By on July 6, 2018

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, who spearheaded the Trump administration’s initiative to roll back Obama-era fuel economy standards for light vehicles, has resigned. Even after assuming the position, Pruitt remained a tough sell as head of the EPA. His stance on climate change was uncharacteristic of any modern-day environmentalist and he seemed utterly bent on corporate deregulation to bolster profits and stimulate the economy.

Then came a flurry of scandals stemming from frivolous spending habits, improper use of authority, and possible business ties that would inhibit his ability to act in an unbiased manner. Numerous federal investigations were launched into these matters.

While a number of the impropriety claims came from political opponents actively hunting for gaps in his armor, let’s face it, Pruitt hasn’t been making things particularly difficult for them. 

His rental of a bedroom in a condominium located in an expensive area of Washington D.C. — owned by the wife of lobbyist — for $50 a night for several months was as strange as it was suspicious. But it was his alleged office habits that were the most damning. Pruitt reportedly had staff running personal errands for him, doing things like investigating real estate opportunities or helping him pursue a Chick-fil-A franchise. He also spent quite a bit of money on a private phone booth at the EPA and racked up huge bills by flying in first- and business-class seats as frequently as possible — even for extremely short trips.

EPA officials said the decision to fly first class was necessary because Pruitt had become recognizable due to widespread media coverage and was being subjected to vulgar language and aggressive behavior from the public. The agency head had even received death threats at his home. His security team claimed isolating him was best solution to the problem.

“If he’s surrounded by other members of the public or it’s a threat, their job is to push him and pull him away from those threats,” Henry Barnet , the director of EPA’s Office of Criminal Enforcement, said in a February interview with Bloomberg. “That’s why it is imperative to keep him away from the individuals so they can keep him safe.”

General support of Pruitt was already waning in the lead-up to various House subcommittees on Capitol Hill earlier this year — where he was accused of being irresponsible with money and no protector of the environment. While some of the charges against him were indefensible, he did have a rebuttal for the fuel economy rollback. It’s been his assertion that the burden to maintain the existing efficiency mandates on automobiles weighs heavy on the industry and is largely unrealistic.

Automakers may be able to squeak by, enduring moderate financial penalties in the coming years, but he feels that consumers won’t respond to more fuel efficient vehicles. This is debatable, especially if the industry has to offer them, but there’s evidence to support his claim. The practical efficiency of new vehicles hasn’t gone up in several years when you account for American buying habits. People are selecting heavier automobiles and not placing a strong emphasis on efficiency.

Be that as it may, Pruitt’s deregulation crusade still caused quite a bit of negative publicity. Some of his decisions have no rebuttal that doesn’t revolve around claims that the EPA has gotten overzealous in recent years — something which began when he was Oklahoma’s attorney general. But a lot of Pruitt’s decisions just look like he’s doing businesses that want to pollute a series of large favors.

Several aides and communications officers quit the EPA this year while the Democrats clamored for his resignation. Even some Republican lawmakers have stopped defending him from criticism. Meanwhile, the EPA’s own Science Advisory Board said the agency was ignoring its own research to rationalize its push to deregulate.

President Donald Trump announced in a tweet on Thursday that he had officially accepted Pruitt’s resignation. “Within the Agency Scott has done an outstanding job and I will always be thankful to him for this,” Trump said.

Andrew Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the coal industry, will take over the agency as acting administrator on Monday. While his agenda is likely to be similar to that of Pruitt, most expect him to take a more moderate stance and not push quite so hard for widespread deregulation.

[Image: Lorie Shaull/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0)]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

208 Comments on “Endless Pressure and Public Scandal Leads to Pruitt’s Resignation as EPA Head...”


  • avatar
    Sub-600

    Pruitt had no respect for the rules and should have gone long ago. However, his rollback of regulations that were strangling growth was a much needed shot in the arm for the economy. His restraint when faced with mouth breathing imbeciles who berated him in public places was nothing short of incredible. Hopefully his interim replacement will continue the rollback of bad policies.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      What policies did he roll back specifically that were hurting businesses, and how does that list compare to the foolish decisions made?

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      That you feel his selection doesn’t reflect poorly on his boss is nothing short of incredible. The man was a corrupt embarrassment, he deserved all the berating in public he received.

      Thirteen federal investigations into his conduct. The “mouth breathing imbeciles” are the ones who stood by him this whole time.

  • avatar
    Rick T.

    They wanted to light him up from the get go but he surely helped with the kindling. A shame.

  • avatar
    OneAlpha

    Couple of points.

    1 – Why should the head of the EPA be an environmentalist, or sympathetic to the environmental agenda, as many suggest?

    Shouldn’t the head of a Federal regulatory agency properly by unbiased and neutral?

    2 – It wasn’t “the public” that forced Pruitt out, it was a small, loud group of professional protesters and leftist zealots.

    The public doesn’t issue death threats to public officials – only social radicals do.

    3 – Why are environmental regulations always assumed to be benign, or commonsense, or necessary, and that industry and the economy can simply absorb their costs with nary a hiccup?

    It’s already becoming very difficult to build affordable cars that meet these standards.

    4 – Why is it an article of faith that said environmental regulations SHOULD always continue to get tighter?

    If the point of environmental laws is to ensure an unpolluted environment, then there’s a finish line somewhere. Especially when the economic aspects are taken into account. You can’t just tighten the noose forever without car companies and power plants eventually crying “uncle” – unless that’s the point.

    5 – Why is it that when some environmentalist is appointed to lead the EPA, we never hear about how that person is “a former tree-spiker” or “formerly affiliated with Greenpeace” or anything like that?

    Don’t we have a right to know if the individual in charge of a Federal agency with police powers has any animosity toward those industries they’ll be in charge of regulating?

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      +1; excellent comments.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      “Shouldn’t the head of a Federal regulatory agency properly by unbiased and neutral?”

      no, because most people (like you) define “unbiased” as “agrees with my beliefs.”

      • 0 avatar
        Matt Posky

        And there is the core issue.

        Whether or not you agree with Pruitt’s actions is largely inconsequential. He seems to have failed to play the game in a way that would avoid a political backlash. The opposition made enough noise to oust him and he made it relatively easy for them. However, he did get the ball rolling on a load of initiatives for the current administration. Whether or not he’s corrupted by his business ties or simply thought the old EPA had gone too far with regulations, he still made moves that will continue to progress after his successor takes over.

        As for an EPA administrator being unbiased and neutral, we’ll let you know if that ever happens. But we’re not going to hold out breath. Appointments always seem to fall on one side of the fence or the other based on who is in office.

        Good comments.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Interesting thought. So do all of you that share the belief that the EPA must be headed by a modern environmentalist share the belief that only strict constructionist judges who Revere the Constitution shod be appointed to the Supreme Court? You folks must’ve she’d tears when Scalia passed, huh?

    • 0 avatar
      Frylock350

      On point 3. That is the objective of many of these far left idiots. They’d love to see private vehicle ownership become prohibitively expensive such that the average citizen can’t afford it. We can all live in a mass transit and cycling utopia free from evil F150s!!!!

    • 0 avatar
      srh

      I agree with some of what you say. I’m a libertarian who, generally, looks askance at government regulation, including much of the EPA regulation. So I’m totally with you on #1, #3, and #4.

      However, regarding #5, can you please name this alleged former head of the EPA who spiked trees? That’s a brash accusation to make if there is no support.

      And regarding #1 there is plenty of evidence that shows Pruitt’s denial of the accepted science behind climate change.

      #2… Pruitt was forced out due to his own endless scandals.

    • 0 avatar
      lne937s

      1. The job of the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect the environment. They have to be pro-environment to do their job. Just like law enforcement needs to be pro-enforcement. Judges are supposed to be neutral.

      2. I think there is a large population who have issues with rampant corruption

      3. Not everyone always assumes that. Regulations are under regular review.

      4. They keep getting tighter as population grows and the impact of more people becomes more noticeable and environmental hazards become better understood. When carcinogens are identified, people want them out of there drinking water. You could drink a nice glass of DDT and fill your lungs with asbestos, both of which were once thought to be benign but had stricter regs put in place once we understood the impact. And as above, it isn’t “always”, just based on a better understanding of environmental impact.

      5. Political appointees on the left have tended to not be extremists. If they did, the typically Republican congress would never approved them. We don’t have that kind of checks and balances now.

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        937 – 1. Unfortunately the ultimate solution for many environmentalists for protecting the environment is to get rid of humans – after all it is all that mining, farming, manufacturing, and consumption that keeps the environment from being a Garden of Eden before Adam and Eve starting wrecking the place. We couldn’t have someone at the EPA who believes environmental regulations should pass a cost-effectiveness test or any other such non-sense that would continue to allow human activity.

        2. Funny how the rampant corruption only becomes an serious issue requiring resignation when the “corrupt” person is trying to drain the swamp. I don’t recall Hillary Clinton being forced to resign while using the Sec. of State position to solicit contributions to the totally corrupt Clinton Foundation. I don’t recall Obama being forced to resign for using 747s to deliver his wife, kids, and dog to vacations spots a few days before another one delivered him to join them.

        3. Regulations almost never get killed because there is always someone that benefits from keeping them in place including the huge staff of EPA lawyers and paper shufflers who will fight like hell to keep their little kingdom in place and growing.

        4. So we need ever tighter regulations despite the fact that people are living longer than ever, forests are growing, water and air have never been cleaner during industrial times? Does it matter that when a new regulation to take the last .00001% of some pollutant out of the system ends up costing $1,000 or $5,000 to prevent $10 worth of environmental damage?

        5. So the Obama era EPA that asked Environmental Groups to sue the EPA for alleged environmental problems as a mechanism for getting Obama appointed judges to enact environmental regulations that would otherwise not get Congressional support, and punitive damage awards so that taxpayer money could support the Environmental Groups and further EPA lawsuits was not radical? The Obama era EPA that said small ponds and dried up stream beds on private land were under its regulatory jurisdiction was not radical?

        https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/epas-back-room-sue-and-settle-deals-require-reform/article/2530505

        http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/27/epa-grants-itself-power-to-regulate-ponds-ditches-puddles/

        • 0 avatar
          Dave M.

          #2 – LOL. You know the Secret Service determines the travel arrangements of the First Family once a schedule is set, right?

          Obama’s team was Snow White compared to this shitshow.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          Agreed. Excellent points.

          True that “sue and settle” was totally corrupt and directed from the top, but the mainstream media didn’t say a damned thing.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      *** Couple of points.

      1 – Why should the head of the EPA be an environmentalist, or sympathetic to the environmental agenda, as many suggest?
      — Why should the head of the EPA be overtly opposed to any form of environmental control?

