Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 1029

Reforming the EPA’s Science Advisory Board

Argument in favor

This bill will enhance the diversity of thought and perspective on the EPA's Science Advisory Board. Also reduces conflicts of interest and expands opportunities for public involvement.

Inez's Opinion
···
03/14/2015
All for letting the public have an opinion on issues of environment that directly affect them. The way EPA is set up now is narrowly focused.
Like (6)
Follow
Share
Peter's Opinion
···
03/10/2015
This board should be a revolving door of knowledge,NO one should be permenently employed by this very corrupt agency.
Like (4)
Follow
Share
Joe's Opinion
···
03/15/2015
Anyone with a grant has a vested interest and will only protect their grant.
Like (3)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Keeping scientists who have received EPA grants off of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board would dilute the pool of talent available to consult on environmental issues.

JordanForeman's Opinion
···
03/04/2015
I would not trust non-scientific minds with selecting which scientific minds get to contribute to the EPA.
Like (18)
Follow
Share
Steven's Opinion
···
01/01/2016
Science isn't debatable, it's hard fact! It's not validated by whether you agree with it or not. The board needs no revision or outside influence from energy companies.
Like (12)
Follow
Share
Jim's Opinion
···
03/18/2015
Scientists should not be put in the position of either taking an EPA grant or being on this Advisory Board. They should be able to do both, and it's not a conflict of interest.
Like (10)
Follow
Share
    All for letting the public have an opinion on issues of environment that directly affect them. The way EPA is set up now is narrowly focused.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    I would not trust non-scientific minds with selecting which scientific minds get to contribute to the EPA.
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    Science isn't debatable, it's hard fact! It's not validated by whether you agree with it or not. The board needs no revision or outside influence from energy companies.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Scientists should not be put in the position of either taking an EPA grant or being on this Advisory Board. They should be able to do both, and it's not a conflict of interest.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    Science is science and your "opinions" have no place in it.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Seems to me this bill seeks to further politicize the agency. I see all kinds of problems with this bill.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    I'm supposed to let a bunch of dead-eyed white guys s**t all over absolutely everything I stand for?
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    This is clearly another attempt by the GOP to minimize the power of the EPA. We are in a climate crisis right now. This sort of legislation is not what our country needs right now.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Abolish the EPA and return state power.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    This board should be a revolving door of knowledge,NO one should be permenently employed by this very corrupt agency.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill is another anti-science attack on necessary and sensible regulatory bodies.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    "Most of these rules are based on controversial scientific assertions and conclusions, so it is critical they be reviewed by a balanced panel of experts in an open and transparent manner. This bill directs EPA to undertake reforms to do just that.” - Solutions to climate change may be controversial, but the science isn't. Balanced panel of experts should primarily include experts in the environment, this isn't biased science the science just happens to support the left. 50/50 split is unbalanced when the scientific split is 97/3 (roughly).
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Anyone with a grant has a vested interest and will only protect their grant.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Letting people who aren't scientists draw scientific conclusions. How about no. --- And changing how board members are selected costs $2 million dollars???? What the actual fuck.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    A mixture of factors, good and bad, that would cost 2M without significant improvem
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    If the corporate interests in the Republican Party feel like they can simply stack the team with "Scientists" in their favor instead of researching the facts then they simply stall the inevitable. Congress needs to be debating our reaction to climate change not debating the fact that it exists.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes, reform it to include folks who do not have any ties to an entity who benefits from environmental issues. Conflict of interests are killing this planet.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    This all boils down to the same ridiculous argument, that somehow 97% of the scientist in the world are wrong. It is a power play for the new incoming head of the EPA and his cronies to go back to straight oil and gas consumption. This is just their conniving way to get there.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a way for our "representatives" to discredit scientists and scientific research, we need to say NO. I live in Morgan Griffith's district, a rabid climate change denier. He voted "yes" soI vote NO.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Some of the provisions of this bill are generally useful, however, packaged as they are, this seems like nothing but a power grab.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE