Please explain how getting rid of gov't agencies like EPA could ever be a good idea? (1 Viewer)

[ModerationNow!]

You don't hear much praise about Richard Nixon, and most Americans are unaware that he(or any Republican pretty much) did anything positive. Although he wasn't a good president, there actually were some great things that he did. The Clean Air Act and starting the Environmental Protection Agency were 2 examples.

Most of us probably haven't been alive long enough to see the pollution that used to exist back in the late 1800's til the mid 1900s, including the 1960s. Back then we didn't know the risks of a LOT of the common industrial chemicals that were being callously dumped or drained into rivers, lakes, the sky and the ground. It was BAD at one point. Much worse than now.

Its because of the EPA, Clean Air Act and continually increased legislation that helped to clean up most of the mess.

The pollution mess was made by both private and governmental organizations. Both private companies and gov't orgs are PEOPLE, and people some times do the wrong things if they aren't periodically supervised. That's why the EPA and state/federal departments of agriculture are CRUCIAL to keep an eye on people who look for "shortcuts" that save them time or money, such as dumping chemicals into your local streams....

Without organizations to monitor the methods that private and gov't organizations utilize to deal with waste, then people will inevitably start taking "shortcuts" again.

When it comes to subjects like this, the market doesn't just take care of itself. So, where am I wrong here, and if you think I am wrong, how would getting rid of the EPA prevent pollution?

 

[X Factor]

Re: Please explain how getting rid of gov't agencies like EPA could ever be a good id

Controlling pollution (and completely preventing it where possible) is worthwhile and I think a valid use of governmental power. The problem is that the EPA operates now pretty much without checks or accountability which is never a good thing for a government agency.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Re: Please explain how getting rid of gov't agencies like EPA could ever be a good id

I'm told by people who don't spend much time thinking about it that if we get rid of the EPA companies will work on the honor system and control their own pollution. Greed could never interfere with that, right?

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

Re: Please explain how getting rid of gov't agencies like EPA could ever be a good id

I remember as a kid growing up near Pasadena, TX, we used to call it Stinkadena as we passed through all the chemical plants there.

The Houston Ship Channel was a nasty wasteland. Two foreign sailors fell in the water and died once it was so bad.

Now there is fish swimming in the turning basin, and you can drive past Pasadena now without gagging....most of the time. You can still tell when the "sniffer plane" is not flying, though.

I do not know who was responsible for this major clean up, but I have a good idea it was not self imposed.

 

[lpast]

Re: Please explain how getting rid of gov't agencies like EPA could ever be a good id

One way to judge the value of the EPA is to look at places that dont have any govt regulation. Hong Kong, where asthma, bronchial conditions and lung disease has soared. Its so bad that people walk the streets with masks that they wear in hospitals to at least filter out the particles.

 

[azgreg]

Re: Please explain how getting rid of gov't agencies like EPA could ever be a good id

I kinda like it when the rivers don't catch on fire.

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: Please explain how getting rid of gov't agencies like EPA could ever be a good id

Controlling pollution (and completely preventing it where possible) is worthwhile and I think a valid use of governmental power. The problem is that the EPA operates now pretty much without checks or accountability which is never a good thing for a government agency.

Agreed. You can see how far off the the reservation they've gone, and how aggressive and agenda driven they've become by the number of times the courts have slapped them down due to over reach and over step, which seems quite a bit lately.

I'm told by people who don't spend much time thinking about it that if we get rid of the EPA companies will work on the honor system and control their own pollution. Greed could never interfere with that, right?

Yeah, I don't think that's necessarily a good idea either. Seems that the EPA's pendulum has swung too far to the authoritarian side and needs to come back a bit. Anarchy is the other extreme. Neither is good.

How about we kinda try to keep it in the middle?

 

[Geoist]

Re: Please explain how getting rid of gov't agencies like EPA could ever be a good id

You don't hear much praise about Richard Nixon, and most Americans are unaware that he(or any Republican pretty much) did anything positive. Although he wasn't a good president, there actually were some great things that he did. The Clean Air Act and starting the Environmental Protection Agency were 2 examples.

Most of us probably haven't been alive long enough to see the pollution that used to exist back in the late 1800's til the mid 1900s, including the 1960s. Back then we didn't know the risks of a LOT of the common industrial chemicals that were being callously dumped or drained into rivers, lakes, the sky and the ground. It was BAD at one point. Much worse than now.

Its because of the EPA, Clean Air Act and continually increased legislation that helped to clean up most of the mess.

The pollution mess was made by both private and governmental organizations. Both private companies and gov't orgs are PEOPLE, and people some times do the wrong things if they aren't periodically supervised. That's why the EPA and state/federal departments of agriculture are CRUCIAL to keep an eye on people who look for "shortcuts" that save them time or money, such as dumping chemicals into your local streams....

Without organizations to monitor the methods that private and gov't organizations utilize to deal with waste, then people will inevitably start taking "shortcuts" again.

When it comes to subjects like this, the market doesn't just take care of itself. So, where am I wrong here, and if you think I am wrong, how would getting rid of the EPA prevent pollution?

Even when I was hardcore right-libertarian, the idea of getting rid of the EPA was not exactly appealing. I agree, the market doesn't just take care of the issue of pollution as CEOs care far more about short-term gains than about the long-term repercussions when they are retired or in their graves. Is the EPA perfect? Of course not. But you don't just throw the baby out with the bathwater and I think you will find most people, conservative or liberal, agree.

