When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was launched in 1970, its stated mission was to “conduct environmental research, provide assistance…[in] combating environmental pollution, and assist the Council on Environmental Quality in developing and recommending…new policies for environmental protection…to the President.” From these things, it’s clear that President Richard Nixon’s goal in creating the EPA was to put an agency in place that would fill a research and advisory role for both himself and future presidents. There was no indication that he intended an ideologically driven juggernaut that not only researched but actually took unto itself the power to mandate the most stringent of eco-centered, blatantly anti-capitalist environmental guidelines and regulations imaginable.
In fact, the EPA is so far from its original purposes that in just the past few years officials from that agency have addressed everything from regulating to livestock emissions (cow flatulence) to regulating America’s water supply to putting their own Cap and Trade regulations in place. The latter truly reveals just how much power the EPA has taken unto itself, insofar as members of that agency are trying to put Cap and Trade in place although the American people and the U.S. Senate have already rejected it on face value. (Cap and Trade would be a boon to the already burgeoned EPA in that it would not only allow them to write guidelines and flood manufacturers with new regulations, but it would also put them in the catbird seat as the ones who would enforce and oversee the implementation of the regulations they write.)
Fortunately, Republicans in the new Congress have seen the EPA’s latest power-grab for what it is and have offered two pieces of legislation to curtail the power of that mammoth agency. The bills, one of which was introduced by Senator John Barrasso (R-Wo) and the other by Senator James Inhofe (R-Ok) and Representative Fred Upton (R-Mi), bar the EPA “from using its regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate industrial emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide.” In doing this, the bills literally roll back the clock by taking away powers the EPA has unilaterally given itself during the last 40 years (like the power to regulate CO2 emissions).
The only disappointing thing about what Barrasso, Inhofe, and Upton are doing is that they don’t go far enough. In other words, it’s not just time to rein in the EPA but to abolish it.
The EPA is a tyrant’s best friend, because it provides a completely unchecked avenue whereby a President like Obama can bypass both the House and Senate to have freedom-robbing pet projects like Cap and Trade instituted without giving the people any recourse. (Remember, it was in light of his planned Cap and Trade legislation that candidate Obama pledged to drive new coal-power plants into bankruptcy, thus making conventional energy prices soar as a means of pushing people toward green energy. Republicans like Barrasso, Inhofe, and Upton recognize that the EPA is more than willing to be the agency that makes Obama’s campaign pledge come true.)
Again, the problem with the Republican proposal is that it does not go far enough. We don’t just want to lighten the weight of big government on our backs, we want to remove big government from our backs completely.
Therefore, while we still have momentum gained from the November 2010 elections, let’s not just rein in the EPA but abolish it. And having abolished it, let’s put an agency in its place that fulfills the original purpose of the EPA minus the capability to snowball itself into some arbitrary body of unchecked, de facto lawmakers whose names never appear on a ballot.
There are a lot of good ideas out there for an EPA replacement, not the least of which comes from Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions. But the first step is to tell current EPA personnel to clean out their desks and pack it up, because the American people are sick and tired of being ruled by a bunch of hard left, eco-minded bureaucrats.
The time to get rid of this over reaching agency has come.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 10-13-2011).]
They may need pulled back, but abolish? Sounds like someone with zero knowledge of corporate America and it's history.
To be fair, they did say "There are a lot of good ideas out there for an EPA replacement" In the past we have shown that oversight in the environmental area is a must.
The EPA and FCC have gotten out of contol. Since money is tight anyway, they absolutely ought to be defunded. We can look at smaller, cheaper, less destructive replacements afterwards but simply pissing around trying to defang them is too little too late.
The EPA and FCC have gotten out of contol. Since money is tight anyway, they absolutely ought to be defunded. We can look at smaller, cheaper, less destructive replacements afterwards but simply pissing around trying to defang them is too little too late.