      • Shouldn’t the head of a Federal regulatory agency properly by unbiased and neutral?
      — No. Not when it comes to the EPA. We’re supposed to be ending pollution of all kinds, not bringing it back into our environment. You may be enjoying relatively clean air now, but can you remember the smog of just 50 years ago? 60? 70? I am a first-hand victim of all that smog and there are many people in worse health than I am. I had asthma as a pre-teen when people were dying of asthma before they could even retire! The cleaner air helped me live long enough to retire and even comment on these boards!

      2 – It wasn’t “the public” that forced Pruitt out, it was a small, loud group of professional protesters and leftist zealots.
      — It was “the public”. I am not a “professional protestor” OR a “leftist zealot”; I am a registered Republican.

      • The public doesn’t issue death threats to public officials – only social radicals do.
      — Radicals on both sides of the fence, by the way.

      3 – Why are environmental regulations always assumed to be benign, or commonsense, or necessary, and that industry and the economy can simply absorb their costs with nary a hiccup?
      — It’s not that they are assumed the costs can be absorbed; it’s that they pay the cost or shut down! We ARE in a major extinction event, if you want to know. And to the best that we can tell, we humans are part of the problem with all the smoke and other pollutants we have put into the air… and water… and Earth.

      • It’s already becoming very difficult to build affordable cars that meet these standards.
      — Not at all. But the EPA isn’t just about cars now, either.

      4 – Why is it an article of faith that said environmental regulations SHOULD always continue to get tighter?
      — Because we have to at least try to reverse the effects of over 300 years of uncontrolled polluting.

      • If the point of environmental laws is to ensure an unpolluted environment, then there’s a finish line somewhere. Especially when the economic aspects are taken into account. You can’t just tighten the noose forever without car companies and power plants eventually crying “uncle” – unless that’s the point.
      — The finish is when those plants don’t emit anything into the air, earth or water that can harm any one. That also includes their products.

      5 – Why is it that when some environmentalist is appointed to lead the EPA, we never hear about how that person is “a former tree-spiker” or “formerly affiliated with Greenpeace” or anything like that?
      — Can you demonstrate that any one of them was? Meanwhile, we can demonstrate that Pruitt and now his replacement have actively opposed and lobbied against all forms of pollution controls–not just from the last Administration but from the preceding 50 years as well.

      • Don’t we have a right to know if the individual in charge of a Federal agency with police powers has any animosity toward those industries they’ll be in charge of regulating?
      — Yep… and we already KNOW that both Pruitt and his replacement are actively friendly towards the industries they’re in charge of regulating… meaning they’ll permit the disabling of equipment installed for the express purpose of cleaning up their effluvium.

      • 0 avatar
        brn

        Vulpine: “We ARE in a major extinction event, if you want to know. And to the best that we can tell, we humans are part of the problem with all the smoke and other pollutants we have put into the air… and water… and Earth.”

        Make you sound like an extremist, devalues your points.

        OneAlpha may also be an extremist, but the points were made in a relatively neutral manner. Sure, they were leading, but produced some good conversation (like yours).

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Extremist? No. But I’ve seen the effects of 50 years of the EPA and our world is one hell of a lot cleaner now than it was then.

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          brn, we are in a major extinction event. That’s a value-neutral and factual statement.

          http://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/E6089

        • 0 avatar
          Malforus

          brn with all due respect the tracking of species humans have wiped out has been a long standing thing.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Species_made_extinct_by_human_activities
          This page captures it.

          A number of the above animals were wiped out due to habitat destruction by human action.

          I know it sounds really extremist but is factually accurate to call humans an extinction event, in fact it started back in the era of the Roman Empire when European predators were hunted to extinction to supply the games and kill predators for animal husbandry.

          You can support OneAlpha’s points but I suggest that your visceral response and accusations of extremism are rooted in a knee-jerk response that ignores the long history of humanity wiping out species.

          We wiped out the neanderthals as one of our first acts as homo sapiens. Its part of what we are.

      • 0 avatar
        Sub-600

        “We ARE in a major extinction event” Holy hyperbole, Batman!

        • 0 avatar
          Malforus

          Its not hyperbole, in becoming the worldwide apex predator we knocked dozens if not hundreds of species off.

          Humans have done things no animal has ever done, and as a result we hold a unique place in “the natural order” specifically having an almost stranglehold on controlling land and converting it to our needs.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Please show me where either of them have lobied against every single pollution control. You did say all and words have meanings

    • 0 avatar
      mittencuh

      To respond to point 1 – The “P” in “EPA” is “Protection.” If you don’t have at least some sort of passion or expertise in environmentalism I’m not sure it’s the right place for you.

      • 0 avatar
        "scarey"

        Or if you are passionate about eliminating oppressive regulations that have been slipped in place by the unelected bureaucracy over the last 45 to 50 years. New EPA regulations are not voted on by congress, they are just written, and after some opportunities for public comment, most go into effect after 90 days with little or no congressional oversight. They are similar to OSHA regulations in that way. When I worked in a factory once, I worked next to one of my neighbors. We had to wear hearing protection, even though my neighbor was deaf. There was no allowance made for individual differences, the supervisor had tried to exempt him, but it would have taken almost an act of Congress, he said.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “When I worked in a factory once, I worked next to one of my neighbors. We had to wear hearing protection, even though my neighbor was deaf.”

          oh wow, that is SOOOOOOOOO oppressive. Amazing that he survived such torture.

          @[email protected]

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “When I worked in a factory once, I worked next to one of my neighbors. We had to wear hearing protection, even though my neighbor was deaf.”

            Someone doesn’t understand how the ear works.

            What caused the deafness?

            There are other structures in the ear sensitive to damage.
            How about the inner ear and vertigo?
            Ear drum?

            On a busy factory floor, how is one going to be able to tell the difference between a deaf worker and one who can hear?

            Dumb also means an inability to speak.

    • 0 avatar
      Malforus

      1. There is a large amount of cognitive dissonance to say unbiased and neutral qualifies for a man who has espoused the belief that the EPA shouldn’t exist.
      Those are very different viewpoints and there is a gulf in between them.
      Its fine to not share the groupthink but the man said from the outset he was trying to dismantle the EPA
      https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/29/16684952/epa-scott-pruitt-director-regulations

      2. Pruitt was also forced out for having continual spending aberrations in his operation of his duty:https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/06/politics/scott-pruitt-controversies-list/index.html
      The man literally built a room in his offices without any of the authorization he was required to have…and it didn’t work. It wasn’t just “leftist death threats” he mishandled money and was caught lying multiple times about his work.

      3. No one said they were benign or commonsense. Or that industry is unaffected. That’s a straw man argument. The EPA has regulations to prevent long lasting damage that can not be reversed easily. If you are an economic scholar the term “Externality” is at work here. Where an entity causes damage that is not “priced in” to the product they produce.
      We are on a car blog but most EPA regulation is about proper disposal of waste or managing dangerous emissions.
      For example the EPA’s work at curbing slider trucks and how port short haul trucks were shown to cause massive respiratory damages to communities. The truckers were causing medical costs to the communities but did not bear the cost of re-mediating the damage.
      https://planning.lacity.org/eir/ForestLawnMemPrk-HlwdHillsMP/DEIR/files/IV.B-1%20%20Air%20Quality-AQ.pdf
      If you break something you should pay to fix it, and the EPA is the organization that deals with pollution of that type.

      4. Because they are already a compromise that won’t fully address the problem and an actual solution is the cession of carbon concentration in the atmosphere? I mean this whole situation is begging a question but ignoring the long held and confirmed view that human carbon output is accelerating changes in the world’s weather patterns.
      I presume you are talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy
      It was always a ramping regulation, made in an era (another externality) that saw the use of leaded fuel…something that manufacturers did to raise octane but had horrible health impacts.
      Do you remember leaded gas? That was the health side of CAFE, the other side was the strategic risk to the country of being dependent on non-allies for petroleum. Again history plays a huge roll.

      5. Show me one EPA head that was a tree spiker or affiliated with Greenpeace (when they had a paramilitary arm, something they got rid of).
      Seriously that is a hanging accusation that is asserting that there is a pass for violent action against the government. Please enlighten me.

      Look You asserted lots of stuff but it seems like you haven’t looked into those points. I respectfully ask you to review my counterpoints and not see these as an attack at you but rather your assertions.

      Especially since there has been so many incidents of companies rendering areas unlivable due to their waste habits.

    • 0 avatar
      tonycd

      “1 – Why should the head of the EPA be an environmentalist, or sympathetic to the environmental agenda, as many suggest?

      Shouldn’t the head of a Federal regulatory agency properly by unbiased and neutral?”

      The reason the head of the EPA should be sympathetic to the environment (or as you put it for some reason, the environmental “agenda” – is breathable air a partisan issue now?) is simple:

      “EPA” stands for “Environmental Protection Agency.” Quite simply, sympathy for the environment is the EPA director’s job description.

      The EPA was created in the wake of the game-changing bestselling book Silent Spring, which awakened the American public’s consciousness about the destruction of our environment for profit. It was intended as the government’s response to private industry’s ongoing destruction of the air, water and planet all our lives depend on. It was never intended as a neutral agent weighing our well-being against the profits of multinational corporations and carefully limiting its advocacy so that protecting us all didn’t cost any money – there are plenty of other entities, including the Commerce Department, for that.

      As you read this, pollution-caused climate change is continuing to raise ocean levels faster than expected by melting the polar icecaps. By two years from now, nearly 50% of Americans are expected to live directly on a shoreline. That half of your fellow citizens eventually will be either frequently flooded, slammed by the ever-increasing severity of tropical storms, and/or submerged entirely and forced to move.

      In case this is the only fact that impresses you, incidentally, that will also be bad for business.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Heaven has another angel.
    :’ (

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      And his net worth is increasing!

    • 0 avatar
      "scarey"

      “Every time a bell rings, an Angel gets his wings.”

      • 0 avatar
        Sub-600

        Every time I start my Hemi, God kills a Prius.

        • 0 avatar
          Luke42

          @sub-600:
          “Every time I start my Hemi, God kills a Prius.”

          Our 2004 Prius was a cockroach, maintenencewise.

          The only reason I’m not still driving it is that it was rear ended by a Silverado while I was stopped at a stop light (the driver at fault was texting). The Silverado’s bumper was about the same height as my taillights. Why even have bumpers, if they don’t line up?!?

          Anyway, killing a 2nd-gen Prius takes a great deal of patience. Like 250k-miles worth of patience in many cases. Either that or you have to literally run over it with a monster truck. It really is a cockroach.