As for some of my own suggestions to fight environment destruction I will refer to the following: https://www.progress.org/articles/top-5-ways-to-fight-pollution

 

[Thrilla]

Re: Please explain how getting rid of gov't agencies like EPA could ever be a good id

You don't hear much praise about Richard Nixon, and most Americans are unaware that he(or any Republican pretty much) did anything positive. Although he wasn't a good president, there actually were some great things that he did. The Clean Air Act and starting the Environmental Protection Agency were 2 examples.

Most of us probably haven't been alive long enough to see the pollution that used to exist back in the late 1800's til the mid 1900s, including the 1960s. Back then we didn't know the risks of a LOT of the common industrial chemicals that were being callously dumped or drained into rivers, lakes, the sky and the ground. It was BAD at one point. Much worse than now.

Its because of the EPA, Clean Air Act and continually increased legislation that helped to clean up most of the mess.

The pollution mess was made by both private and governmental organizations. Both private companies and gov't orgs are PEOPLE, and people some times do the wrong things if they aren't periodically supervised. That's why the EPA and state/federal departments of agriculture are CRUCIAL to keep an eye on people who look for "shortcuts" that save them time or money, such as dumping chemicals into your local streams....

Without organizations to monitor the methods that private and gov't organizations utilize to deal with waste, then people will inevitably start taking "shortcuts" again.

When it comes to subjects like this, the market doesn't just take care of itself. So, where am I wrong here, and if you think I am wrong, how would getting rid of the EPA prevent pollution?

an argument against the EPA is not an argument for pollution... it's an argument against constitutional overreach and improper governance at the federal level..

do I think the market can police itself when it comes to pollution?... nope, sure don't.

that doesn't mean the EPA , at the federal level, should exist though.... every State in the union has it's own version of the EPA, and quite frankly that's good enough.


folks need to understand that just because there's a problem, doesn't mean we need a federal agency to address it... especially when that agency, and what they regulate, do not find their authorization in the US Constitution.

if regulating the environment and education are what we american want the federal government to do ( which is a valid agenda)... there an amendment process available that we need to employ.

 

[Thrilla]

Re: Please explain how getting rid of gov't agencies like EPA could ever be a good id

Even when I was hardcore right-libertarian, the idea of getting rid of the EPA was not exactly appealing. I agree, the market doesn't just take care of the issue of pollution as CEOs care far more about short-term gains than about the long-term repercussions when they are retired or in their graves. Is the EPA perfect? Of course not. But you don't just throw the baby out with the bathwater and I think you will find most people, conservative or liberal, agree.

As for some of my own suggestions to fight environment destruction I will refer to the following: https://www.progress.org/articles/top-5-ways-to-fight-pollution

throwing away the EPA isn't throwing a baby away at all..... every state has it's own EPA.
the federal EPA is NOT the only game in town... it's 1 of 51 games in town.

 

[Geoist]

Re: Please explain how getting rid of gov't agencies like EPA could ever be a good id

throwing away the EPA isn't throwing a baby away at all..... every state has it's own EPA.
the federal EPA is NOT the only game in town... it's 1 of 51 games in town.

If pollution could be contained within state boundaries I'd be perfectly fine with just having each state deal with their own.

 

[yankintx]

Re: Please explain how getting rid of gov't agencies like EPA could ever be a good id

I remember as a kid growing up near Pasadena, TX, we used to call it Stinkadena as we passed through all the chemical plants there.

The Houston Ship Channel was a nasty wasteland. Two foreign sailors fell in the water and died once it was so bad.

Now there is fish swimming in the turning basin, and you can drive past Pasadena now without gagging....most of the time. You can still tell when the "sniffer plane" is not flying, though.

I do not know who was responsible for this major clean up, but I have a good idea it was not self imposed.

Boston Bay was in the same condition back in the early 1980's, not so now. I do not trust Companies to clean up after themselves, rarely do they do it out of the environmental concern.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

Re: Please explain how getting rid of gov't agencies like EPA could ever be a good id

I think people would feel better about the EPA if there were more "incentives" instead of oppressive "regulation."

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: Please explain how getting rid of gov't agencies like EPA could ever be a good id

I think people would feel better about the EPA if there were more "incentives" instead of oppressive "regulation."

"Now Richie Rich, if you don't spray that mercury all over the school, we will give you a cookie!"

 

[ModerationNow!]

Re: Please explain how getting rid of gov't agencies like EPA could ever be a good id

Reading the posts here, it's obvious that most conservatives DO care about the environment, in spite of the claims made by the propaganda experts at MSNBC, NPR and pretty much every progressive website. When I heard people talking about getting rid of the EPA, I made the mistake of listening to, and believing some of that aforementioned propaganda, but obviously it's not a matter of not caring, it's about differences of opinion on how to best protect it. Examples like the recent boondoggle out west, where an old mine was flooded, then allowed to overflow into the river, dumping pollution everywhere is a good example of why people should be critical of govt, especially when it seems almost as if that situation could have been an intentional act designed to help justify turning the area into a superfund site, so that more money and resources could be used to clean up more thoroughly than may be have been previously allowed. It was a no brainer that allowing the mine to flood was going to be a disaster, which was proven by the article written by a scientist there, before they actually began the operation! He literally predicted what was going to happen beforehand, and surmised that they just wanted justification for more resources. That's the type of radical, irresponsible nonsense that no citizen should tolerate, if in fact it's true, and even if it isnt, the incompetence is still a big problem that shouldn't be tolerated.

I'm all for oversight, but I fear that our govt is becoming less and less accountable, which almost guarantees disasters like that will continue....

We need oversight for those doing the environmental oversight.