Why would the GOP weaken the EPA?

Parachute

Go Beavers wrote:

Parachute wrote:

So that I can buy whichever light bulb I want to.

You don't get enough light from burning your old car tires?

I don't get it.

Parachute

brianlux wrote:

Parachute wrote:

So that I can buy whichever light bulb I want to.

So we should let our freedom to choose light bulbs trump our kids and grandkids freedom to live in a clean, safe, flourishing world? :?

if you are depending on Gubmint to ensure your kids freedom, then you've already lost it.

"Those who would trade Liberty for Security deserve neither."

VINNY GOOMBA

Hey now! Leave the EPA alone! The appear to be one of the few government agencies that didn't show up armed as a swat team to bust these people for selling raw milk:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033220_Rawes ... raids.html

WOW.

gimmesometruth27

list of epa accomplishments from 1970-1995... i would hate to think of the shithole of a country we would be living in if some of these things had gone on unabated...

A Look at EPA Accomplishments: 25 Years of Protecting Public Health and the Environment

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/25b.html

1970
•On December 2, the United States Environmental Protection Agency is established to protect the nation's public health and environment. Its national role includes finding ways to cleanup and prevent pollution, ensuring compliance and enforcement of environmental laws, assisting states in environmental protection efforts, and scientific research and education to advance the nation's understanding of environmental issues.

•Under amendments to the Clean Air Act, EPA moves to protect public health by setting national health-based standards for air pollutants, setting standards for auto emissions, and requiring states to submit new air quality plans.

1971
•EPA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development are charged with protecting children's health through lead-based paint prevention activities, including detection and treatment of lead-based paint poisoning, limiting lead use in certain consumer items, and banning the use of lead-based interior paints in residences built or renovated by the federal government.
1972
•EPA bans use of DDT because the widely-used pesticide is found to be cancer-causing and accumulating in the food chain, posing a risk to public health and the environment.

•To limit raw sewage flowing into the nation's rivers, lakes and streams, EPA embarks on a major national commitment to build an advanced network of sewage treatment facilities. By 1988, virtually all U.S. cities will have built or committed to build such facilities, resulting in rivers and lakes that are safe for swimming, tourism and commercial and recreational fishing.

•The United States and Canada sign the International Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to begin cleanup of the Great Lakes, which contain 95 percent of the nation's fresh water and supply drinking water for 23 million Americans.

1973
•EPA begins the ban that will phase out all use of lead in gasoline, resulting in a 98% reduction in lead levels in the air. The phase-out protects millions of children from serious, permanent learning disabilities by helping to reduce blood lead levels by 75%.

•EPA issues its first permit limiting a factory's discharges of pollution into waterways, starting a program that now holds more than 45,000 industrial facilities accountable for water pollution.

1974
•Under the new Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA begins work to protect public health by setting health-based standards governing the quality of the public water supply, including requirements for physical and chemical treatment of drinking water.

•EPA sets the first national standards limiting industrial water pollution, launching a program that today prevents one billion pounds of toxics from reaching our rivers, lakes, and streams each year.

1975
•EPA assumes responsibility for annually monitoring how cars and light trucks perform under new fuel economy standards--a move that, for the first time, allows consumers to choose cars based on their energy efficiency--under the new Energy Policy and Conservation Act.

•Car makers begin installing catalytic converters in new motor vehicles to meet EPA emission standards designed to protect public health from harmful air pollution.

1976
•Responding to public concern over "midnight dumping" of toxic wastes, EPA starts to establish controls over hazardous waste from the time it is generated, through transportation, treatment, storage and disposal, under the new Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

•EPA begins efforts to protect public health through controls on toxic chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk of injury. The new Toxic Substances Control Act sets the stage for EPA's ban that will phase out production and use of cancer-causing PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), a widely-used material often discharged into the environment.

