Remix.run Logo
tastyfreeze 7 hours ago

Hmm... rules for thee but not for me. Sounds like the beginning of the end for the EPA. Two tiered rules breed resentment. There are already plenty of people that don't like the EPA. Making exceptions just makes it easier to argue the EPA is useless or just a tool for oppressing the little guy.

MisterTea 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> There are already plenty of people that don't like the EPA.

Rich assholes who are upset they can't throw their trash on the ground. Anyone else is parroting propaganda generated by said rich assholes.

rpdillon 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think that's true. There's probably a valid critique that they're doing their job badly.

autoexec 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's because the EPA is being run/bribed by rich assholes who are upset they can't throw their trash on the ground. Intentionally breaking something so that they can complain about how broken it is and push to eliminate it or replace it with something more favorable to them is a very old trick but it remains popular because there are gullible people who still fall for it.

ballsac 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

cucumber3732842 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>Rich assholes who are upset they can't throw their trash on the ground. Anyone else is parroting propaganda generated by said rich assholes.

Yeah, that guy who owns a liquor store on 7-mil and can't make the $100k underground stormwater treatment it would take to pave his dirt parking lot pencil out and that city in the rust belt who saw a major manufacturer pack up and leave for a desert state because environmental compliance precluded expanding their site, all their grievances are illegitimate, they're just simping for billionares and BigCos who wanna dump crap in the river.

People looking down their nose and categorically denying that there is collateral damage when you wave the wand of legislation is a large part of how the current populist got elected.

ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> that city in the rust belt who saw a major manufacturer pack up and leave for a desert state because environmental compliance precluded expanding their site

The one that's about to whine and demand Federal assistance when their water gets cut off because it ran out?

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/21/climate/colorado-river-wa...

cucumber3732842 5 hours ago | parent [-]

No this was a plastic molding company ~10yr ago.

Edit:

They had a facility with a rail siding. Cheaper to relocate to a new site with expansion potential in another state than pay the state a million bucks an acre to let them fill in wetland (a ~100yo mill pond). The city did what they could to facilitate things but it basically just came down to the discretion of the state officials who live a few hundred miles away amongst all sort of moneyed tech and medical and finance industry and don't really see any upside to economic development in the poor end of the state, especially manufacturing. We're just a line item on the welfare bill as far are they care.

The real cherry on top is that the wetland went away "naturally" as the result of a low head dam removal a few years ago, at the behest of the same agency that said you can't fill in any of the mill pond.

The site is still vacant. It got sold to a REIT that's headquartered a couple blocks from the statehouse and environmental agency. Supposedly Waste Management or Republic Services wants to buy the old site now for it's rail siding and development potential.

ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Do their employees not need water?

inigyou 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Did that happen?

The former sounds like a guy being told his trash needs to be picked up and not being able to afford it so not being allowed to generate trash, and the latter was provided with no details at all so I can't evaluate it.

cucumber3732842 4 hours ago | parent [-]

>Did that happen?

I chose 7-mile for my hypothetical example because the road is an absolute goldmine for "you can't do that these days it's too dense" site plans and there's at least one liquor store with a dirt lot on it but I don't recall where. The "we want to make it nicer but it's not worth the stormwater treatment cost" example is from a business down the street from me. These things get stopped at the engineer/lawyer phase when the true costs become known to the owner.

Basically all the stormwater rules BS come at the expense of incentivizing sprawl. Doesn't really matter if you're walking past 1000ft of strip mall or 500ft of fancy multi level retail with a parking garage in back with 250ft of empty grass on either side, you're still 1000ft from the bus stop.

inigyou 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Why is it any different from "we want an asphalt parking lot but it's not worth the asphalt cost" or "we want a giant sign but the pole to hang it on is too expensive" or "we want an asphalt parking lot but renting the machine to paint the lines is too expensive" or "we want to be open 24/7 but we can't afford to cover third shift"?

cucumber3732842 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Because this is a constraint we've imposed upon ourselves to the detriment of the public. It's like how you have all sorts of workplaces with absolutely moronic rats nests of extension cords and power strips and whatnot because you don't need a permit to plug stuff in. They're following the rule and arriving at a stupider worse solution and we're all poorer for it. We could literally be richer at the stroke of a pen. Whereas to make paving cheaper we'd need to make technological progress.

