The companies that are screwing up the environment should have to use science to posit that their methods won't cause harm.
Instead they put the burden on others to have to extra-prove (because regular proof doesn't count anymore) that their methods will cause damage.
But by the time the extra proof can be made available the damage will already be done.
It takes a lot longer to un-fuck the environment than to fuck it up in the first place.
Naturally the head of the environmental protection agency is doing his damndest to make it harder for people to argue on behalf of protecting the environment.
.
.
If i had to compare it to another issue it would be the laws requiring specific forms of ID at the voting booth.
On the face of it you could make an argument that seems like its an effort to combat voter fraud.
But then you dig just a tiny bit deeper and see that not only is there no legitimate concern of rampant voter fraud occurring, but its a deliberate effort to disenfranchise the particular groups that would be least likely to have the newly required ID.
It takes virtually no effort to get a damn ID. Zero excuse.
Says the middle class white man.
Has zero bearing.
It actually has quite a bit of bearing. Your demographic isnt the one for whom obtaining an ID is made difficult, so your assessment that obtaining one requires virtually no effort is colored by your own ease of experience. ---
