The EPA...Do We Really Want to Abolish it?

[calamity]

I am always amazed at the ignorance of those who do not think like me Seriously, though, when it comes to support fot abolishing the EPA, I have to ask, Are people really that stupid?

bensozia: Before the EPA I: Air Pollution

Since the Republican candidates for President seem determined to "abolish the EPA," I thought I might post a few reminders of what the United States looked like before the passage of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, the main laws the agency oversees. Many of these images were collected by the Interior Department in the run-up to the passage of environmental laws in the 1970s.

Cleveland

Gary

Anybody remember Donora, Pennsylvania? A deadly cloud descended on the town on October 28, 1948, full of sulfur dioxide and heavy metal dust from the nearby US Steel zinc smelter. By the time rain cleared the skies three days later, 20 people had died and 3,000 had been hospitalized.

 

[X Factor]

Yeah, how dare anyone question anything about the EPA. It a holy and blameless govt agency with no political agenda at all.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I would never ask that the EPA be eliminated. Just that they stop with the foolish agenda driven regulations, and stick with the stuff that makes a sensible difference. The EPA has done wonders in the past. The problem with such bureaucracies is they naturally tend to increase in responsibilities, costs, manpower, etc. instead of self reducing when their needed contributions are reduced. Instead, they create more ways to stay a large bureaucracy.

 

[American]

I am always amazed at the ignorance of those who do not think like me Seriously, though, when it comes to support fot abolishing the EPA, I have to ask, Are people really that stupid?

bensozia: Before the EPA I: Air Pollution

Cleveland

Gary

It's powers need to be SEVERELY curtailed.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

It's powers need to be SEVERELY curtailed.

Perhaps we should change them into a research and consultant branch of the Federal government wherein they could study environmental problems and impacts and the states could make their own decisions based on enforced independent research without the research having to comply with whomever is in office at the time. A truly advisory opinion, take all of it, part of it or leave it.

States would obviously have to live with the consequences of their decisions.

 

[Howler63]

Ever hear of overreach?

It's time to stop the EPA's overreach | Washington Examiner

Drowning by EPA overreach | TheHill

Reason Foundation - Out of Control Policy Blog > Two Examples of EPA Overreach

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/delta-smelt_0.pdf

The EPA, like most government agencies, has developed an agenda far beyond it's original charter.

 

[calamity]

It's powers need to be SEVERELY curtailed.

Depends. I've noticed that people will gladly trade clean air and water for more jobs...and then regret the hell out of it when they get sick. But, the fact does remain that too much regulation does cost jobs. The question just becomes are good jobs worth bad air and toxic water?

 

[American]

Depends. I've noticed that people will gladly trade clean air and water for more jobs...and then regret the hell out of it when they get sick. But, the fact does remain that too much regulation does cost jobs. The question just becomes are good jobs worth bad air and toxic water?

They make regulations; that needs to stop! All regulation and powers to make regulation needs to be in Congress. When EPA wanders outside the line, they need their peepee slapped off. They are an arrogant bunch, and need to come down about five notches.

 

[American]

Perhaps we should change them into a research and consultant branch of the Federal government wherein they could study environmental problems and impacts and the states could make their own decisions based on enforced independent research without the research having to comply with whomever is in office at the time. A truly advisory opinion, take all of it, part of it or leave it.

States would obviously have to live with the consequences of their decisions.

Maybe.

 

[calamity]

They make regulations; that needs to stop! All regulation and powers to make regulation needs to be in Congress. When EPA wanders outside the line, they need their peepee slapped off. They are an arrogant bunch, and need to come down about five notches.

They only enforce the laws. Clean air and Water act, for example. Regulations are just the means by which they achieve said ends. Congress can't vote on every detail. Hell, Congress can't even agree on big stuff---except giving themselves raises. They always seem to agree on giving themselves raises.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

The EPA is one of the few government agency's whose job it is to challenge the government on matters that reach directly into and affect people's lives. Why would you get rid of one of the very few toe-holds We The People have within the FG?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I am all for reigning in the EPA where needed but there are way too many people on the right eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[American]

They only enforce the laws. Clean air and Water act, for example. Regulations are just the means by which they achieve said ends. Congress can't vote on every detail. Hell, Congress can't even agree on big stuff---except giving themselves raises. They always seem to agree on giving themselves raises.

NOPE! EPA made decisions on coal that weren't there originally.

The Many Problems of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Climate Regulations

https://www.uschamber.com/regulations/increasing-environmental-regulations

 

[calamity]

NOPE! EPA made decisions on coal that weren't there originally.

The Many Problems of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Climate Regulations

https://www.uschamber.com/regulations/increasing-environmental-regulations

I'm definitely not a fan of carbon limits. But...all this stuff can be and is challenged in courts. EPA is an enforcement arm only. Laws are set by congress.

 

[jimbo]

Perhaps we should change them into a research and consultant branch of the Federal government wherein they could study environmental problems and impacts and the states could make their own decisions based on enforced independent research without the research having to comply with whomever is in office at the time. A truly advisory opinion, take all of it, part of it or leave it.

