- Joined
- Jul 22, 2013
- Messages
- 2,693
- Reaction score
- 1,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
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.
"Now Richie Rich, if you don't spray that mercury all over the school, we will give you a cookie!"I think people would feel better about the EPA if there were more "incentives" instead of oppressive "regulation."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?