          We’d still be driving our 2004 Prius, if that guy had looked up from his [email protected] phone.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            sub-600 starts his hemi…

            Silverado smashes into Luke42’s Prius…

            “Every time I start my Hemi, God kills a Prius.”…

            I scratch my head and look up toward the heavens…

            Some stupid bell rings in the background

          • 0 avatar
            WheelMcCoy

            @Lie2Me

            Scratching my head too… I think it’s the Angel Wing effect.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    The ouster of Pruitt was a long time in coming. T-Rump said he would bring in “the best people” and “drain the swamp”. What a joke. Pruitt is the poster child for a swamp creature. His disregard for taxpayer money is only overshadowed by his disregard for the environment. I won’t even get into the used mattress thing…

    OneAlpha, the head of the EPA needn’t be a hardcore environmentalist, but clearly they should not be the enemy of environmental protection. Pruitt is not reviewing regulations with a scientific mind and evaluating whether the regulation actually makes sense, both from an environmental perspective and an economic one. Instead he shuns science and is a shill for the energy industry. Cuts in regulations are being made with an eye toward maximizing profit for industry. Regardless of what one might think of protection the environment, it is pretty safe to say that what Pruitt was doing is not the purpose of the agency he worked to destroy. Evaluating mileage standards to make sure they are realistic makes sense. Purposely cutting the legs out of the renewable energy industry does not. It’s OK though. Americans will just import solar equipment instead of being able to buy American produced ones. Another economic opportunity lost…

  • avatar
    orenwolf

    I’m Canadian so maybe I’m missing the point here, but if you’re going to bring someone into a federal agency who intends to take things in a different direction than predecessors, and is going to have to make a case for that position, shouldn’t you choose someone who isn’t going to use said position for personal gain and favours?

    How much better would this shift at the EPA have gone had the fiscal conservative / deregulation camp have appointed someone focused on the task at hand who would *also show respect for the position and the agency*, and the responsibility it included?

    It’s like someone failed politics 101 here.

    • 0 avatar
      Sub-600

      America is a tough town.

      • 0 avatar
        jkross22

        Not tough enough. Voters need a long hard look in the mirror and need to do some soul searching. Trump and Clinton are the result of voters not only not caring and not voting, but remaining willfully ignorant of issues.

        • 0 avatar
          Sub-600

          My Trump vote was an anti-Clinton vote, even though my vote doesn’t count because I live in NYS, which always goes democrat. I think Trump is doing a good job though. He’s doing what he said he would do, which I find refreshing, he’s representing the people who voted for him. He’s not pursuing some pie in the sky social agenda, telling people how to live, and he’s not worrying about his “legacy”. Like him or not, he’s doing the job he was elected to do, despite what the industrial media complex would have you believe.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “…my vote doesn’t count because I live in NYS, which always goes democrat.”

            You summed up my argument for getting rid of the Electoral College nicely, Sub. People in states that are not in play might as well vote for Alfred E. Newman. That’s as true of you in New York as it would be for me if I were in, say, Oklahoma. And that’s just plain silly.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “You summed up my argument for getting rid of the Electoral College nicely,”

            not necessarily… the Constitution only says that the President and Vice President are directly voted on by Electors chosen by the individual states. It doesn’t say *how* the states must choose their electors; that most states are winner-take-all were their own decisions. Two- Maine and Nebraska- appoint electors based on district.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Good point, but isn’t it just simpler to put the whole thing to a vote, like any other election?

            The problem with the EC is that, as Sub says, it basically disenfranchises anyone who’s in the political minority in a deep-red or deep-blue state. Worse yet, it means that candidates won’t even campaign in states they feel are “safe” for them. That’s all just plainly stupid.

        • 0 avatar
          brn

          jkross22,

          The only way to avoid Trump v. Clinton is to vote in the primary. To vote in the primary, I would need to align myself with one of the teams, er I mean political parties. I won’t do that.

          I didn’t vote for either, but that doesn’t do much good.

          We absolutely need to get over treating politics like a football game. We pick a team and make sure we beat the heck about the other team. It’s about winning, not bettering the country.

          I don’t know how to fix it, but I’m going to be part of the problem.

          • 0 avatar
            carguy67

            “To vote in the primary, I would need to align myself with one of the teams, er I mean political parties. I won’t do that.”

            Not in California. We’ve had open primaries for a couple decades; in fact, we often have two people from the same party–yes, it’s usually Democrats–running in the general election:

            https://cavotes.org/vote/about-elections/types-elections

          • 0 avatar
            brn

            carguy, I learned something today. I just assumed all states were like mine. Turns out I’m wrong.

        • 0 avatar
          "scarey"

          Oh, we care alright…speaking as a Trump voter. and jkross, your knowledge base is way too small. WAY too small.

    • 0 avatar
      a5ehren

      The interim guy is not notably different in any policy area, but is generally considered competent and knows enough to keep his head down.

      Pruitt was an awful pick from any perspective besides “lol gonna own the libs” due to his outspoken nature and general dumbness.

    • 0 avatar
      "scarey"

      Similar to picking a Secretary of State who will not loot and pillage or make foreign governments ‘pay to play’,,,*coughHillarycough*

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        OK, scarey, assuming Clinton was a poor choice, how does someone like Pruitt raise the bar?

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        Sad to say that is more the norm than not. After all, one president that is held in high regard, Ronald Reagan, traded arms for hostages. Interesting that both parties have more in common than one might think; a shame the commonalities are often in things like this…

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      I agree that what Pruitt apparently did is not very smart politics for a swamp drainer, but would the “leaks” of his ethically questionable behavior have been made, and would the mainstream media have publicized his behavior if Pruitt had been following the Obama EPA policies of shutting down carbon sourced energy, mandating and subsidizing renewables, sending taxpayer money to fund environmental groups, etc. I think we know the answer to that question.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    Didn’t work. His replacement is just as bad… if not worse.

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      But less publicity-seeking and scandal-prone and reputed to be far more detail-oriented. He’ll probably go a lot further in terms of advancing an industry-focused agenda than Pruitt ever could simply by not making as many stupid, obvious mistakes (that are unrelated to that agenda), unless Congress changes hands and is able to constrain him.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        The odds of even a Democrat-controlled Congress passing anything is very small and the odds of them being able to get enough votes to override a Trump veto is virtually zero.

        If I was CA or a CARB state I’d also be nervous about taking any potential CAA waiver dispute or CAFE fine case all the way to the current Supreme Court.

        • 0 avatar
          "scarey"

          Oh, maybe they should wait until after Kennedy is replaced with a Constitutionalist and after Ruth Buzzi Ginzburg…ahem… ‘retires’…and is replaced also.

        • 0 avatar
          Astigmatism

          Of course they wouldn’t be able to pass anything that could survive a veto, but Congress has plenty of other powers, including investigative powers and the power of the purse. That doesn’t mean that a Democratic Congress could change the course of the EPA, but a divided government certainly can slow things down.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “That doesn’t mean that a Democratic Congress could change the course of the EPA, but a divided government certainly can slow things down.”

            but remember, it’ll be a criminal act if the Democrats do it. it’s A-OK when the Republicans threaten/force shutdowns all the time.

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        @ Astigmatism

        Pruitt knew who was rotten at the EPA because he battled them for 8 years of the Obama administration. He probably fulfilled his purpose.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          Pruitt was one of the best EPA administrators in the history of the metastasizing EPA. You don’t have to be pro-government or anti-business in order to be “pro-environment.” The wealthier the nation, the more care for the environment.

          Hopefully, the left is correct and Pruitt’s successor will be even better than he was.

          Ideally, government officials are not corrupt at all, but until that day comes, I prefer his corruption to the last administration’s “sue and settle” corruption of the EPA (and, not incidentally, the corruption of the FBI and the DOJ and the IRS and the State Department, etc…)

          Maybe the new guy will be Pruitt without the problems. That would be ideal.

          • 0 avatar
            Astigmatism

            The word “corruption” does not actually mean “doing one’s job in a manner that I disagree with.”

    • 0 avatar
      Land Ark

      After my wife told me Pruitt was out, I responded with “Hooray! The devil you know is gone.”

      They may look back and realize one guy who was so embroiled in scandal not being able to get anything accomplished was better than a guy who quietly got things through.

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    Captain Planet and Gaia will come to the rescue, just as soon as their Nissan Leaf finishes charging.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    “My father values talent. He recognizes real knowledge and skill when he finds it… He hires the best person for the job… period. “

    – Ivanka Trump at the 2016 Republican convention

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Yep, Stormy Daniels has talent…

      BTW, this story was not posted here with much of a tie to automotive interests…but they knew it would result in a flurry of clicks…

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      The problem Trump faced is that many potential nominees for agency leadership with the desired stature, ethics, and ability didn’t want to work in a Trump administration. Their liberal and/or never Trump friends will disown them (see Dershowitz), they and their family will be terrorized by “resistance” (see Pruitt death threats, and Sanders Red Hen incident), their entire lives will be investigated with a fine tooth comb by FBI looking for something to get Trump on (see newly released FBI e-mails). Why would anyone successful and talented want to put up with that?

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        There’s reaching, and there’s comical, imaginative reaching. This post was the latter.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        Which Red Hen incident? The one where the President’s hired liar was simply asked to leave the establishment? Or the one where Trump supporters are attacking the wrong Red Hen restaurants online and even issuing death threats?

        https://www.cbsnews.com/news/red-hens-everywhere-feel-ramifications-of-sanders-incident/

        • 0 avatar
          stingray65

          Which chicken came first? The second wouldn’t happen if the first act of incivility hadn’t occurred.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “Which chicken came first? The second wouldn’t happen if the first act of incivility hadn’t occurred.”

            3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

            4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?

            5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

            Matthew 7:3-5.

            The bald-faced hypocrisy is staggering. When Trump does it it’s just “telling it like it is” but if someone else does it’s terrible because of the “incivility.”

            Our President, throughout his campaign normalized incivility. Whining about it now just makes you look as disingenuous as you are.

            it’s not arson if I don’t put out a fire you started.

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            I wasn’t aware that Trump ever verbally or physically attacked someone trying to have a meal or watch a movie in public – apparently the media missed covering those events. I also wasn’t aware that Trump ever ordered anyone to vacate a place of business (unless they were in the country illegally), but the media must of missed those stories as well. And of course if a boss does something that some of the public doesn’t like – it certainly gives you the right to be uncivil to all the employees of that person – I mean that is how a polite society operates isn’t it?

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            sea lion.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “Which chicken came first?”

            The rooster!

            The hen can fend for themselves…..

            Or urinate on the bed if that turns on the rooster.

          • 0 avatar
            el scotto

            Sarah Huckabee Sanders, or why they shouldn’t serve hard liquor in Arkansas.

        • 0 avatar
          "scarey"

          The one where the President’s spokesman was asked to leave the restaurant by the manager, who then follow the party to ANOTHER restaurant and heckled her there.
          Arrogant self-righteous POS F-ers like that should be charged with stalking at a very minimum.
          The days when we will silently watch and let our friends be attacked without any response ARE OVER.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            Scarey, it’s sad you feel so victimized. It’s funny, too.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/huckabee-sanders-red-hen-protest/

            You read too much fake news.

