I remember back in the 60s when Lake Erie would reglarly catch fire, due to toxic chemicals in it, and by eating fish from the lake you were putting your life in your life on peril. It was preident Nixon to instituted the EPA back in 1970.
Along with tariffs, there is also a roll back in the regulations that prevented those occurances, and danger from happening.
If you think its only the fish trade that will be effected, there are much worse things in store.
Hello; I recall a river in Ohio which would make the news for catching fire due to volatiles being dumped into it. I guess technically it was the oil/chemical films on the surface which burned and not the water itself. I also do recall driving thru an industrial area of Cincinatti Ohio and having my eyes sting. So, these things ae not tall tales for me. I do not dispute the positive things the agency accomplished early on for the first decades.
Perhaps the biggest downside to the agency has been the way it is become a tool for promoting an agenda with priorities outside actual environmental protection. Namely joining in the war against fossil fuel use and promoting the flawed green energy and flawed EV (electric vehicle) technologies. The early edicts applied to ICE (internal combustion engines) have already resulted in huge reductions of overall tailpipe emissions. As I understand it the typical modern ICE car emits many times less than some small push lawn mowers. A tremendous improvement over the decades.
At least one solid example can be gleaned from a study done by Volvo. Volvo, by the way, went all in for EV's a few years back. To the point of distancing themselves from ICE by moving all ICE production to a separate company. A company likely intended to be dissolved once they weaned their vehicles away from ICE. The study was done by making identical cars with one being ICE powered and the other being an EV. I can post the study if anyone wishes. The results were that the EV must be driven something like 69,000 miles before it begins to be "cleaner" than the ICE model. An interesting omission of the study was the end-of-life disposal of the huge Li-ion battery pack.
A personal example of limited value are my two ICE vehicles. A 2001 Nissan Sentra and a 2004 Chevy pickup. The Sentra has 147,000 miles and is 24 years old. The pickup has 68,000 miles and is 21 years old. The pickup is just now approaching the point where it would begin to emit more overall what an EV pickup would. The Sentra is, of course well beyond the point. It has returned around 35 MPG over the 24 years.
Here is the spoiler. An EV battery starts losing charge capacity with age. I think it is reported to be around one percent per year regardless of other factors. This means as i understand it the battery will charge to 100% when new. Charge to around 99% a year or so later. charge to 98% in around two years and so on. When such a battery gets down to something near 80%, my take it is no longer useful in a vehicle. Then it can be used as a backup storage for a wind or solar farm, it might be recycled or it becomes trash. My current understanding being recycling is a "someday " thing and not yet at scale.
I would be on at least a second battery pack in each of my vehicles for sure just because of ordinary battery degradation without adding in any other degradation factors such as extremes of heat and/or cold. Charging to 100% also is reported to affect EV battery life. Apparently best to charge to only 80% and discharge to no more than around 30% to promote battery life. That leaves about 50% of practical range to use regularly.
A thing which happened over the later decades is the EPA is became a power answerable only to itself. An unelected body which appears to have picked sides. The agency has recently proposed MPG standards and tailpipe standards well beyond the reach of the available technology. Apparently as part of an agenda to kill off ICE.
Here is an example, to me, of how far the agency has strayed. Let me first say I support the outcome but do not like the method. That being the way bees were determined to be fish. I like bees and know they need to be protected. But bees are not fish. There is written authority for the agency to deal with fish with regard to water. But there apparently is not such for bees. So the agency decided to call bees fish to get around that lack. Such may seem fine in the sense some protection results for bees. However, it is underhanded and not honest. Not honest in a similar way as adding onerous MPG requirements onto ICE in order to help tip the scale toward EV's.
Now I do not want the Cuyahoga River (sp) in Ohio to start catching fire again. I want clean air as well. Thing is i want food to eat and to be warm in the winter. We will need fossil fuels for the foreseeable future as green energy and EV's are not ready for prime time just yet.
I await the cheers or jeers as they may come.
There are some really good wild caught exporters in Brazil, Colombia, and Peru. I also know that www.projectpiaba.org is working to promote the sale of such fish. If any of you import tropical fish, I'd recommend investigating the opportunities in these countries. The tariff situation should only make these fish more competitive.
