Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
DONALD TRUMP IS today set to roll back a slew of environmental protections enacted by Barack Obama, in a bid to untether the fossil fuel industry.
In his maiden trip to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Trump will sign an “Energy Independence Executive Order”, a White House official told AFP.
The new president will unveil a series of measures to review regulations curbing oil, gas, and coal production and limiting carbon emissions.
The centrepiece of Trump’s plan is an effort to slow Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which restricts emissions from coal-fired power plants.
The measures will “help keep energy and electricity affordable, reliable, and clean in order to boost economic growth and job creation”, the White House said.
But the new president could face a cool reception at the agency’s imposing Washington headquarters.
Trump has repeatedly questioned humans’ role in warming the planet, leaving environmentally-focused EPA staff to wonder whether the fox is guarding the hen house.
Trump has done little to assuage those fears, vowing to slash EPA funding by a third, appointing anti-climate litigator Scott Pruitt as head of the EPA and Exxon’s CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State.
But Trump’s climate skepticism has struck a chord with many Republican voters.
Some 68% of Americans believe climate change is caused by humans, but just 40% of Republicans say they worry about it according to Gallup.
During the 2016 election campaign Trump donned a hardhat and embraced miners from Kentucky to West Virginia, promising to return jobs to long-ravaged communities.
He won both states by a landslide.
Since coming to office he has coupled his pro-miner rhetoric with support for the fossil fuel industry.
‘War on coal’
The United States is the world’s second largest polluter. Around 37% of domestic carbon dioxide emissions come from electricity generation.
Curbing emissions from coal-fired power plants was a pillar of America’s commitment in the Paris Climate Accord.
“Whether we stay in or not is still under discussion,” a senior administration official told AFP.
And it remains to be seen whether stalling implementation and defunding the EPA will bring coal back.
Some experts warn the economic payoff from ditching the clean power plan will be limited.
“In my view, it will have virtually no impact,” said professor James Van Nostrand of West Virginia University, who said the decline of coal had more to do with higher mining costs and cheaper natural gas and renewables.
“Defunding or dismantling the EPA and repealing its regulations is not going to bring the coal industry back.”
“The constant narrative about the ‘war on coal’ and the alleged devastating impact of EPA’s regulations on West Virginia’s coal industry will now be exposed for its inherent speciousness,” he predicted.
Referring to the plan, the same US official told AFP: “It’s going to take some time.”
In 2008 there were 88,000 coal miners in the United States, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
Today, the number of coal miners has fallen around 25%. More people work in Whole Foods, an upscale supermarket chain.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Permanently deleted my FB account last November and it was the best thing I did. I felt it was a complete waste of my time and was becoming more and more of a negative place. Now it’s great when I meet people cause I don’t know everything about them and makes for great conversation.
@Nollaig Elliot: The alternative is to be friends on FB with your actual friends! As opposed to the 500 or so that you had!
@James Mahon: Very true James, it got out of hand though. I traveled a fair bit over the years and it was convenient. However, after I finished a big trip last year it was always my plan to pull the plug then.
@James Mahon: Totally agree. Did a big cull of my FB “friends ” recently and it’s great.
Think it’s a good place for joining groups that have similar interests etc.
@Nollaig Elliot: I find it very useful to follow interests of mine, get notified of events I might be interested in and get access to news which might otherwise not cross my path.
I do know of people who use it to post a lot of what I would consider useless information but that’s their choice and I can easily avoid that if I want!
Bottom line is it’s a communication tool and how you use it is up to you.
@Nollaig Elliot: I did something similar, last november it was so bad, i have under 20 US facebook friends yet all their posts were saturating my timeline so i turned off all post notifications and have opened the app about 4 times since then to reply to some things that are commented on in my posts taken from twitter and youtube, i use facebook messenger frequently and because that’s a separate app i don’t have to worry about seeing stupid posts from people anymore.
About as arbitrary as The Journals rules so…
I’d love to see the Guardian’s moderation policy.
‘If you’re not of liberal persuasion do not enter this site’
In most cases trolls are ridiculed and put down by decent people on forums such as Facebook. A self censoring mechanism that we have in society already. The problem like they have now in Germany is that when governments get involved they usually infringe on free speech. A slippery slope indeed.
Suckerburg and his cronies support hate speech. That is a fact.
Deleted Facebook yesterday.Best thing EVER!!!!but I’ve nowhere to post or tell people so il post it here on a Facebook article
@The Magnificent Hog: It is not a personal thing, it just makes money.
Facebook is a private commercial entity they can do as they please. It’s a very successful business model that works. Some people have the mind set that it’s a public service.
@Baz Breen: No commercial entity can do as they please all are bound by the laws of each and every country they operate in. Facebooks private policy etc etc is irrelevant if it violates the law, or a persons human right, which is why they are so careful as indeed is the Journal no one is exempt,
Animal abuse is ok by facebook. you know what to do facebook users – delete ur account.
The guardian reported this earlier this morning, breaking news from the journal
@Jonny:
The article mentions the fact that the Guardian published this yesterday.
This one’s an exclusive for people who only read the Journal.
Off topic but Edward Snowden said that if you want privacy then you need to throw away all your devices and start living in a cave.
Delete your Facebook and stop shoving those screens into your babies faces
@The Grand O’Malley: there are techniques to maintaining privacy on Facebook and not just through privacy settings.
Perhaps the Journal could be just as clear in explaining why it bans people…???
There is life and there is Facebook.
Be careful what you say on facebook. I got a three day ban on facebook for calling someone an idiot. Plenty of snowflakes on facebook. Facebook is getting pathetic each day
@Just Some Guy: I feel your pain. Not being able call peole “idiots” is such an impairment of freedom of expression. Calling people “idiots” helps them to accept their errors. It is a highly effective and persuasive technique and develops a point very nicely.
@Tony Daly: Very true, I’ve also had posts deleted because someone with a delicate disposition found them offensive. Whips & chains I could understand, maybe even blood and guts, but mention anything about a certain Middle Eastern religion and certain people loose their collective minds… Incidentally I didn’t say a word.
The main issue with Facebook and its content is who views it. Pictures of difficult or upsetting themes are good as they are thought provoking . The issue is too many children lie about their age and view images not suitable for them
i got banned 3 times fro speaking the truth about certain people
have your say