            You also sound like you’re about to make vague threats of violence (again) against people who won’t stay quiet and toe the line. But what choice do you have, people just WON’T STOP exercising their free speech and these POS F-ers need to understand that the time for that is OVER in America.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    “His stance on climate change was uncharacteristic of any modern-day environmentalist and he seemed utterly bent on corporate deregulation to bolster profits and stimulate the economy”

    That’s a charming way of saying “His stance on climate change was uncharacteristic of the preponderance of scientific evidence and he seemed utterly bent on being a shameless industry shill and lining his pockets while defecating wildly upon his position as a public servant”

    Interesting interview with Christine Todd Whitman, W. Bush’s EPA head, on how terrible this man’s leadership of the agency was. Demonstrates to me what an extremist administration this is.

    And now a true old school swamp creature will step in. Wheeler’s a long-time coal lobbyist, he’ll be more effective at moving Trump’s agenda forward because as a Washington insider he knows how the place works. His type was supposedly going to be evicted when the swamp was drained, but we’ve heard that one before.

    • 0 avatar
      "scarey"

      Your ‘scientific evidence’ is unfortunately a result of consensus and not theories put to the test. Global Warming was a hoax, so they now tilt at Climate Change, which although nothing new, does HAVE THE ADVANTAGE of covering every eventuality from Mass Coronal Ejections to blizzards, thick fog, hailstones, heat waves, monsoons, droughts, freezing rain, and back to mild breezes or any other condition that may present itself. And since no time frame is mentioned or even implied, who can deny that the Climate is always Changing.
      But to be more specific, temperatures have not risen cosistently for about 20 years, and are just as likely to fall as to rise.
      Actually, the Earth’s ecosystem seems to self-correct quite nicely, i.e. when a volcano such as Krakatoa erupts and spews hot ash and gases into the sky, the ash blocks the sun and the temperature recedes to its previous temp. Of course, I was taught that in school, BEFORE science and education as a whole was politicized like it is today. I think that Our Creator did a fantastic job making the Earth a very habitable place for His creatures to live.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        “But to be more specific, temperatures have not risen cosistently for about 20 years, and are just as likely to fall as to rise.”

        — And right there is where the argument falls flat—because that temporary stabilization is due at least in part to melting glaciers adding cold water to the oceans, helping to moderate their temperature. Remember, 20 years is not even a tick in the geological clock; temperatures HAVE resumed their rise, whether you want to admit it or not. The last four years have sequentially been the hottest years on record, on a global basis.

        Note also that your “self correction” by volcanos only works for a couple of years–the Krakatoa eruption created a single “year without a summer”, which is hardly a climactic event, merely a weather one. We would need hundreds of years of Krakatoas to properly reverse human events…which would probably also create a human die-off event due to lack of food.

        Yes, God made this planet a very habitable event; but mankind has finally managed to copy the same extinction effects as previous geological events. Do not be surprised if we see another asteroid event do to use what the previous one did to the dinosaurs.

        And yes, the “scientific evidence” IS a result of theories put to the test; some of those “theories” were proven by our ancestors who created greenhouses to grow vegetables and flowers even during the winter seasons. Well, guess what… we’re growing vegetables and flowers in places they never used to be ABLE to grow, without the need of greenhouses.

        Deny it all you want; the rate of change alone demonstrates that humans have had an effect. It’s just a matter of time, now.

        • 0 avatar
          stingray65

          Even if you believe all the human caused climate change predictions – which have been wrong for 20+ years now, you face the impossible task of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80%. All that requires is asking the 5 billion poor people on the planet to continue to be poor, and the 2 billion wealthy people to adopt a pre-industrial age carbon footprint. Meanwhile, the Al Gores of the world are using private jets to fly around the world telling us to change our lightbulbs and turn down the A/C.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @stingray: One thing too many people want to hear is that there is one, simple, panacea capable of doing exactly what you say. That is effectively impossible; it will take many, MANY different things to achieve that effect of which moving away from fossil fuels in any and every way possible will be among the biggest. When you consider that burning ANYTHING adds to Co2 emissions, stopping the intentional burning of fossil fuels could have a major effect on how rapidly our climate is changing.

            And no, those predictions have not been wrong for 20+ years; overall warming has continued, only slowed as the world’s ice packs and glaciers have melted ever faster… to the point that ideas to use icebergs to bring water to desert lands back in the 70s are rapidly becoming impossible as those icebergs and the glaciers that spawned them are nearing extinction themselves. The Antarctic ice shelves are breaking off and breaking up… ice shelves hundreds, if not thousands of years old. What happens when they are gone?

            Oh, mankind may survive… but not as we now know it. Society is already becoming more tribal as things change noticeably within our lifespans. Maybe, someday, we will have a properly global society. But I doubt it. Survival will belong to those who can adapt… if they can survive those who would rather take than work for their survival.

        • 0 avatar
          "scarey"

          @Vulpine—I just saw a piece of the sky fall down outside of my window.
          “properly GLOBAL society” ?- IN A PIG’S EYE !
          I HAVE TWO WORDS FOR YOU AND YOUR KIND. Maybe you can guess what they are.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Everybody gets a chance to see a piece of the ‘sky’ fall, my friend. One such piece caused the final extinction of the dinosaurs. But remember this, Revelations says that the next ultimate test for the righteous will see our Earth burn. Most of us have been assuming an atomic war… or something like it. But that would be a single act of Man, not an act of God.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        “Your ‘scientific evidence’ is unfortunately a result of consensus and not theories put to the test. ”

        unfortunately, you’re too ignorant to know that “Theory” has specific meaning in science. it does not mean “a guess” like the common person uses it.

        https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/2#2

        things don’t become scientific theories unless they HAVE been tested.

        “Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

        The contention that evolution should be taught as a “theory, not as a fact” confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.”

        it’s amazing how the less people know about something, the more eager they are to show it off.

        • 0 avatar
          stingray65

          Wow – I learn something new everyday – science advances by doing random experiments and whatever the experiment finds is a proven theory. Seems most of the academic articles I read are therefore wrong, because so many talk about “theory testing” as if the theory about how something works still needs to be validated. Then they typically set up some experiment or study to see if what the theory predicts actually happens, and if it does the theory is validated. Karl Popper must have also been wrong when he talked about doing studies to falsify theories to determine their limitations, because apparently once we decide a theory is “scientific” it is etched in stone.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “Wow – I learn something new everyday – science advances by doing random experiments and whatever the experiment finds is a proven theory.”

            if that’s what you took away from it, then you didn’t learn a damn thing.

        • 0 avatar
          el scotto

          Science makes their brains hurt.

          • 0 avatar
            Sub-600

            Dr. Bill Nye “The Science Guy” proposes complex ideas that the layman can’t possibly fathom. All you need to know is that it’s settled science.

        • 0 avatar
          el scotto

          I humbly suggest that TTAC adopts the commenting policies of “The Economist. That would take care of many issues at once. The comments ran as usual; the rarely-laid possibly high BMI leaning toward the right types carried on about “Hillary, Obama, Big Government” and other sundry items that show up their Breitbart cheat sheets. When all else fails, continuous commenting and piling on equates “winning” in their narrow minds. The pro-environmentalists actually brought up facts; one even explained scientific theory. Sadly the right leaning types don’t comprehend science or the fact that literate people can use fact checkers. So many places sell tinfoil for their hats. I don’t come here to read comments from guys who have G. Gordon Liddy posters viewable from their beds, and whatever actions that may cause, but to read about cars. Enough is enough Jack.

          • 0 avatar
            WheelMcCoy

            Well said @el scotto.

            What I still can’t understand is why some commenters are so vociferous denying climate change and the like. Exxon Mobil saw it coming in their own research in the 1970s, but at least I understand why they suppressed that report. Similarly, I understand why the Koch brothers are quietly and successfully discouraging mass transit initiatives throughout America. It’s because they are heavily invested in the asphalt and petroleum industries.

            But commenters in a car forum? We come here because of our common love for vehicles. It’s fun to see what’s new, read about rumors, and play armchair CEO. I don’t understand their fierce loyalty to oil companies and wealthy billionaires.

          • 0 avatar
            "scarey"

            “Dr.Bill Nye, the ‘science guy” is actually, Bill Nye, the Mchanical Engineer. Google it.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “What I still can’t understand is why some commenters are so vociferous denying climate change and the like.”

            because it means they might have to make changes in the way they live, and that’s just not acceptable.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            ““Dr.Bill Nye, the ‘science guy” is actually, Bill Nye, the Mchanical Engineer. Google it.”

            Engineering isn’t science?

            News to me.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “Your ‘scientific evidence’ is unfortunately a result of consensus and not theories put to the test.”

        Yes, I’m sure that anyone who contracts cancer is not going to go with a treatment that is agreed upon by 97% of the medical community.

        Yup…family doctor, surgeon, radiologist, pathologist and oncologist all are in consensus about the fact that you have cancer but HEY, that clinic in Mexico will give you green tea enema’s and feed you chaga mushrooms and cure you!
        Meanwhile at the cellular level….

        Consensus is how science works, scientists etc. look at all of the available data and if the vast majority of them agree that the data is sound,then that is the best course action to follow. “Consensus” is routinely adjusted based upon evidence.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      The earth has been warming since the Ice Age.

      Can I be in your club now?

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @TW5: Go look up the charts that show the RATE of that warming. At no time in Earth’s history that we have been able to discover, has the temperature risen as quickly as it has in the last 300 years. Why would that warming rate be so gradual for thousands of years on end, then suddenly leap upwards not by hundredths of a degree but tenths and even more over the course of a mere 300 years? There is no evidence anywhere that such has happened at this rate ever before and geologists, astronomers, climatologists, biologists… just about every school of science now studied has been able to find any, despite arguments saying, “but it must have happened before!”

        No, not even Antarctic ice cores reading back hundreds of thousands of years… through the last ice age, the warmup before it, the previous ice age, etc., going back through several cycles, has shown any evidence of such a rapid change… EVER.

        • 0 avatar
          TW5

          @ Vulpine

          If you look at the ice core data, the rise of mankind is associated with a lack of climate change, and unusually high average temperatures on earth. If normal climate patterns were to return, humanity would struggle to survive because agricultural production would decline sharply.

          The most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor. Carbon dioxide is a trace greenhouse gas. Only a small percentage of all greenhouse gas is manmade (~5%). The strongest determinant of ground temperature is cloud formation.

          Global warming, as the term is used colloquially, is a political farce. Nothing more. And it is used to redistribute money and economic determinism from the common man to his plutocratic overlords. Nothing is more pathetic than a commoner fueling the pillage.

