>First off, the conservative/libertarian discourse is not "childish" or "uninformed." Libertarian thought has been in development for centuries beginning with classical liberalism.

The length of time that a school of philosophy has been around does not relate whatsoever to how people talk about it today. See, e.g., flat earthers.

>Third, apparently you are not very familiar with environmental regulation.

I used to practice environmental law.

> Environmental regulations need not cross state boundaries (we can regulate water and air from entities in in our own states).

That would make sense if the air and the water themselves did not cross state boundaries. Turns out they do. Speaking of the classical liberalism you are so fond of, you should really check out this crazy new theory called "the tragedy of the commons."

This is a childishly uninformed discussion because you do not (and I am sure cannot without googling) refer to any specific regulations. Would you care to discuss the Clean Water Act and how you think it is too strict? Do you take issue with the "surface water connection" jurisdictional test for defining the navigable waters of the United States and thus the geographic limits of the CWA? Do you think the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System defines "impaired waters" too broadly? Are NPDES Total Daily Maximum Loads set unreasonably low? Do you think joint Army Corps of Engineers and EPA jurisdiction over impaired waters leads to excessive enforcement bureaucracy? These are not things I just googled but rather regulations I have helped draft, administer, enforce, and even challenge. I am happy to debate the finer points and would be thrilled to see that debate on a national level.

But the debate on the national level is instead childishly uninformed because conservatives argue in nebulous generalities, using catch phrases and talking points, but do not engage with the specifics of the policies in question. The vagueness of their claims allows them to avoid rigorous standards of proof or argumentation.

Statements like "Unfortunately, we do not have that capability to balance the locality's needs and the environment's." This is simply a nonsense talking point, which wholly disregards the non-local nature of the environment. Localities don't get to choose to prioritize their needs over the environment's because they share their environment with other localities. So those localities get together and decide as a group how to regulate the environment via this fancy new invention called the federal government.

What precisely do you even mean? The ability for localities to decide they want more pollutants discharged into the environment? What needs are not being respected? Their need to have lower costs for businesses in order to keep jobs? Which they can only have at the expense of their neighbors, by emitting pollutants into the environment which then flow into their neighbors' jurisdictions and by taking jobs from neighbors who choose not to poison their own and others' land, water, and air?

It's also nonsense because it's factually untrue in many cases. Take NPDES. States enforce it, with the exception of four direct implementation states that have elected to allow the federal EPA to enforce it. The federal EPA simply sets standards and partially funds enforcement via block grants.

Worst of all, your argument does not contribute anything useful to the discussion. "There's too much federal regulation of the environment and more needs to be done at the local level." Ok, fine, let's unpack that statement and see where the argument takes us and why it is so damaging to our national discourse. What federal regulations are excessive and need to be moved to the local level? Your answer will likely be the result of something you recently googled, but let's assume you make a legitimate, well-informed point and identify one federal regulation that should be moved to the local level. I will then point out another ten regulations that clearly need to remain at the federal level. Assuming we then go through every federal regulation on the environment and make this assessment, we are left with a list of some regulations that need to be changed and some that don't. Great. So we then reform the EPA and localities start regulating more efficiently etc. etc. That would be a really awesome result of a national political debate.

This has not happened nationally because we are not having a discussion with that specificity. Conservatives simply argue that the EPA is bad and has to go. Even if they admit in argument that theoretically some regulations should be federal, the practical manifestation of their ideology is a concerted effort to abolish the EPA. See, e.g., Scott Pruitt's current activities.

And that's the real problem with your vague talking points. They drive poisonous, poorly thought out policy-making which does not even reflect your own stated positions. This is why we have Trump, the master of spewing vague generalities. A man wholly unprepared to be president, who is incapable of engaging with policy details on even the most superficial levels, resulting in absurdly awful legislative proposals and a complete absence of legislative progress.

Please, point to specific regulations or policies that you think unreasonably burden localities. That would be a productive contribution to the national debate about environmental regulation. Perhaps the regulation needs to be revised, or perhaps there is a justification you are not considering. Either way, the conversation is worth having. Regurgitating talking points doesn't.