States would obviously have to live with the consequences of their decisions.

I believe the EPA needs to be severely curtailed, but not abolished. Too many environmental issues cross state boundaries. You can't allow Minnesota to pollute the Missouri to mine iron ore and not expect the results to affect Louisiana.

The problem is that the protection agencies need to be removed from political influence. I have no idea how to do that.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I am always amazed at the ignorance of those who do not think like me Seriously, though, when it comes to support fot abolishing the EPA, I have to ask, Are people really that stupid?

bensozia: Before the EPA I: Air Pollution

Cleveland

Gary

I am opposed to ANY bureaucracy at ANY level be given power to issue rules and regulations that have the force of law. I am opposed to ANY bureaucracy at ANY level of government having authority to restrict my property or any of my rights without due process. We elect representatives to pass laws, rules, and regulations and those representatives should not be able to turn that responsibility over to an unelected faceless bureaucrat. They can give the EPA or other bureaucracies authority to enforce the laws they pass, but such enforcement should always be subject to appeal without having to go through mountains of red tape.

So no, we do need an EPA to monitor our soil, air, and shared waterways and aquifers, but their power and authority should be cut way back to an administrative and law enforcement role and not a law making role.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Maybe.

While I will agree with the maybe, though that is very ambiguous as to what the maybe is directed at. Are you saying that they would not have to live with the consequences? Or that possibly the EPA should be only in an advisory capacity to the states?

States should be the incubators innovating as to their own state's needs and wants, looking at what other states are doing, making decisions that reflect the will and to the benefit of the population in their own states.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I believe the EPA needs to be severely curtailed, but not abolished. Too many environmental issues cross state boundaries. You can't allow Minnesota to pollute the Missouri to mine iron ore and not expect the results to affect Louisiana.

The problem is that the protection agencies need to be removed from political influence. I have no idea how to do that.

I will agree that would have to be resolved.

Maybe we should have regional EPA partnerships, with a board, maybe with members equal to the number of reps and senators individual states have to make decisions... or some other combination that I cannot create off the top of my head, that would be fair in expressing the concerns of states involved.

 

[jimbo]

I will agree that would have to be resolved.

Maybe we should have regional EPA partnerships, with a board, maybe with members equal to the number of reps and senators individual states have to make decisions... or some other combination that I cannot create off the top of my head, that would be fair in expressing the concerns of states involved.

Again, though, the hummingbirds currently living in my trees and eating on my deck fly 6000 miles to get there.

I don't have an answer. As long as there is a financial or political advantage to be gained, there will always be a politician willing to take the gain.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Again, though, the hummingbirds currently living in my trees and eating on my deck fly 6000 miles to get there.

I don't have an answer. As long as there is a financial or political advantage to be gained, there will always be a politician willing to take the gain.

I do love watching the hummingbirds up here on the mountain as well, but there is a limit to how micro managed all this can get, so I would go with regional on the major issues... while I certainly hope not, the hummingbirds, for example, may end up going the way of the dodo, its a cost/risk of life.

I am pretty sure it will be our time to go as well, someday. Our sun is gonna burn out eventually, knock on wood, hopefully not while I am around.eace

 

[Patrickt]

I went looking to find out how many regulations the EPA had foisted on the country. I could not find a number anywhere. Surely someone knows and isn't saying. Could we possibly have this hive of obsessive/compulsive twits cranking out regulations and no one keeps track?

 

[American]

While I will agree with the maybe, though that is very ambiguous as to what the maybe is directed at. Are you saying that they would not have to live with the consequences? Or that possibly the EPA should be only in an advisory capacity to the states?

States should be the incubators innovating as to their own state's needs and wants, looking at what other states are doing, making decisions that reflect the will and to the benefit of the population in their own states.

There may have to be a blend of federal and state intervention with state taking lead. But I agree with you.

 

[Deuce]

Yeah, how dare anyone question anything about the EPA. It a holy and blameless govt agency with no political agenda at all.

Um, nobody has claimed every EPA regulation is holy and blameless.

However, there absolutely are people who want to eliminate the EPA.

 

[Deuce]

I went looking to find out how many regulations the EPA had foisted on the country. I could not find a number anywhere. Surely someone knows and isn't saying. Could we possibly have this hive of obsessive/compulsive twits cranking out regulations and no one keeps track?

I don't understand why people obsess over the absolute quantity of laws/regulations. Why is the number of regulations important? Is there some threshold at which it is bad to pass additional regulations? What's that number?

 

[Patrickt]

I don't understand why people obsess over the absolute quantity of laws/regulations. Why is the number of regulations important? Is there some threshold at which it is bad to pass additional regulations? What's that number?

I wasn't obsessing. Obsessing is what the government is doing. Obsessing over control. You will change the pronouns you use. Why? Because. I was simply curious and thought it was interesting that you can't easily find how many.

Perhaps that's because regulations are being written at such a rate it would have to be a clock like the national debt clock that clicks every second?

Yes, there is an absolute number but I have no idea what it is. When lying to the government gets you prison time and selling raw milk gets a SWAT response there is something seriously wrong.