective changes through Congress in 2 years before the midterm.

Humphrey's Executor | February 16, 2017 at 12:10 pm

“Terminate, with extreme prejudice.”

The EPA provides oversight of environmental impacts, which is both practical and rational, but only if it operates within the narrow confines of the scientific domain.

The would be a great idea and certainly get around Republicans attempting to hobble the appointment of his man to be the head of the EPA. If there is no EPA then there is no need for a new Head to be confirmed by the Senate! 🙂

It has been readily apparent for quite some time that the EPA lacked guidance, and went looking for something else to do for fun and justification for their existence. Unfortunately, they also dropped the ball on their core responsibilities.

I support the notion of research with respect to our multiple ecosystems (air, land, water). However, this cannot be at the expense of the basics, such as communities in the US carrying unacceptable loads of known pollutants.

There is going to be a lot of screaming about this, from people who are sincerely worried about Climate Change. For them, I would respectfully point out that the last administration and its media helpers were very happy to whip up sentiment, but their allocation of monies did not support the notion that they take Climate Change seriously.

The Solyndra scandal, where an entire sector of the US budget for 2011 looked remarkably like a payoff scheme for its supporters, is a case in point.

Solyndra, explained–explained/2012/06/01/gJQAig2g6U_blog.html

“Nearly $4 billion in federal grants and financing, however, flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers on energy policy, according to a Post examination.”

Venture capitalists play key role in Obama’s Energy Department
By Carol D. Leonnig and Joe Stephens February 14, 2012

Informal list of failed green energy companies Mar 2013

Green Firms Get Fed Cash, Give Execs Bonuses, Fail
March 6, 2012

Fail: US Has Wasted $154 Billion on ‘Renewable Energy’

    ComboverAsMetaphor in reply to Valerie. | February 16, 2017 at 4:55 pm

    Do you having any idea how much the fossil fuel industry was subsidized and helped by the government? Do you think it arrived at its current dominance by accident? Do you think it occurred without corruption. Do you know that prices were manipulated, monopolies were built and pollution was rampant.

    Do you know about the ‘Oil depletion allowance’ and other take breaks that were given to oil producers through 1963. Along with ‘intangible drilling costs’, the oil industry to pay virtually no taxes on hundreds of millions; when million were billions.

    This is just a scratch of the corruption in the oil industry – and both parties supported it.

    Are you aware that prior to 1973 and the creation of OPEC, we subsidized domestic oil production because imported oil was much cheaper. We restricted imports and gave transferable trading credits to inland refineries. The justification was that imported oil was significantly cheaper on the coast and inland refineries couldn’t compete.

    Do you have any idea how oil has shaped foreign policy and of the blood and treasure spent in wars fought for oil? Iran hates use because of our attempts to control their oil – not their religion.

    Oil is a curse in much of the developing world. For instance – Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria to Ecuador. We have had disputes, wars, boycotts and embargoes with virtually all countries that possess large quantities of oil. We have literally gone to war to protect the financial interests of oil companies.

    Yeah, there have been significant bumps in transitioning to renewable resources. Why wouldn’t there be? The numbers you quote are worst case and some are out of context. Some seem to be pulled out of thin air (or out of a part of your anatomy).

    But my major gripe with your mini-article is that you don’t know any history.

      “Oil is a curse in much of the developing world.”

      Hey Baldy, since you’ve never been to any of the “developing world”, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The “curse” is not having natural resources, especially oil and gas.

      Having oil is a curse like having a brain is. So, at least we know you are not cursed.

        ComboverAsMetaphor in reply to Barry. | February 17, 2017 at 1:27 pm

        Nope, not cursed. You have no idea where I have visited.

        You obviously don’t know the Niger Delta or the Ecuadorean Rain Forest. The locals there, received little to none of the revenues, but experienced all of the pollution. Pollution that destroyed their crop land and poisoned their water. Now that is a curse.

        Of yeah – when they rebelled against the corrupt governments that did scarf up all the revenues for their own greedy use, the government used oil revenues to buy the weapons to kill them.

        I know you think this government is corrupt. But if you had ever been to those places you would really have something to gripe about.

      Insufficiently Sensitive in reply to ComboverAsMetaphor. | February 16, 2017 at 10:11 pm

      Do you having any idea how much the fossil fuel industry was subsidized and helped by the government?

      OK, you’re on. Give one example of such a subsidy.

        ComboverAsMetaphor in reply to Insufficiently Sensitive. | February 17, 2017 at 1:49 pm

        1st you need to learn to read. That was an opening rhetorical question followed by 4 paragraphs of examples. But I will provide 2 other examples.

        1. Allowing multi-national oil companies to treat royalties paid to foreign governments as taxes that could be used as dollar for dollar tax credits against their taxes. If you want to claim that preferential tax treatment isn’t a subsidy, then you obvious have never gotten any.

        2. The CIA led Coup that we PAID for that overthrew Mossadegh in Iran. After the coup, the multi-national oil companies got the oil and we subsidized the Shah. If we pay to protect an industry, do you want to claim that is not a subsidy?

        I am not sure why I am bothering. You don’t want to know the facts – it would spoil you ideology. Anyway, if you wish to know any more I suggest you do some reading on the history of oil and its exploitation. Nothing is dirtier than oil – to handle or to deal in. Nothing was more corrupt.

      The purpose of the EPA has been to ensure the failure of private businesses and thereby manufacture poor people who are vulnerable to progressive fascist lies. It provide no significant benefit to the country.

      Furthermore, they are part of the advocates for the unproven theory of global warming which is justification on it’s own to shut them down.

        ComboverAsMetaphor in reply to ConradCA. | February 17, 2017 at 1:53 pm

        Sure. It must be hard to keep track of all those conspiracies. Besides, they are so powerful that you can’t beat them. Are you sure Trump isn’t part of the conspiracy?

      You progressive fascist don’t understand that there are economic laws that can’t be ignored. Alternative energy is economically unfeasible because it is an order of magnitude more expensive than conventional energy.

        ComboverAsMetaphor in reply to ConradCA. | February 17, 2017 at 2:08 pm

        It is ironic that you believe in economic ‘laws’ that can’t be empirically tested or proven, but not scientific theories. Global Warming is certainly something you can ignore for only so long before it smacks you down.

        Isn’t there an economic theory (law) that as a product (such as alternative energy) becomes mature and can be mass produced, the costs go down? BTW, when Oil was 139/Barrel was alternative energy still to expensive. Considering that the cost of fossil fuels fluctuate so much, what is the intrinsic cost? Shouldn’t you establish that before you claim with absolute certainty the relative cost of each?

        As for calling me a ‘progressive fascist’ – well sticks and stones

This is just so darn good! It’s only week 4 of the Trump administration. Wish I could be there when the President signs the EO to rein them in!! 🙂

God speed President Trump

So, apparently we just got a new full time troll.

Dear former EPA employee. Please use recycled cardboard boxes when you clear out your desks and don’t forget to save a tree by applying for unemployment online.

Bye Y’all

EPA complicity in screw-ups like Flint and the Animas certainly count, but the reason the EPA needs to go is because it has been politically weaponized to target industries and locations along ideological lines. Burn it down.