Talk:Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration/Archives/2020/December

Climate Deregulation Tracker

There are more than 150 deregulations listed at the Climate Deregulation Tracker (Columbia University). Are the most important represented in the article? Where would be the best place to insert the Link (there is no weblink section)? --Gsälzbär (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It has been hard to keep track of all the Trump attempts to deregulate environmental regulations but I think that we've got most/all of the important ones listed in the article. Several others have made lists as well, including (I think) the NYT and National Geographic. But it seems to me that this is the best of them. I added it to the climate change section. If you think it needs more copy please add it to what I put in and it would be appropriate IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion and supplementing the article. I just added a ref name, so it can be linked better directly.

Where you got the date of publication from? The first crawl from Wayback Machine contains 127 Table Listing end of 2019. Because we cannot track the tracker, i didn't write the figure of 166 deregulations. Feel free to correct the sentence… --Gsälzbär (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Nuclear

The Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act of 2017 has arguably led to the creation and approval of two new nuclear reactor designs: NuScale’s small modular reactor (SMR) and GE-Hitachi’s SMR. This could have positive environmental results and should be considered for the main article by somebody who knows something about this stuff.--Brett (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this applies to the Trump environmental policy. Gandydancer (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It was part of Trump's policy, and it seems likely to have significant environmental impacts. The second paragraph says, "The Trump administration supports energy development on federal land, including gas and oil drilling in national parks." If that's environmental policy, why isn't this?--Brett (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution specifically made the point that the word "nuclear" isn't mentioned once in this article. His December 22 piece is called Progress on Nuclear Power This should be rectified. The Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (2017) is definitely environmental policy. Johanmendeleev (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced section that has been added. You will need to find reliable sourcing from secondary sources and show how this connects to the Trump administration's policy. Gandydancer (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The connection to Trump's policy seems plain and obvious, as I said above, so it would be helpful if you would clarify the kind of connection you're looking for.--Brett (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The information must come from a secondary reliable source (for example, not a blog or a primary source). It must specifically state that Trump said that this is part of his nuclear policy. Gandydancer (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Why does this very specific requirement apply to the nuclear section and not, for example to the section on Landscape conservation cooperatives, Carbon Monitoring System, or 2016 methane rule?--Brett (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

SPAM? Really? What about "assume good faith"?--Brett (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)