Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumTeam Trump: 'The Only Good Forest Is A Dead Forest'
The evil genius of the people Donald Trump brought into our government so America could become a polluters paradise is really something to behold.
The latest Team Trump move would turn our national forests into polluter playgrounds. Companies that want to mow down old-growth trees so they can get at pockets of oil, coal or uranium are about to get pretty much everything theyve always dreamed about. And roadless areas are marked for new roads extending miles into wilderness areas.
The way its being done is, in a perverse sort of way, admirably clever.
They call their plan to re-interpret how the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act applies to our national forests streamlining to make government more efficient. Their abuse of language is working, too. Many of the more than 29,000 people and organizations that have filed comments on the proposal embrace the Trumpian language.
They call their plan to re-interpret how the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act applies to our national forests streamlining to make government more efficient
its better described as steamrolling.
Few of the comments I reviewed pushed back on streamlining. The proposal is better described as steamrolling the National Environmental Policy Act, the first federal law to require consideration of Earth and its bounty in governmental decisions.
https://www.dcreport.org/2019/08/15/trump-the-only-good-forest-is-a-dead-forest/
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)They're fucking sock-puppets.
MY DOG I HATE THESE BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!
Democrats_win
(6,539 posts)Do we want to live in a world without forests? Oh, and don't forget the C02-eliminating effects of forests.
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)It is time to replace the elephant with something far more appropriate.
The Society for the Destruction of the Environment and the Death to all Life Foundation, have both endorsed this as a candidate for a new GOP mascot:
sinkingfeeling
(51,469 posts)RealityChik
(382 posts)that ALL but a few comments were in strong opposition to defiling our national forests? And here are 35,000 comments as of Wednesday. So what's with the 29,000 comments in the article? Did I misread the article? Was I somehow blind to the other 28,997 people in favor of burning down our forests? Tell me I'm delusional and I'll go back to puttering around in my garden and stay away from political comments!
RealityChik
(382 posts)This article/issue is so obscure in the press, I only learned of this horrifying lie of an article a few days ago, and only by accident!! I personally went to the regulations.gov website using the link in the article to post my comment of opposition to the trashing of our forests. The comment count is up to 35,200+ now. After not seeing ANY comments in favor of trashing our forests on the first 3-4 pages, I then did sampling a random 25 or so pages and found NO COMMENT in agreement with this so-called "efficiency" update. it was truly a WTF moment of revelation. I decided to roll up my sleeves and do a deep dive. I'm retired so what the heck? It's only our national forests at risk!!!
I spent nearly half a day last Wednesday (2 days ago) randomly visiting over 200 of the 706 pages of comments and found only ONE post in favor of this change. There was one other post that was in favor ONLY if the same number of acres cleared were replanted with new trees. At 50 posts per page, in total, I reviewed over 1000 posts on about 112 randomly selected pages of the 706 pages as of 2 days ago.
I urge you all to disregard this article and go to the website to post your comments in opposition of the so-called efficiency update. There are only 35,000+ comments. What we need are 100,000. Trouble is we only have 3 days left!! Comment period ends on August 26th! Please, please help me spread the word and get people to post comments to save our forests!!!
https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=50&so=DESC&sb=commentDueDate&po=0&dct=PS&D=FS-2019-0010
Thanx for listening. And, thanx in advance, for your help.
Kat Roach