          Stop falling for it. The real problems are the same as they were in the 80s and 90s. People dumping sewage and industrial waste in the oceans. Forests being leveled for cheap lumber without a replenishment plan. Agricultural diseases spreading to wild creatures and humans. Overfishing. These things aren’t particularly problematic in the developed world so our minds are poisoned for the amusement of bureaucrats.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Climatologists don’t just measure the temperatures on land, they measure it at sea too. They use sensors on the land, on the water and yes, even out in orbit to monitor temperatures, water vapor and nearly every other aspect of our atmosphere. Some areas reach record highs while others touch record lows. Rain floods areas that never flooded before in measured history, others see no rain at all for years and even decades… these are not normal.

            You see, Global Warming, Climate Change, no matter what you WANT to call it, the changes are obvious in other ways. Seasonal storms may come sooner, last longer, be more violent, come more frequently… To be succinct, anything that occurs out of the ordinary… out of the average… has to be studied. For the last several years, the average global temperature has been reaching higher and ever higher off of the historical average… actual, measured, averages over the course now of 300 years. Even if we assume Ben Franklin’s measurements were “average” in his day, temperatures are significantly higher today than then. And just years before that, people could walk across the Thames River in London during winter. Now people are growing grapes for wine in Ireland and Scotland–where it used to be far too cold to do so.

            Don’t look at a single event and say, “No, it isn’t happening.” Look at Earth as a whole and ask yourself, “What was it like here, 300 years ago?” What changed and why?

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @ Vulpine

            No, the changes are not obvious. We have an abundant lack of global climate data prior to the industrial revolution, primarily because we never needed precise measuring instruments.

            Regional anecdotes are not fact, and these anecdotes are selected if not conjured to create an illusory public perception of the past. Worse still, the average person simply allows themselves to be manipulated by the content within the anecdote, without questioning anything. Why is it preferable for humankind to live in a world where the Thames freezes solid, than it is for us to inhabit a world where the gulf stream current makes it possible for Engladers to grow grapes?

            The climate problem is imagined, and, worse, it is imagined for the enrichment and amusement of the people who want to reshape the global economy to increase their personal wealth.

            Tesla’s market cap is similar to that of GM, despite their abundant lack of operating profit, lack of assets, and lack of sales. Do you think that is a coincidence? This is all about money and power, specifically the power to control and change narratives to make servants of the people. Do you understand why Carlos Slim owns the NYT and Jeff Bezos owns WaPo?

            You can do whatever you think is right and necessary to save the environment. That’s what freedom is all about. You cannot force other people to do what you like, and you cannot give regulatory power and public funds to robber barons who reprogram your brain by entertaining you with fanciful tales of apocalypse.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            See? There you go again, making assumptions. Take a bigger view. The whole world around us has its indicators, if you only know what to look for. This is where biology works with geology works with anthropology, etc. We have written records of one form or another dating back over 5000 years and data stores in both rock and ice (and sea bed) dating back hundreds of thousands of years with rock data dating back up to billions of years. And don’t forget what amber has saved for us, along with crystals. Science has learned surprisingly precisely what the Earth’s average temperature stood at during any millennium for a long long time. Even fossil records can tell us the approximate temperature dating back past the age of the dinosaurs.

            The point is that having precise instruments on scene is unnecessary; the data can be found, if it is available and that data IS available. I do not speak of “regional anecdotes”, I speak of data set in stone; geologic eras that can be cross-correlated around the world. And to ignore the fact that the change you just referenced–frozen Thames to northern grapes–occurred over the course of just 300 years just because “why would you want it so cold” only shows WHY mankind is at least part of the problem.

            With the industrial age, we learned how to change the world to meet our wants. We learned how to make things more comfortable for us where we used to adapt to the world. Oh, we could make relatively small changes; we learned how to farm; to bring certain types of plants or food animals together to meet our needs for food and clothing, but when we started collecting in large cities, we started changing the environment itself. Mind you, not yet enough to have a major effect on that environment, but when we discovered coal and oil and using it to power machinery… well, that’s where we are now.

            No, the climate problem is NOT imagined; the proofs are there for anyone to read. I accept that you are questioning them but note that people have been asking, “Why?” ever since mankind became sentient. And others have said, “because,” and simply argued, “that’s the way it is.” Questioning is good. That’s how you learn. When you stop questioning and assume you know everything, that’s when things start going against you.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @TW5:
            “Tesla’s market cap is similar to that of GM, despite their abundant lack of operating profit, lack of assets, and lack of sales. Do you think that is a coincidence?”

            — Here, too, you are taking too small a view. While I agree their stock price is higher than it should be, that market cap is a measure of their value, which includes assets and their potential for as long as they are able to use those assets. GM took over 100 years to get where they are and many of their assets have depreciated over the years. Most of Tesla’s assets are practically brand-new. But this goes far beyond mere assets and financial fundamentals–which are the two factors most used to describe Tesla’s pending dissolution. Again, you have to look at what Tesla is doing to the market itself to see why that market cap is holding at such a high number.

            That’s right, we’re right back to the point that despite Tesla’s small size, they are a wasp in the cockpit of the automotive market. As long as they keep swatting at that wasp, they’re veering all over the road and could end up crashing to their doom. No, I’m not saying they’ll all go bankrupt, what I’m saying is that they’re being forced to adapt or they WILL go bankrupt when their market leaves them.

            Tesla started as a fly–to be ignored because, “there’s no way they can get people to buy a glorified golf cart!” Hey, they should have paid closer attention because Toyota’s “glorified golf cart” showed there was a market for more efficient cars. Add to this more than 30 years of governmental action to force OEMs to improve efficiency–ostensibly to wean the general public off of OPEC’s teat–and we see a problem waiting for a solution. The funny thing was that GM played with that solution for a few years and could have been at the forefront of a paradigm shift… but they chose to abandon it and the only people who know why are the ones who ordered that abandonment.

            No, this is not “all about money and power.” Well, not in Tesla’s case, anyway. Money and power have been fighting Tesla ever since the first Roadster proved a BEV can have as much range as a gasoline car and even greater performance for the dollar. Whomever owns the NYT or WaPo is irrelevant to what Tesla is doing to the automotive market. I don’t read either newspaper and only use them for reference if they have an article addressing one of my commentary points. They are NOT my source of information. Where I can, I use personal observation or the observations of others where it can be found. I listen to keynote speeches by corporate heads, not transcripts of those speeches, which can be altered. I watch or listen live whenever possible, even if I don’t leave my office to do so; that’s the advantage of the internet. Oh, I hear and see all the counter arguments and many do make sense. When I see that, I dig deeper. You could say I’m an information junkie. I learn to be learning; to discover truth where I can. Too many people are hung up on surface perceptions and don’t even try for the truth–they make up their own and try to get others to believe it. Me? I question everything and when sufficient data has been uncovered to verify or debunk a statement, then I take that conclusion as fact until some new evidence comes to hand.

            I’ve seen the changes the EPA has wrought in our American air quality. I was born before air quality became the national issue that forced the creation of the EPA. I’ve seen the improvements made–though I’ve also seen some of the problems caused when the EPA refused building permits on land purchased by an individual or company that didn’t do its own due diligence first. But I’ve also seen the effects of ignoring or revoking EPA edicts in many parts of the country–and you have too, though your viewpoint supported those revocations.

            Has the EPA made mistakes? Yes. But even there I have to wonder WHY they made the mistake. Were they lied to by someone wanting to save a few bucks or did they lack due diligence when planning a project? I don’t know. I probably will never know. But the people crowing about those mistakes don’t know either, yet they use it as proof that the EPA needs to be shut down. Honestly, the EPA has done far more good than harm over the last 40 years. If they do harm now, it’s far more likely to be intentional, which means somebody, somewhere, told them to make a “mistake.”

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @ Vulpine

            The Thames story is known as an anecdote. Your insistence that the anecdote is proof is reckless abandonment of reason, particularly since your justification seems to be a treatise about technological determinism. Mind, you don’t understand that this specious reasoning is the segue through which people make you believe we can control the weather and global climate. We control everything else, don’t we?

            None of what you say is compelling. It is the opposite, like listening to someone talk about the time they saw the Virgin Mary in their breakfast cereal and that’s how they knew they should move to Cincinnati.

            CO2 concentrations have been much higher in the past than they are now. Life was still abundant. In fact, the planet was so warm it was ruled by cold blooded reptiles. What did they do to start the Ice Age? It must have been something because we know Earth doesn’t change on its own.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Try again, TW5. While I’ll grant that you couldn’t walk under the Tower Bridge, only a few miles upstream the water would ice completely across the river and yes, you could walk across, albeit carefully. That few miles still put it within the metropolitan area of London, which was a remarkably spread-out city even in 1700.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “If you look at the ice core data,”

            you don’t know thing #1 about the “ice core data.”

  • avatar
    TW5

    The political pressure narrative is one created entirely in the echo chamber of the media. “Hey look, we got Pruitt. We’re still important!!”.

    It’s more likely that Pruitt went to the EPA with a mission and he achieved his mission. He was either given new tasks that he wasn’t able to perform or he felt it was time to step away. Tillerson did the same.

    The time to fire Pruitt due to public pressure was many months ago. No one was paying much attention to him recently.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    All regulations should pass through a cost-benefit analysis. I wouldn’t cheer every new EPA regulation assuming it’s really necessary, and I wouldn’t suggest no new regulations are ever necessary.

    It should be obvious however that the EPA has a vested interest in issuing continually tighter regulations, lest they lose their high-paying government jobs with nice pensions.

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      Cost-benefit analysis is an excellent way to evaluate proposed regulations, but unfortunately the people that do the cost benefit analysis almost always have a vested interest in generating results that support the regulation. None of the renewable energy regulations/mandates/subsidies pass any reasonable cost-benefit analysis, but the EPA people will leave out things like the costs associated with the need for 100% conventional power backup for when the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing, and they will assume 25-35 years lifespans to recover costs when the actual evidence suggests solar panel and wind-generators lifespans are half that or less, and they will assume little or no costs for maintenance or for grid expansion, and make no adjustments for the jobs lost and energy poverty caused by unreliable expensive renewable energy. If you leave out most of the major costs, assume extremely long lifespans, and make scary predictions on the costs of the environmental calamities you want to stop, then the cost-benefit looks more reasonable, and taxpayers and utility company customers and shareholders are stuck paying for the faulty analysis for the next 15-20 years.

    • 0 avatar
      "scarey"

      All new regulations should pass through a cost-benefit analysis AND be approved by Congress.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        A cost-benefit analysis would be worthless–literally nothing would get done because someone would always cry, “But it’s too EXPENSIVE to do that!”