1977
•Air quality and visibility in national parks and wilderness is further protected with new amendments to the Clean Air Act, with provisions that preserve clean air in these important natural areas.
1978
•EPA and other federal agencies ban the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as a propellant in most aerosol cans. CFCs destroy the earth's ozone layer, which protects life on earth from the harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun.
1979
•Because of their potential for causing cancer and other adverse health effects, EPA bans two herbicides containing dioxins, chemical compounds that are byproducts of certain industrial activities that cause cancer and other adverse health effects. One of the herbicides was an ingredient in the defoliant Agent Orange.
1980
•Building on earlier efforts to clean up toxic waste sites, EPA develops a nationwide program for toxic waste site cleanups under the new Superfund law, as well as establishing a list of the most hazardous toxic sites in the U.S. The new law is in part prompted by Love Canal--an industrial dumping ground since the 1970s--which New York State declared a "grave and imminent peril" to nearby residents two years earlier.
1984
•Concerns about gasoline and hazardous chemicals seeping from storage tanks and landfills into underground drinking water supplies prompt new amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, under which EPA institutes efforts to prevent such contamination and require treatment of hazardous wastes prior to land disposal.
1985
•After British scientists report a giant hole in the Earth's protective atmospheric ozone layer, EPA joins an international convention in Vienna calling for worldwide cooperative efforts to eliminate use of substances that deplete the ozone layer.
1986
•Public concern about explosions and leaks of toxic chemicals, such as occurred in Bhopal, India, helps lead to passage of the first community right-to-know law directing manufacturers, users and storers of certain chemicals to keep records about the location, quantity, use, and any release of those materials, and for EPA to make such information available to the public. EPA also begins to work with states and localities to prevent accidents and develop emergency plans in the case of dangerous releases of chemicals.
1987
•The United States is one of 24 nations that sign the Montreal Protocol, pledging to phase out production of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons), which are widely used as refrigerants and aerosols but are linked to destruction of the protective atmospheric ozone layer.
1989
•EPA makes publicly available the first annual community right-to-know information on the location and nature of toxic chemical releases in communities around the country, through the new Toxics Release Inventory. A major chemical corporation pledges to reduce such releases by 90% (and later meets that goal).
1990
•EPA assesses a penalty of $15 million--the largest single civil penalty in the Agency's history--against Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline Company, for extensive PCB contamination at 89 sites. In addition to the fine, the company is required to pay for PCB cleanups estimated to exceed $750 million.

•EPA develops and implements new Clean Air Act Amendments under which states must, for the first time, demonstrate continuing progress toward meeting national health-based air quality standards for harmful pollutants such as smog and carbon monoxide.

•In keeping with the new Pollution Prevention Act that encourages industry to control toxic emissions by using cost-effective changes in production, EPA inaugurates the first major public-private partnership to significantly reduce polluting industrial emissions.

•Reducing Risk, a landmark report from EPA's Science Advisory Board, calls for the setting of national environmental priorities and greater use of science in decision-making on environmental regulation.

1991
•In the largest environmental criminal damage settlement in history, Exxon Corporation and Exxon Shipping agree to pay $25 million in fines, $100 million in immediate payment to the U.S. and Alaska governments for restoration work, and establish a $900 million remediation fund arising from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

•Under EPA's coordination, all Federal agencies begin using recycled and recyclable products whenever possible, under a new government-wide policy, a move that will vastly increase the market for such products. Separately, EPA finds that recycling of hazardous wastes has increased 127% in just the two-year period since 1989.

•EPA joins other federal agencies in assessing the danger to human health and environmental damage from the intentional oil spills and 700 oil well fires set by Iraqi troops in Kuwait during the Arabian Gulf War.

1992
•To protect seashore recreation, ocean life, and the fishing industry, EPA's ban ends dumping of sewage sludge into oceans and coastal waters.
1993
•EPA consolidates and toughens its environmental enforcement program to ensure compliance with environmental laws and to penalize polluters who break those laws.

•EPA announces the Common Sense Initiative, a sweeping effort to fundamentally shift environmental regulation--moving away from the pollutant-by-pollutant, crisis-by-crisis approach of the past to an industry-by-industry approach for the future. This new approach is designed to achieve results that are cleaner, cheaper and smarter--cleaner for the environment, cheaper for business and taxpayers, and smarter for America's future.

•To protect public health and increase food safety, EPA begins a major initiative to encourage manufacturers to develop new, safer pesticides.

•EPA's comprehensive scientific evaluation of independent research finds that secondhand cigarette smoke can cause cancer and impair the respiratory health of children and others.

•EPA reports that curbside recycling programs and related efforts have tripled the recycling rate for the nation's trash--from 7% of all non-hazardous waste collected in 1970 to nearly 22% in 1993.

1994
•EPA announces a new set of pollution-control standards to reduce by 90% the toxic air pollutants from chemical plants by 1997. This action will result in the biggest reduction in air toxics in U.S. history.