Please tell me how the FCC has gotten out of control. With deregulation of the FCC in the Reagan Administration, multiple ownership of media in single markets was authorized which gave rise to only one source for opinion in large markets that masquerades as news, cut back on the watchdog role of the FCC and now the electromagnetic spectrum is a wasteland, cursing and soft **** or at least R-rated material is allowed in what was once called, "Family Time" TV, etc. Newscorp, Salem Communications, Charter and other media gians are allowed to buy anything Murdoch and his counterparts want to and thanks to deregulation, no challenges were filed through the Securities and exchange Commission. This alone allows media giants to control what people watch, hear and read. Some agencies need regulation and I while agree with you about the EPA but in fairness, our access to real news and not opinion as hawked by Fox and MSNBC has been severlly limited by the sheer lack of oversight. The last major antitrust case was filed in the 1970s to break up Ma Bell and now, anything goes. Mom and Pop are in danger from conglomerates that send our jobs overseas.
I really want to hear from you how the FCC is out of control and why multiple ownership of media by a few giant corporations is a good thing.
Don't get me started on the stupidity of OSHA---ugh. EPA regs are downright idiotic.
let’s put an agency in its place that fulfills the original purpose of the EPA minus the capability to snowball itself into some arbitrary body of unchecked, de facto lawmakers whose names never appear on a ballot.
These agencies have a way of running amok with power, forcing their arbitary decisions on us without recourse. Granted that the basic premise is good, there needs to be limits.
We've been losing ground to the consumer product safety commission in the fireworks industry. The CPSC has targeted the hobby suppliers with the full weight of their federal agency, 90% are now gone and the few remaining are heavily restricted to the point of extinction. Their zeal to protect us from ourselves has wiped out the science, biology and geology clubs, the rocket hobbyists and fireworks hobbyists. Sadly it was a perfect end run around many of the state's law where it used to be legal by the vote of the people by a few idiological zealots.
Originally posted by ray b: sure we have no need of clean air or water the markets know best
I have to agree with you there. China, our own industrial revolution, and all of the toxic sites left behind by disbanded corporations prove that self regulation does not work.
As Fiero enthusiasts, the part most relevant to us is automotive emissions control regulations. And the regulations the EPA has forced on new cars have been good. But When it comes to retrofitting older cars, their policies are counter-productive and self-defeating. What you can do to help is to join SEMA. Sure, it costs a few dollars a year, but what is your engine-swapping freedom worth to you?
Even with the EPA in place, Bush was able to allow coal companies to drain off their waste water wherever the heck they want. Yes, I agree environmental issues are important, but this notion of "all powerful overreaching EPA" is hogwash... otherwise they could have stopped such an irresponsible and dangerous action.
They may need pulled back, but abolish? Sounds like someone with zero knowledge of corporate America and it's history.
Perhaps abolish and rebuilt with firmer rules on its scope and authority.. There needs to be some environmental oversight or we will all be living in a polluted mess.
I vote for smaller, more rational government. Not zero government.
I doubt any of us vote for no government. The point is, if you look through our founding documents and study the ideas and principles they were based on, it becomes apparent why unaccountable federal agencies run by unelected bearucrats with lawmaking (regulatory) authority are repugnant to those of us who believe in a Constitutional republic. Laws come from elected legislators; not political cronies with lifetime appointments.
If nothing else, all these alphabet soup agencies should be abolished and replaced with legally-operating equivalents, and made to sunset every 5 years or so. Then they can be reassembled and retooled periodically to avoid the creeping stalinism that has so corrupted the agencies we have presently.
Bottom line is the federal bearocracy was never intended to be the 4th branch of the government. The fact that it is today is unconstitutional, morally repugnant, and corrupt.
Even with the EPA in place, Bush was able to allow coal companies to drain off their waste water wherever the heck they want. Yes, I agree environmental issues are important, but this notion of "all powerful overreaching EPA" is hogwash... otherwise they could have stopped such an irresponsible and dangerous action.
Maybe if they were doing only what they were originally supposed to be doing they might have had the time or will to stop it. I had never heard anything about it, was this a Bush directive? or was he just in the seat at the time so let's get him.
Actually a agency such as the EPA is not a problem unless we elect overreaching big government types. I think the founders would be fine with protecting air and water quality from irresponsible parties.