        But remember this, too: there’s a reason some sites in the US are called “Superfund” sites. They’re called that because the poisoning of the Earth and waters at those sites is so bad that they are quite literally toxic to humans and animals in the area. I, myself, lived for 8 years directly below such a Superfund site and I watched how they had to dig out a creek bed to a ten-foot depth and haul the dirt away in trucks to be sterilized, then the creek bed had to be rebuilt with chemical-resistant fabrics and plastics, covered in stone, more layers of fabrics, more stone, etc. to bring it back up to its normal depth and how the soil toxicity is read every three months to see if there is any more toxic material rising to the surface.

        Why did they do that? The site was supposed to be a legitimate toxic-waste cleansing plant and quite literally they had been dumping the toxic waste directly into the creek, doing absolutely nothing to neutralize the toxins. That creek ultimately flows into the Chesapeake Bay, where people hold great crab bakes every summer and where people were getting poisoned by the crabs they were eating. You see, were it not for the EPA, nobody would even be trying to take care of our environment because, oh, “It’s too expensive!”

        • 0 avatar
          tonycd

          Vulpine, thank you very much for your effort to correct the rampant inaccuracies in this thread.

          Unfortunately, as in so much of American public life today, about one-third of Americans simply don’t want to know. You’ve given them a large amount of accurate information to consider if they want to, and that’s really all you can do.

          Their determined denial will help hasten all of our deaths in coming generations, including their own. But for whatever reason based in the complexities of human psychology, avoiding the upsetting stress of questioning their own assumptions is more important to them right now than anything else – even their own and their children’s survival.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Aye, Tony. Too many Americans today would rather be told what to do rather than think for themselves. It’s a real pity.

  • avatar
    jimmy2x

    It should be noted that the EPA was established by that extremist liberal Richard Nixon.

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      I would argue that the original purpose of the EPA was valid – there were problems with air and water pollution that needed addressing. This was for the most part achieved about 20 years ago, but as with any bureaucracy it is impossible to shut down once in place even when its original purpose is achieved. For example, the 1936 Rural Electrification agency is still in place, even though rural electrification and telephone service was pretty much universal by about 1950. Then there is the 1925 National Helium reserve, which was built to provide a reliable source of Helium for lighter than air airships (i.e. Blimps and Zeppelins), and which is still in place and funded today even though such aircraft stopped being produced in 1936 after the Hindenburg disaster. Then there are the 1965 War on Poverty that still hasn’t been won despite annual spending of $30,000 per poor person per year, the 1977 initiation of the Dept. of Energy that was to lead the US to complete energy independence – nope hasn’t been achieved either, the 1979 initiation of the Dept. of Education that was to lead to better education achievement – test scores have steadily gone downhill ever since. Just because the problem isn’t solved after decades and trillions in spending doesn’t mean the department or agency should be shut down – heck no – what is needed is even more spending, and more experts, and more studies, and more programs….

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        This is it exactly, Stingray. This is the problem that so many cannot see. Government should exist. Limiting it is the problem. The Founders were well aware of this issue. Subsequent generations have lost the wisdom.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        “For example, the 1936 Rural Electrification agency is still in place, even though rural electrification and telephone service was pretty much universal by about 1950.”
        — Yet in 1992 I visited a home that had no power lines leading to it–and it was not an Amish home but one nowhere near supposedly-available power… the nearest power line almost five miles away, in southeastern Tennessee, the Tennessee River itself visible from that home on a mountaintop. A beautiful place, but they relied on a diesel-powered generator to provide electricity for two hours in the morning and three hours at night. There are other areas still lacking utility power that could today be well served by solar with battery storage. So the Rural Electrification Agency still has work to do, even if not as much as they did when formed.

        “Then there is the 1925 National Helium reserve, which was built to provide a reliable source of Helium for lighter than air airships (i.e. Blimps and Zeppelins), and which is still in place and funded today even though such aircraft stopped being produced in 1936 after the Hindenburg disaster.”
        — The Hindenburg disaster was hydrogen, not helium. And helium is still used for airships with new designs undergoing testing even today for relatively heavy-lift purposes. True, most of that now comes from chemical companies like Dupont Industries but the fact is that there is still sufficient need with a potential for greater need arriving shortly.

        Many of those others you name are actively opposed by politicians, not by the general public. The DoE still has a job to perform but that job includes looking for alternative energy sources as traditional ones continue to damage our world (and not just our atmosphere.) The Department of Education needs to work on improving education, not sending us backwards into the obsolete 3Rs of Reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmatic days. Sure, that’s all most people ever use any more but the problem is, many people can’t even do that any more, straight out of High School, thereby lacking the skills they need to have any kind of real future. The problem isn’t that they can’t do the job, they only went about it the wrong way. Using testing to determine the level of education simply means ‘teaching to the test’ and ignoring the thought processes needed to arrive at the proper answer. Education is meant to teach people how to THINK… and it is something the education system as we now know it fails to do. Rote memorization is not thought. That’s why nearly everybody else exceeds American educational levels. Yes, I agree that the Education department is partially at fault but the fault lies not exclusively with them but rather with those who set the policies for Education to follow.

        The pitiful part of that is how we as a society have gone backwards, not forwards, over the last 30 years or so. We’ve become so dependent on our gadgets that we no longer seem to know HOW to think for ourselves–we let somebody else do it for us… telling us what to buy, who to vote for, etc. How many of you actually study a subject before commenting on it? Even if you don’t agree with me, do you know WHY you don’t agree with me? Or do you disagree because to agree means you have to think?

        • 0 avatar
          stingray65

          Vulpine – this comment was put in the wrong place due to a server problem, but it addresses your global warming comment above.
          Perhaps you are not aware that it is an active volcano under Antarctica that is melting the ice – or do you believe the Volcano is also man-made? Perhaps you are also unaware that most of Antarctica is actually getting thicker ice-cover and it is only the small part near the volcano that is melting? Warming hasn’t continued at all over the past 20 years according to the only reliable temperature readings (from space), but all the climate models predict that significant warming should have happened because global greenhouse gas emissions have risen considerably during that time. But even if you want to believe the world is ending soon – can I assume you are doing your part by living in a cave, eating local bugs and grass, and about to commit suicide to minimize your contribution to its destruction (also don’t forget to disconnect your Internet – those servers take a lot of juice)?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @stingray: This is what I found on that volcano you say is causing the problem:

            “A newly discovered volcano found buried beneath a thick layer of ice in Antarctica could speed up ice loss and raise global sea levels when it erupts, scientists say.” —- https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/131118-antarctica-volcano-earthquakes-erupt-sea-level-rise-science/

            Note the words, “when it erupts.” This means that as of 2013 it hasn’t erupted so in itself it cannot be causing what you claim. Moreover…

            “Antarctica has lost 3 trillion tons of ice in the past 25 years, and that ice loss has accelerated rapidly over the last five years.” —- https://www.livescience.com/62811-antarctica-3-trillion-tons-ice-lost.html

            This site is nowhere near that volcano you mention so cannot be affected by it. So, explain that away.

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            Vulpine – according to the same source – the Volcano is where the melting is most severe – and given they just discovered the volcano is active they have no idea how often or how recent that volcano or others have spouted off;

            https://www.livescience.com/62924-volcanic-heat-under-antarctica-glacier.html

            On the other side of the Antarctic the ice does seem to be accumulating – although it is in dispute by scientists whose funding depends on disaster.

            https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151103-antarctic-ice-growing-shrinking-glaciers-climate-change/

            But one recent expedition of global warmists had the embarrassing situation of getting stuck in ice that was supposed to be melting:

            https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Global-warming-researcher-gets-stuck-in-ice-5102720.php

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            @stingray: Well, that’s definitely a factor, now isn’t it? But that doesn’t explain all the other glaciers NOT on Antarctica, now does it? Or is every glacier sitting on top of an active volcano?

            Hey! Maybe if we can get them all to blow their stacks at the same time and keep blowin’ them for a few dozen years, our world could cool down again. No?

            Anyone want to run up to Yellowstone and drop a nuke into the magma lake beneath it? That should wake it up.

        • 0 avatar
          stingray65

          Vulpine – comment for your government never ends comment:

          So basically you are saying we should indefinitely fund agencies that do NOT accomplish the goals they set out to achieve (i.e. better education results and lower energy prices). You also seem to believe we should continue to fund agencies indefinitely because there might still be one farmhouse without electricity or we might one day want to fly around in blimps?

          Is there any situation that you can envision where you might suggest shutting down an agency?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            I’m saying we should vote in people who actually know what they’re doing, not professional politicians.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            “I’m saying we should vote in people who actually know what they’re doing, not professional politicians.”

            Oh, yes please, where might I find this rare and elusive creature?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Do due diligence. Research the candidates and look at their histories. Are they business people? Teachers? How long have they held office? How have they voted? Not just over the last few months but over their entire career. Just as an example, my own district Representative to the House votes a strict party line… until his seat comes up for re-election… then he votes the way he thinks his constituents want… and even then gets heavy criticism for his vote. He attends Town Halls but interestingly, he tells people how he’s going to vote rather than asking them what THEY want. Telephone Town Halls go even worse, where if someone asks a question counter to his voting record or opposing one of his voting choices, they somehow get disconnected, rather than acknowledging their right to speak up. He’s held that office for over 20 years, BTW, and evidence is high that his opponents have been smeared out of contention to the point where many have withdrawn rather than fight the millions of dollars spent to sling that mud.

            And yes, more than once I have written in a candidate rather than voting for any listed one. Such write-ins have been known to unseat a candidate that thought they had a lock on the seat.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            Perhaps on the local level there are some glimmers of hope before absolute corruption corrupts absolutely, but on a national level voting for president in this last election was the most difficult task where even voting against a candidate offered little consolation

    • 0 avatar
      "scarey"

      @Jimmy2x—You, are a very Deep Thinker. Such a Deep Thinker that you equate “Republican” with “Conservative”. Richard Nixon was not a conservative. Gerald Ford was not a conservative. George Bush41 was not a conservative. George Bush Junior was not a conservative. Donald Trump is not a conservative. Paul Ryan is not a conservative. Mitch McConnell is not a conservative.
      Barry Goldwater was a conservative. Ronald Reagan was a conservative.
      To be more precise, Richard Nixon was a Rockefeller Republican. A liberal Republican. He established diplomatic relations with Red China. He instituted wage and price controls. He took the U.S. off of the Gold Standard, or closed the gold window, if you prefer it to be said that way. None of these were Conservative positions. Deep thinkers like you need to KNOW these things.
      FYI, I am not a conservative either. I support Donald Trump, who is a POPULIST.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “I support Donald Trump, who is a POPULIST.”

        POPULIST -“a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.”

        T-rump isn’t a populist, he is a reality TV celebrity playing to his audience.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Nixon was an extremist liberal. LBJ may have created the Great Society, but Nixon funded it and expanded it (Title IX, X), and he tried to hijack it for the Republican Party, which had not yet become the party of Reagan. He established the EPA to give Californian environmentalism federal primacy over the states that controlled its water and, in some instances, may also have contributed to its air pollution. That’s why CARB becomes a terror organization whenever one of their lackeys or apologists is not installed as the head of the department.