•After decades of conflict, the Clinton Administration negotiates a consensus plan to protect the most valuable economic and environmental resource of the state of California--water. The San Francisco Bay Delta supplies drinking water to two-thirds of the State's people and provides irrigation for 45% of America's fruits and vegetables.

•Superfund cleanups are greatly accelerated, resulting in as many cleanups completed in 12 months as were completed in the program's first decade--an accomplishment that will be repeated in 1995 as well.

•New grants are launched by EPA to help 50 U.S. communities revitalize inner-city brownfields--abandoned, contaminated sites that were formerly industrial or commercial properties--and return them to productive use for the community, resulting in both economic and environmental gains.

•The Clinton Administration nearly doubles the list of toxic chemicals that must be publicly reported under the community right-to-know laws, giving Americans a dramatic increase in the information they need about toxic pollution from manufacturing facilities in communities nationwide.

1995
•Two-thirds of the U.S. metropolitan areas with unhealthy air in 1990 have now met air quality standards, making the air safer to breathe for 50 million Americans in major cities such as San Francisco and Detroit.

•EPA issues new requirements for municipal incinerators to reduce toxic emissions by 90%.

•To achieve better environmental results, provide regulatory flexibility, and maintain accountability, President Clinton announces Project XL--for excellence and leadership. Under the new initiative, 50 companies, facilities, states and localities will develop innovative ways to achieve results that go beyond those required by environmental regulations--and do so in more common-sense and cost-effective ways.


but yeah let's cut this useless moneygrubbing freedom limiting government agency....

:roll:

gimmesometruth27

here is more...

Saturday, February 5, 2011
Top EPA accomplishments
The Aspen Institute has published a list of “10 ways the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has strengthened America over the past 40 years.” By the way, the EPA was founded by the Nixon administration in 1970. The EPA has helped protect and preseve God's earth in many ways.

•Banned widespread use of the pesticide DDT, which was killing off wildlife and threatening public health.
•Greatly reduced acid rain due to reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. Acid rain pollutes water sources.
•Changed public views of waste, which led to innovations making use of waste to create energy and make new products.
•Banned lead from gasoline.
•Classified secondhand smoke as a known cause of cancer. This led to smoking bans in indoor public places, thereby improving public health.
•Set strict emission standards for pollutants emitted by cars and trucks.
•Regulated toxic chemicals and encouraged development of less harmful ones.
•Established a national commitment to restore and maintain the safety of fresh water (the Clean Water Act).
•Promoted fair environmental protection for minority and low-income citizens.
•Increased the amount of public information about chemicals and/or pollutants people may be exposed to in their daily lives.

Current EPA focus areas
•Dealing with climate change.
•Further improving air quality.
•Assuring the safety of chemicals used in everyday products.
•Protecting increasingly compromised waterways and coastal areas.
•Building stronger state and tribal partnerships.
•Expanding protection for underrepresented communities.
Potential future problems

Any of the possible types of roadblocks listed below could hamper the EPA in improving our national stewardship of God's earth.

•An unfriendly Congress.
•Weak White House resolve.
•Public apathy
•Future natural and man-made disasters that divert both attention and resources.

http://creationcareteam.blogspot.com/20 ... ments.html

VINNY GOOMBA

For the record, I am not a fan of federal government agencies existing to make the rules at all. There is no legislative process with them. No checks and balances. Whoever is in charge, makes the rules, and there seems to be some really odd inconsistencies within the rules. Take the story I just posted in the above link. People can be busted for selling raw milk, but not cigarettes? But hey, as long as we tax the shit out of cigarettes, and people keep buying them, I guess they're ok. Raw milk just ain't popular enough to earn that "this is wrong, but profitable for government" status.

Why is an EPA necessary? Why can't environmental protection happen through bills in Congress, or even better yet, state and local rules against hurting someone else's (private), or everyone else's (public) property?

No one has a right to pollute anyone else's land, air, or water. No one has a right to destroy public land. I recognize the intent behind every alphabet agency there is, but I do not agree with how they can be given so much power to make laws / regulations. Again, who takes advantage of this power but people who seek power?

gimmesometruth27

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

No one has a right to pollute anyone else's land, air, or water. No one has a right to destroy public land. I recognize the intent behind every alphabet agency there is, but I do not agree with how they can be given so much power to make laws / regulations. Again, who takes advantage of this power but people who seek power?

yes, but people DO do those things. and without the epa and what it has done it would be continued and most likely worse.

and to answer your questions about why the epa exists instead of having these things controlled by laws passed in congress...congress can't even agree if the sky is blue. how are they going to agree on things based on science, like what is an acceptable level of lead or does it harm the environment if we dump sewage into the ocean? especially when one half does not believe in science, but, rather, that jesus is coming back in their lifetime to begin the rapture, so why save the world for their grandkids?

usamamasan1

Parachute wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Parachute wrote:

So that I can buy whichever light bulb I want to.

