EPA and Earth-system Science in US

It will not be hard to search for this pdf

Pruitt-letter-from-EPA-veterans-2017.02.06

Presenting informed objections to EPA appointment of Scott Pruitt. It will take longer to read than the words
"EPA commits regulatory terrorism"
But may be a worthwhile use of your time.

 

http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Pruitt-letter-from-EPA-veterans-2017.02.06.pdf

 

For reasons of convenience I do many searches on Bing. Hard to imagine it's 'better' than what's at your fingertips.

 

I reckon Scott Pruitt gets approved and we'll just have to see how it shakes out. Betsy (grizzly) DeVos got past hers. Few (R) senators are willing to be 'that guy'. DC seems like a pretty hot place right now. And only February...

 

There may soon be less regulatory requirement to monitor methane emissions

Congress to Curtail Methane Monitoring - IEEE Spectrum

Read there also (as I've suggested before) about removing incentive for technological innovation. Market exists for better methane (etc.) detection, even outside US, and even inside US for folks who (for example) want their pipeline leaks known earlier rather than later.

This is an unintended benefit of environmental regulations sometimes ignored. Yet somebody will do the innovating (and profiting). Not necessarily domestic US, but somebody.

 

My impression was that NASA would be directed to move away from Earth-System science, and NOAA would take over orbital satellite work. However, defunding NOAA makes this situation more confusing:

White House proposes steep budget cut to leading climate science agency - The Washington Post