      Nixon was an authoritarian par excellence, and he is the man primarily responsible for dismantling the US industrial complex by defunding the military, NASA, etc. He is also the man partially responsible for the trade deficit with China because he began negotiations with Deng Xiaoping to prevent them from becoming the Soviets billion-man army.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        The Sino-Soviet split occurred before the Nixon Administration took office, therefore any chance of the PLA becoming Soviet cannon fodder was moot before then.

        I’d also point out the Nixon Administration negotiated with Mao/his staff, not Deng Xiaoping who did not assume power until after Mao’s death in 1976 which was also after Nixon resigned.

        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split

  • avatar
    Charliej

    Trump wants to sell US built cars to foreign countries. Foreign countries are still going to insist that cars sold there meet mileage requirements. These mileage requirements are going up just as they were in the US. US cars will not be able to be sold to foreign countries as they do not meet the mileage requirements. So, even if Trump gets tariffs relaxed on US cars they still will not sell overseas.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Even with tariffs gone, those protective EU technical barriers will keep US vehicles, if built to US specs, limited to niche sales in Europe, even “US market” specific Toyotas, Nissans, Hondas, VWs, BMWs, etc.

      But it’s still a good place to start, and a partly open door is better than a no door.

  • avatar
    Trucky McTruckface

    It’s really hard to take the editorial direction of this site seriously when you chide the commenters about “civility” on a Monday and by Friday you’re publishing a blatant piece of Trump clickbait like this that has barely anything to do with cars but everything to do with triggering arguments in the comments.

    Doesn’t matter if you love or hate Trump, Pruitt, the EPA, whatever…it’s pretty much universally agreed that Pruitt’s replacement has zero impact on the direction of EPA policy in the Trump Administration. The only story here is the strong evidence that Pruitt as an administrator displayed a lot of the same Senior Executive Service “swamp” behaviors that Trump and his supporters so detest. Well, that, and left gets to gloat about claiming another Trump scalp for a news cycle. Again, the relevance to cars is a stretch at best.

    Agreeing to disagree about politics has gotten pretty difficult all around these days. The easiest way to avoid ugly arguments amongst people who otherwise enjoy each others company and points of view is to avoid the subject. But yeah, go ahead and posting superfluous Trump stories and whining when the flame wars start.

    Either practice what you preach about encouraging civility or shut up about it.

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      Seconded, thirded, fourthed.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      What was uncivil about this article, precisely? Was it written provocatively, or does the news itself provoke incivility these days?

      If the former, then that’s on the site. If it’s the latter, then that’s on us. And make no mistake – it’s on us, becuase this was a straight news story, presented as news.

      • 0 avatar
        Lockstops

        I understood from Trucky’s post, after having to read it several times, that he (or she) clearly is saying that JB or TTAC are not allowed to write on this subject. It’s not allowed because it might cause (‘trigger’) arguments. I never got the memo about arguments being a horrible thing or wrong, and that comments sections need to be 100% yes-yes-agreement fests…

        Funny, Trucky complains about how it’s not possible ‘to agree to disagree’ and then in the same sentence continues by complaining that it’s stupid to write on this subject and accuses TTAC of ‘complaining when the flame wars start’. He (or she) doesn’t seem to understand that he himself (or she herself) is clearly the one ‘unable to agree to disagree’ and is complaining about flaming which he (or she) is guilty of doing…

      • 0 avatar
        Trucky McTruckface

        Again, it’s barely relevant to cars. Especially since the new EPA stooge is just as the outgoing EPA stooge…nothing changes. And it’s been already beaten to death by the news outlets…it’s not like anybody here is hearing this for the first time. This article serves no purpose but to generate a bunch of clicks from people who like to make noise about politics.

        You expect anonymous posters on the internet to behave like adults and not devolve into shouting matches whenever politics comes up? Not gonna happen. You know d*mn well the news itself provokes incivility these days…just go look at any straight news site that still hosts comments. If TTAC doesn’t like the outcome, either stop posting the stories, start moderating more thoroughly or stop allowing comments altogether. History shows time and again they’ll do none of these things, so enough with their whining.

      • 0 avatar
        Malforus

        When Matt P. waded into the comments to laud the top thread that had a bullet-ted list GOP talking points that lacked any background research.

        Claiming Pruitt was being outed due to his lack of political savvy is like saying a violent, bigoted, naked, drunk got bounced from a bar because he didn’t meet the dress code.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      True, but money is money. Emotions generate conflicts and clicks, but also generate bad feelings. It is a calculated trade-off. It is true this is not much of a story because the new guy will be the same or better than the old guy, but the lefties have their scalp. Let them bask in their victory and let our beloved website make some money. The left can use some solace about now.

  • avatar

    His last act….to allow “Glider Trucks”, which using old diesel engines in new bodies, will allow more emissions than the whole TDI scandal. The idea was to salvage good drivetrains in recent wrecks, but some saw this as “take older engine A, put in brand new body B”, profit….

    There was a cap of 300 per year, which is now gone. So, you can buy a new truck with an older (rebuilt) engine that doesn’t pass current emissions.

    I do think the EPA should balance control and costs, but this one was just a giveaway to a contributor. Yes, a bit cheaper to run the truck, but SO MUCH WINNING. I think oil refineries should have no rules, it’s be cheaper, we can use asbestos again, it’s cheap and a great insulator, and we should just ignore any MTBE plumes under gas stations (Meanwhile, I had to remove an underground oil tank $$$ because it MIGHT have leaked)

    Most regulations exist for an actual reason. I’m still waiting for any changes that assist the middle class….

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Please. The aerodynamic benefits of modern cabs are well documented, and their relationship to aerodynamic devices aft of the cab (skirts, boat tail flaps, etc) cannot be understated. The no glider rule was a handout to industry lobbyists who wanted to force truckers to replace serviceable powertrains. Naturally, the addition cost of a new powertrain, was reducing the number of people who could afford a glider. Good was turned into the enemy of great.

      The righteous indignation expressed by people who can no longer regulate away the prosperity of their middle class neighbors is disturbing.

      • 0 avatar
        Malforus

        You do realize glider’s almost exclusively are short haul trucks right? The entire creation of glider’s was to get around the short haul emissions debacle that LA had. No medium or long haul company wants gliders because they are fuel pigs and they smoke like George Burns after his shows.

        You are just regurgitating nonsense since its not fuel economy that you are getting using a glider its a non-compliant with current emissions loophole. Gliders produce huge amounts of diesel particulates and nox-emissions which were the key component of the emissions regulation.

        A glider is someone slapping a “USDA Top Choice” sticker on a piece of Canner grade meat due to a loophole that says if you put it in new packaging magically its no longer the bottom ranked meat.

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    It’s been 12 years since Al Gore’s sci-fi thriller hit theaters and you still can’t land a tuna off the coast of Nebraska. Al still flies around on private jets. Is his whack-job wife still burning vinyl record albums to keep Satan away? I think those are made from petroleum, not cool. I find it interesting how climate believers thought Al’s film was factual, it was quite a phenomenon. It sort of parallels the way urban youth mistook Brian De Palma’s ‘Scarface’ with a social blueprint. Both films should have had disclaimers.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      Hilarious, Sub!

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      1798 Thomas Malthus – English pastor (thus a science expert) received world-wide acclaim for his prediction that the world will end within a few decades due to overpopulation induced mass starvation.

      1919 David White – chief geologist, United States Geological Survey – predicts: “the peak of oil production will soon be passed, possibly within 3 years.”

      1968 Paul Ehrlich – Stanford biology profess publishes the best seller the “Population Bomb”, which predicts mass-death from starvation of natural resource depletion within 10 years caused by overpopulation and overconsumption.

      1972 Club of Rome – published “Limits to Growth” which uses sophisticated computer modelling to predict mass-death from starvation and natural resource depletion by the end of the century caused by overpopulation and overconsumption.

      1979 Jimmy Carter – US President – in televised speech predicts the total depletion of oil and gas within 10 years.

      1988 James Hansen – NASA scientist – testifies before Congress that runaway global warming is already happening and we have only a very few years to do something about it or we all die.

      2007 Al Gore – former US Senator and Vice-President – wins Oscar and Nobel Prize for Inconvenient Truth – which predicts we will all be dead within a few years from global warming if we don’t stop burning carbon fuels.

      2018 – World population is at all time high, global poverty is at all time low, obesity is the greatest health problem of the poor, global life-expectancy is at an all time high, more proven and recoverable oil and gas reserves than at any point in history, pollution in developed world is at all time post-industrial age low. Yet somehow we keep listening to the doomsayers that predict the world is coming to an end unless we give up all the things that make life worth living.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        All true. It is partly because schools are indoctrination centers. People are ignorant of history.

        • 0 avatar
          Sub-600

          Colleges and universities have become assisted living communities for emotionally arrested children. When these kids are instructed in history it’s either sanitized or nothing more than the beliefs of the tenured professor. Quotas have lowered standards over the years and we’re starting to reap the “rewards”. These kids don’t know what socialism is, yet they are hellbent on achieving it. They make the hippies seem moderate. I only hope they snap out of it like the hippies did and start chasing the almighty buck. Those socialist “values” will vanish if they taste some financial success.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            @Sub-600: ‘Chasing the almighty buck’ is the cause of the problem not the solution. It was the chase for the maximum profit that created corporate takeovers/consolidation, pressures for international free markets and offshoring of production.

            Money has no loyalty and knows no nationality.
            And corporations in search of quarterly profits do not factor in long term costs.

            Remember the Love Canal?
            Or the mercury poisoning that still haunts so many Indigenous communities?

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            Arthur – well I certainly hope you have all your pension funds invested in companies that don’t care about profits.

            As for Love Canal – Pruitt was the first EPA chief in years to actually prioritize cleaning up toxic waste sites using the Super Fund – seems prior EPA heads were more interested in suing coal and oil companies and fining private pond owners to protect bait fish and frogs.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            “Pruitt was the first EPA chief in years to actually prioritize cleaning up toxic waste sites using the Super Fund”

            Oh geeze:

            https://apnews.com/501eaf68d3f54f0eb9a90d3f271670c3/Superfund-work-touted-by-Trump-EPA-was-completed-years-ago

            “President Donald Trump’s proposed 2018 budget seeks to cut the Superfund program by 30 percent, though Congress has not yet approved a budget for the year. Pruitt says he will accomplish more with less money through better management.”

            We’ve seen what passes for “better management” with Pruitt.

            If you are involved in academia as you claim, I hope your work is being checked and rechecked. This kind of willful, intentional cherry-picking and selective analysis (see Gallup poll you ‘analyzed’ earlier) is going to infect your day-to-day if you’re not careful.