So we should let our freedom to choose light bulbs trump our kids and grandkids freedom to live in a clean, safe, flourishing world? :?

if you are depending on Gubmint to ensure your kids freedom, then you've already lost it.

"Those who would trade Liberty for Security deserve neither."

Parachute, you rock.

VINNY GOOMBA

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

No one has a right to pollute anyone else's land, air, or water. No one has a right to destroy public land. I recognize the intent behind every alphabet agency there is, but I do not agree with how they can be given so much power to make laws / regulations. Again, who takes advantage of this power but people who seek power?

yes, but people DO do those things. and without the epa and what it has done it would be continued and most likely worse.

and to answer your questions about why the epa exists instead of having these things controlled by laws passed in congress...congress can't even agree if the sky is blue. how are they going to agree on things based on science, like what is an acceptable level of lead or does it harm the environment if we dump sewage into the ocean? especially when one half does not believe in science, but, rather, that jesus is coming back in their lifetime to begin the rapture, so why save the world for their grandkids?

You just raised a great question, which raises a serious number of other questions that are worth answering by everyone on the train here, and in the country. If Congress can't agree on anything, why don't we just have a president, and a boatload of agencies do the governing? Is it worth having individual state governments? Should everything be more unified and centralized to a small group of trustworthy people?

In some ways, do we already have this system? Is it working better than it is failing?

Maybe, if government agencies are the way to go, why don't the people directly elect them as well, instead of choosing representatives and senators?

Personally, I prefer governance as locally as possible, with the shortest possible terms. But, I also agree on how horrible Congress is, but I don't think many of our presidents have been any better. Them checking each other is the best thing they actually have going, when they actually choose to do it instead of simply giving away their power to each other.

Cosmo

Short answer: Republicans don't like regulation.
...
We should let everyone regulate themselves... you know, like the way the Wall Streeters and banks regulated themselves. Because, everyone is honest and looks out for what best for all of us, not just THEIR best interests... right?

usamamasan1

i don't want the EPA regulating the the US economy in the name of global warming any more than to regulate cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, planes, trains, ships, boats, tractors, mining equipment, RVs, lawn mowers, fork lifts…

or light bulbs.

And I want clean rivers and shit as much as the next guy.

Cosmo

usamamasan1 wrote:

i don't want the EPA regulating the the US economy in the name of global warming any more than to regulate cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, planes, trains, ships, boats, tractors, mining equipment, RVs, lawn mowers, fork lifts…

or light bulbs.

And I want clean rivers and shit as much as the next guy.

...
You like clean rivers and clean air... but, think cars and other motorized machines should be able to pollute as much as their makers want?
How does that figure?

Go Beavers

Parachute wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

Parachute wrote:

So that I can buy whichever light bulb I want to.

You don't get enough light from burning your old car tires?

I don't get it.

Yeah you do.

VINNY GOOMBA

Cosmo wrote:

Short answer: Republicans don't like regulation.
...
We should let everyone regulate themselves... you know, like the way the Wall Streeters and banks regulated themselves. Because, everyone is honest and looks out for what best for all of us, not just THEIR best interests... right?

There is no more glaring example of how "the Regulators" actually PERMIT more fraud and theft for the people they are regulating than the Wall Street example. You need look no further than how the Federal Reserve System works (and who it was created by), as well as fractional reserve banking. Once that is understood, every other "regulation" and "safeguard" to protect investors set in place by other agencies like the SEC and even Congress are practically worthless, and just become back and forth partisan talking points distracting from the real issue: This is a permanent bailout mechanism combined with a legalized counterfeitting operation, that actually charges the people of this country for their own money, creating debt, and effectively enslaving us all to that debt. And that guy Hank Paulson, who was he before he presided over the Treasury, before the bailouts? The former CEO of Goldman Sachs. The current Treasury Secretary? Geithner was both head of the NY Fed, as well as a big shot in the IMF.