Nobody's interests, except some spreadsheet pusher who's missing the big picture, and some idiot ideologues, are effectively served by putting a ton of "built to the bare minimum" green space that the users don't actually want anywhere the economic potential of the land supports more density of actual use. And if you have that density there's more than enough money kicking around to manage your stormwater more cheaply than piecemeal private solutions (basically all the same pro/con as septic vs sewer but with less digits in front of the decimal).

Yeah it's nice to have parks and recreational green space, but those are planned to be fit for that purpose. The catchment basin behind the shopping center's parking garage is only fit for making the parties that got to construct and maintain it a little richer.

butvacuum 13 minutes ago | parent [-]

It sounds an awful lot like you are willfully ignorant on water management.

Considering how accessable the basics are, I'm having trouble believing your argument is in good faith.

martythemaniak 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Framing Trump/MAGA as some kind of divine retribution against the sins of liberals great! All bad things are caused by liberals, because MAGA is mere reaction to their actions. MAGA have no mind of their own, and thus no responsibility for their own actions.

cucumber3732842 5 hours ago | parent [-]

These same types of evil people exist in droves on the right too. They just circle jerk about different topics and peddle different forms of progressivism (lowercase P!!). Right now the establishment is somewhat catering to them, much to the chagrin of the useful idiots who are all in on the other team. They were the ones screeching all throughout the last administration.

At the end of the day has very little to do with MAGA(TM) or Liberals(TM). They're just the current characters in a script that's been played a bunch of times. Kinda like how you can set the basic plot of Romeo and Juliet in any century. From the Tea Party to the Ron Paul thing to the Bernie bros to MAGA the populist movements will keep arising so long as the "we know what's best we're so smart" crowd continues to do things at the expense of the average person. Whether that's back handed environmentalism or facilitating monopolistic big business (or both, for these two examples often go hand in hand) doesn't really matter. The average person doesn't like it even if they can't quite articulate why. And so the populists will keep coming, until one day one shows up that the system can't de-fang. Who knows what'll happen then but I'd bet a lot of money we won't get a stronger EPA or a more favorable environment for big business out of it.

jacobolus 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The so-called "Tea Party" was not a "populist movement". It was a billionaire-funded (notably by the Koch brothers, but also by fossil fuel and tobacco companies) astroturf operation.

mixdup 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>There are already plenty of people that don't like the EPA

And those people are the ones making these bifurcated rules undermining the EPA. The destruction is the purpose, it's not incidental

sailfast 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Correct. The people that don’t like the EPA appointed their friends who also don’t like the EPA to run the EPA.

This is the playbook generally - PE vulturism, but for government agencies. And to their credit it kinda works. Just… not for citizens of the country they have sworn to protect.

Currently in progress at GSA, OPM, CFPB (for a decade+), Interior, EPA, labor, education… Nevermind I should’ve started with an exclusion list instead.

dgellow 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s literally the playbook from project 2025. FWIW it’s not the beginning, that has been a process at play since day 1 of the 2nd trump admin

Edit: actually since the 1st term as mentioned below

lvspiff 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Right? This isnt the first chapter in a long story to come. This is the middle of the book where the villain has all but the final stone of the gauntlet but rather than put up a strong resistance we appear to have elected sycophants who are just watching and saying “dont let him get that stone”

josefresco 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Clarification: During his first term, Donald Trump appointed former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In his role as state attorney general, Pruitt had sued the EPA multiple times to challenge federal environmental regulations, including the Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the United States rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_fi...

jimt1234 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Sounds like the beginning of the end for the EPA

The beginning of the end of the EPA started the day Trump was sworn in. In the last few years several cases have been decided by this Supreme Court that have effectively reduced the EPA to an advisory board, like a group of consultants that have no real authority over anything.

miltonlost 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And this same behavior is how Republicans prove their own theory that the Government is useless and evil and bad. Because they do everything in their power to actually make it useless and evil and bad. Do not blame this on the "EPA" as an agency. Put the blame where it goes: conservatives actively sabotaging government programs.

You're neithersidesing an issue where clearly one partisan group is doing evil things to actively make the situation worse and then "see, told you!"