      • 0 avatar
        tonycd

        Stingray, of all the dozens of sadly misguided and miseducated things you’ve posted in this thread, I’ll answer just one:

        “2018 – More proven and recoverable oil and gas reserves than at any point in history.”

        Even if true, so what?

        Do you sincerely think oil and gas are being CREATED faster than they’re being used? If they’re being used faster than they’re being created (which they most certainly are), the fact we’re finding new reserves quickly right now is only a temporary fix.

        In the end, this planet is not infinitely large. Its oil and gas reserves are of a limited quantity, even if the exact quantity isn’t known right now. If you think the fact you’ve cited is somehow proof that the earth’s human population will never hit an upper limit in our use of its limited resources, you’re simply not a very logical thinker.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          “If you think the fact you’ve cited is somehow proof that the earth’s human population will never hit an upper limit in our use of its limited resources, you’re simply not a very logical thinker.”

          — Thumbs up on that one, Tony.

        • 0 avatar
          stingray65

          Tony – so why are you on a website devoted to cars if you believe the world is going to run out of oil? Are you one of those Leaf/Tesla owners who they they are saving the world by running on batteries? You can believe whatever horror stories about the environment you want, but I happen to believe markets are better at dealing with possible resource problems that might occur, as opposed to the regulations and mandates of leftist “experts” such as Gore and Obama. We have more oil than ever because high prices gave incentive to find more, and if the supply is ever again constrained I suspect the resulting high prices will lead to new ways of find even more or offer incentive for the discovery of good substitutes.

    • 0 avatar

      By AI Gore you Artificial Intelligence Gore?

      What is Al Gore’s net worth?
      Al Gore’s Net Worth As of 2018: $200 Million.

      Why not to fly on the personal jet?

    • 0 avatar
      "scarey"

      Algore dumped Tipper years ago. Why stay married with so many eco-groupies and environmentalist-wacko babes around to choose from ?

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    Bob Lutz would be a great EPA chief. Drill, baby, drill.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    For those of you who do not remember what it was like prior to pollution controls, here are some pictures from Business Insider magazine, hardly a left wing mag.

    When I was growing up Sudbury Ontario was used as a replica for the moon as the slag heaps were acidic and prevented the growth of anything. Hamilton Harbour was toxic.

    The buildings in most major cities, even in North America were covered in soot.

    During the morning rush hours, you could see the brown haze handing over many cities.

    I worked for a while in a company that manufactured lead based paint and witnessed the damage that it did to the workers.

    You could see the dark smoke emanating from diesel engines.

    Rivers and lakes were reported to catch fire. No fish or wildlife lived in urban rivers like the Don and Humber in Toronto.

    The improvements that we have made in the past 40 years are tremendous. To turn are back and return even partially to the old ways would be idiotic/catastrophic.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-america-before-epa-documerica-2017-10#all-kinds-of-trash-used-to-be-dumped-outside-new-york-city-like-this-car-at-breezy-point-south-of-jamaica-bay-the-epa-helped-institute-regulations-for-how-the-city-disposed-of-trash-to-prevent-dumping-in-the-atlantic-15

    • 0 avatar
      Sub-600

      I live in Syracuse, an aging rust belt city in upstate NY. Onondaga Lake is located here, once the most polluted lake in the U.S., it is now well on the way to recovery. The EPA didn’t dam it off, dredge, and clean it, a private company, Honeywell, did. No tax dollars needed. The EPA is the paramilitary wing of the Democratic Party, I don’t know what this has to do with Canada. The exposure to lead paint explains a few things though. Ontario, asbestos country, nasty stuff. At least Canadians don’t litter, I’ve always respected that.

      • 0 avatar
        Malforus

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onondaga_Lake#Pollution
        Dude….Honeywell did it by order of the US Government.

        Like your anecdote literally is the opposite of what you are asserting because the Department of Environment Conservation is the EPA.

        • 0 avatar
          Sub-600

          If they wanted to merge with Allied (Chemical) Signal, they agreed to clean the lake. It was part of the deal. A tremendous undertaking considering the mercury levels.The government doesn’t “do” anything except national defense and collecting taxes. If the DEC Gestapo was so concerned they’d sue the City of Syracuse for allowing raw sewage to enter the lake every time it rains hard. Nobody will ever swim in there until that is addressed, Syracuse is broke. The government has never offered to lift a finger to fix the antiquated sewers. They have money for immigrants and food stamps though. Yes we can!

          • 0 avatar
            Malforus

            And the merger was only federally approved if remediation was performed to clean the lake.

            That is government pressure to change industry you can ramble about broke as much as you want but the EPA in that case is the only reason that lake had any funding/interest to be cleaned.

          • 0 avatar
            Sub-600

            If the EPA had been around at the beginning of the industrial revolution, we’d still be trading furs. Like most bureaucratic endeavors it became bloated. Once agencies grow it’s almost impossible to get rid of them. Obama militarized the deapartment and, like the rest of his “legacy”, it must be pared back to a reasonable mission. It’s like the USDA making a magician write an emergency plan for his rabbit, in case of a disaster. They need to justify themselves. Climate belief is a perfect excuse for EPA abuses.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “we’d still be trading furs”

            On the subject of furs……

            How many wives has president “grab them by the p***y” gone through?

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      I didn’t know Pruitt was also in charge of Canadian environmental problems – was he also forced to resign from his Canadian position?

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Well for those of you who’ve forgotten what it was like to live during the middle ages, allow me to reference the non-existent journalism industry and humanity’s non-existent notion of existential virtue or human rights.

      The past is irrelevant. All that matters are the incremental improvements were making today. The EPA has hardly shown itself useful in the modern era. It’s become known for shutting down California agriculture, accidentally causing an industrial pollution nightmare in Colorado, impeding energy independence by messing with frackers and offshore drillers, etc.

      The EPA is way out of bounds, and it started in the 90s, when private groups managed to sue non-existent regulatory privileges into the EPA’s regulatory purview by making challenges in the federal court system.

      EPA is a swamp that needs to be drained and turned into something useful again.

    • 0 avatar
      "scarey"

      @UncleArthur—
      Moderated

  • avatar
    Art Vandelay

    At least Bertel Schmitt worked in an actual article about a car from the to time. Sadto say,the site was better back then.

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      Sadder to say that if the Trump bashing global warming zealots get in charge of the EPA and White House their ultimate dream would be to shut down the entire car industry to that the only people who could get a car would be important government officials. Then TTAC would become a historic site talking about the good old days when working class Americans drove around in Hemi Challengers and twin-turbo F-150s.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Pruitt had what was coming to him.

    As for some of the comments and views regarding the EPA vs individual paradigms.

    Some of the comments are down right frightening. I think the climate change deniers dream up much to support placate their fears.

    I see it this way. Climate change is occuring. How to best resolve the problem, well, I don’t know how it can be resolved.

    Like most I’m comfortable with my standard and quality of living and don’t want to see a reduction of it. (This is what drives climate change deniers)

    I think any slowing or change of direction Pruitt made was a waste and detrimental to US technological advance and future US having to import external “environmental IP”.

    The changes by Pruitt will cost America money in exportable tech (via the importation of envirotech), jobs (advanced skilled) a dirtier less eficient America.

    He’s achieved nothing of value, only liability. He’s appeased Trump’s ultra Nationalists with little thought about America’s future.

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      You believe in climate change, but are unwilling to reduce your standard of living to save the planet? So what happens next? Should you worry about something that can’t be changed because even a believer like you isn’t willing to cut back 80% on your carbon footprint? I have no problem if you just want to worry about things, but the danger comes when climate change zealots get in charge of governments and try to shut down the economy by taxing their “brown” enemies and subsidizing their “green” political friends. Where does that end if that still isn’t enough, or most people revolt against the loss of their standard of living and economic freedom? The next step is going to be totalitarianism for our own good – did you know the Nazis were the first “green” party?

      Greenies whine that Pruitt was the “brains” behind Trump’s decision to drop out of the Paris climate agreement, but did you know following it is estimated to cost 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year and by the UN’s own climate model only delay dangerous global warming by 4 years – and that is only if no one cheats – does anyone believe China won’t be cheating?

      https://www.dailywire.com/news/12519/lomborg-paris-climate-accord-wont-change-climate-aaron-bandler

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        stingray,
        I didn’t say I don’t want to reverse climate change.

        I just don’t think there is enough willpower.

        I believe the damage we have done can’t be reversed quick enough. It will take centuries.

        The best we can do is model the most likely changes a build to that future. The money would be better spent (not much money needed). The little we are investing can coninue until we reach a nuetral situation, which is still decades off.

      • 0 avatar
        WheelMcCoy

        @stingray65 –

        Did you know even Rex Tillerson, former Secretary of State and Exxon Mobil magnate, advised Trump not to withdraw from the Paris accords? The accords were actually recommended actions; no country was required to follow it to the letter. There was nothing to cheat at, nothing to game. Instead, it was really an effort to “Be Best.”

        • 0 avatar
          stingray65

          Yes I did know that – lots of multi-millionaires think it is a good idea – for them spending a few thousand a year on higher fuel prices is a small price to pay for moral virtue, but for billions of average people and poor, higher fuel prices mean going without heat or A/C or transport, or using dung and wood for cooking fuel.

  • avatar
    Sub-600

    Lowering other people’s standards is the goal. Some of these whiners have big trucks and sports cars, get rid of ‘em if you “care”. It’s like when these Captain Planet types preach about renewable energy then complain if windmills ruin their aesthetics. It’s about feeling good and controlling others. In reality they wouldn’t know if they’d found a rope or lost a horse. “Madame President” is quietly considering another run, it would seem like the nomination would be a slam dunk. Kamala, Andy, and Corey would drag her so far left though, that she’d make Mondale look strong.

  • avatar

    TTAC needs to stick to cars. Folks either see him as the Devil incarnate and hater of all things dear to them or a benign God fearing man that just gave his all until politics began threatening his family.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    1. There’s a warning label every time you log into a government computer that more or less states that your consent to gov’t monitoring. 1a. The far right/left will either love or hate that info. 2. Everything, repeat EVERYTHING Pruitt typed on his gov’t computer was monitored. 2. Will the EPA Inspector General (IG) do anything with this info? 2a. Will the EPA IG do anything with this info? That’s the next news story. Don’t worry, TTAC will run it.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • FormerFF: In addition to the dealer fee, they also charge the buyer what the county charges them for registration....
  • JimZ: nice 2014 Cherokee.
  • teddyc73: Ugly rear end.
  • SCE to AUX: Agreed on all points. That’s terrible fuel economy on the Kona, and the Tucson is the better value.
  • FormerFF: I had to do one of those last Thanksgiving after my daughter’s flight was canceled. I left the office...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States