If this isn't Wall Street REALLY regulating itself-- what is?

usamamasan1

Cosmo, I like my Yukon. Prius ain't gonna cut it.
I also enjoy cruising on a big fat boat that at cruise speed burns over a gallon of diesel per mile.
And when it comes to snowmobiling in the winter, like Palin said at a motorcycle rally, I love the smell of exhaust!
Woot

VINNY GOOMBA

Cosmo wrote:

Short answer: Republicans don't like regulation.
...
We should let everyone regulate themselves... you know, like the way the Wall Streeters and banks regulated themselves. Because, everyone is honest and looks out for what best for all of us, not just THEIR best interests... right?

Cosmo, you are correct, as is everyone else in saying that not everyone is honest and in it for the best interests of everyone else. But what power do dishonest people / corporations actually have if their products and services aren't forced on other people, and there isn't a huge forceful entity constantly tipping the scales and bending the rules in their favor? There will always be pricks and thieves. I simply prefer for them to not have this type of authority over me that I mention here above. The only way to do that, is to not give that authority to anyone.

I'm not saying abolish government. I am saying to completely revamp it in such a way that the rules are simple, specific, and leave room for the greatest amount of freedom and innovation to take place, while favoring no one group / religion / company any more than anyone else.

gimmesometruth27

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

No one has a right to pollute anyone else's land, air, or water. No one has a right to destroy public land. I recognize the intent behind every alphabet agency there is, but I do not agree with how they can be given so much power to make laws / regulations. Again, who takes advantage of this power but people who seek power?

yes, but people DO do those things. and without the epa and what it has done it would be continued and most likely worse.

and to answer your questions about why the epa exists instead of having these things controlled by laws passed in congress...congress can't even agree if the sky is blue. how are they going to agree on things based on science, like what is an acceptable level of lead or does it harm the environment if we dump sewage into the ocean? especially when one half does not believe in science, but, rather, that jesus is coming back in their lifetime to begin the rapture, so why save the world for their grandkids?

You just raised a great question, which raises a serious number of other questions that are worth answering by everyone on the train here, and in the country. If Congress can't agree on anything, why don't we just have a president, and a boatload of agencies do the governing? Is it worth having individual state governments? Should everything be more unified and centralized to a small group of trustworthy people?

In some ways, do we already have this system? Is it working better than it is failing?

Maybe, if government agencies are the way to go, why don't the people directly elect them as well, instead of choosing representatives and senators?

Personally, I prefer governance as locally as possible, with the shortest possible terms. But, I also agree on how horrible Congress is, but I don't think many of our presidents have been any better. Them checking each other is the best thing they actually have going, when they actually choose to do it instead of simply giving away their power to each other.

Vinny i respect your position on this issue just like on all of the others, but i am going to have to disagree with you on having municipalities or cities or states having different standards for what is acceptable and what is unacceptable for levels of pollutants or whatever sort of damaging things are out there. it has to be a federally mandated standard, otherwise you might have massachesetts wanting the cleanest air possible and the most strict standards under their law, but them yo umight have a place like iowa or oklahoma or whatever state to the west having more lax standards. sooner or later the emissions from iowa or oklahoma will get into the air and into the jetstream and that polluted air is going to fly over massachusetts and cause all kinds of pollution and potentially things like acid rain, thus making moot massachusetts' standards. remember the acid rain hitting our west coast several years ago coming from china? it is not the government being all big and powerful trying to be dicks about it, it is trying to establish a safe level of pollutants in the atmosphere for the whole country and whatever is to the east of us. same as if iowa puts a bunch of shit in the mississippi river, everything further downstream is going to be soiled by it. it is common sense, because we have proven that left to our own devices and no oversight, americans will soil our own land for profit..

Cosmo

usamamasan1 wrote:

Cosmo, I like my Yukon. Prius ain't gonna cut it.
I also enjoy cruising on a big fat boat that at cruise speed burns over a gallon of diesel per mile.
And when it comes to snowmobiling in the winter, like Palin said at a motorcycle rally, I love the smell of exhaust!
Woot

...
Yet... you want clean water and air... right?

usamamasan1

Sure do

Cosmo

usamamasan1 wrote:

Sure do

...
Okay. So you get my point, right? You want you and your kids to breathe clean air and drink clean water... but, you don't want regulations on G.M. regarding emmisions controls. Meaning, during the manufacture of your Yukon, G.M. should be able to dump the waste water from cadmium plating into the the river and remove all of the emmission controls to save money... because those things have been restricted by... regulations.
How does that work?