If I remember correctly, this was the legislation that was never enacted. Obama et al had worked to put it together but was never enacted and if left alone still would only have come into effect too late to have made any difference in this instance.
So while maybe I should have said my first comment more clearly, it is still true that it was like this before Trump was elected and this would have still happened because there wouldn't have been enough time for it to make any difference.
it is still true that it was like this before Trump was elected and this would have still happened because there wouldn't have been enough time for it to make any difference.
I thought I basically agreed with this in the last comment. Yes, if Obama was somehow still in and no legislation was changed the spills would still have happened. In an ideal world Trump would have strengthened the legislation in time to actually prevent the spills. In the world we have, Obama failed to enact strong enough legislation, and Trump has weakened rather than strengthened that legislation, so we have more toxic spills to look forward to in the future.
That is basically the story of the title: Toxic spills highlight Trump's deregulation of coal plant waste
In an ideal world Trump would have strengthened the legislation in time to actually prevent the spills
But the thing is that there was not enough for when that legislation was to kick in and the changes made. Even if whoever was in office left it alone or even strengthened it, there wouldn't have been enough time between the requirements kicking in and the changes made to prevent this. It still would have happened. Duke would have fought it with everything they had, they would have dragged things out, and it would have still happened.
Now that said, in it's most distilled form, the toxic spills really highlight previously lax legislation. I don't disagree that the changes Trump made will make things worse. But this particular spill, the star of the article, truly highlights previous legislation. In other words, I claim that the article has an anti-Trump bias. Without that bias, it would have not mentioned any politicians at all, yes?
The Obama-era regulation, put in place after several spills including one in North Carolina, wouldn’t prevent coal ash from pouring into the river.
The article even says what I'm saying.
But environmentalists say the Trump administration’s changes will prolong the lives of those toxic waste sites and increase the risk of spills....The Trump EPA’s July overhaul effectively added a year of usable life to some existing coal ash ponds, while also giving utilities and states more flexibility in deciding when they have to be cleaned up. Under the newly updated rule, state regulators can suspend groundwater monitoring requirements for some coal ash disposal sites and are empowered to certify whether the facilities are adequate.
In other words, it moves legislation away from the federal government according to the tenth amendment. I see absolutely no problem with this in practice although it's far more likely that states will be more lax in order to keep companies in place. It is not the job of the federal government to legislate what is really state domain. So, in other words, it's not Trump's fault at all. It's the state's fault, yeah? Because responsibility has moved to the states.
So how does this highlight anything about Trump?
The rules put in place under Obama were too weak, and nobody's surprised that they've become even weaker under Trump. The result for the environment and locals affected when things go wrong is the same.