''zero knowledge'' is a neo-conn specialty right along with ''zero history''
sure we have no need of clean air or water the markets know best
Always find this odd and amusing about Ray. Always against the "Man" yet perfectly happy to have a boot put on his neck as long as it's endorsed by the Dems and or Unions..
Ray.. We all like clean air and water, we don't like the "Man" telling us we can't drive on our back 40 because it's suddenly a "wetland" Now if you want to join the rest of the Luddites and live in a mud hut, feel free.. Oh wait.. before you build your mud hut, make sure you get an environmental impact statement and you can only get your mud from an enviro friendly source in Mexico since you're not allowed to dig up American mud, it might have an endangered insect in it.
Maybe if they were doing only what they were originally supposed to be doing they might have had the time or will to stop it. I had never heard anything about it, was this a Bush directive? or was he just in the seat at the time so let's get him.
Were you paying attention? This had been in the works since 2002. Not only did it happen while Bush was in office, but he pushed it through. It had been on Cheney's energy commission wish list since 2001. It says the head of the EPA cooperated with this (Johnson), but Bush appointed him, so go figure. Just google "Bush Coal Mountaintop" and you will find almost 8 years worth of articles.
WASHINGTON — The White House on Tuesday approved a final rule that will make it easier for coal companies to dump rock and dirt from mountaintop mining operations into nearby streams and valleys.
The rule is one of the most contentious of all the regulations emerging from the White House in President Bush’s last weeks in office.
James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, confirmed in an interview that the rule had been approved by the White House Office of Management and Budget. That clears the way for publication in the Federal Register, the last stage in the rule-making process.
Stephen L. Johnson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, concurred in the rule, first proposed nearly five years ago by the Interior Department, which regulates coal mining.
In a letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, dated Tuesday, Mr. Johnson said the rule had been revised to protect fish, wildlife and streams.
Mining activities must comply with water quality standards established by the federal government and the states, Mr. Johnson said.
But a coalition of environmental groups said the rule would accelerate “the destruction of mountains, forests and streams throughout Appalachia.”
Edward C. Hopkins, a policy analyst at the Sierra Club, said: “The E.P.A.’s own scientists have concluded that dumping mining waste into streams devastates downstream water quality. By signing off on this rule, the agency has abdicated its responsibility.”
Mr. Bush has boasted of his efforts to cooperate with President-elect Barack Obama to ensure a smooth transition, but the administration is rushing to complete work on regulations to which Mr. Obama and his advisers object. The rules deal with air pollution, auto safety, abortion and workers’ exposure to toxic chemicals, among other issues.
The National Mining Association, a trade group, welcomed the rule, saying it could end years of uncertainty that had put jobs and coal production in jeopardy.
The coal industry could be the largest beneficiary of last-minute environmental rules.
“This is unmistakably a fire sale of epic size for coal and the entire fossil fuel industry, with flagrant disregard for human health, the environment or the rule of law,” said Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund.
The Environmental Protection Agency is trying to finish work on a rule that would make it easier for utilities to put coal-fired generating stations near national parks. It is working on another rule that would allow utility companies to modify coal-fired power plants and increase their emissions without installing new pollution-control equipment.
Joan M. Mulhern, a lawyer at Earthjustice, an environmental group, denounced the mining regulation.
“With less than two months left in power,” Ms. Mulhern said, “the Bush administration is determined to cement its legacy as having the worst environmental record in history.”
At issue, she said, is a type of mining in which “coal companies blast the tops off mountains to reach the seams of coal and then push the rubble into the adjacent valleys, burying miles of streams.”
Administration officials rejected the criticism.
“This rule strengthens protections for streams,” said Peter L. Mali, a spokesman for the Interior Department office that wrote the regulation. “Federal law allows coal mine waste to be placed in streams, and the rule tightens restrictions as to when, where and how those discharges can occur.”
The rule gives coal companies a legal right to do what, in the past, they could do only in exceptional circumstances, with special permission from the government.
As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama expressed “serious concerns about the environmental implications” of mountaintop mining.
“We have to find more environmentally sound ways of mining coal than simply blowing the tops off mountains,” Mr. Obama told one environmental group. At the same time, he proposed a major federal investment in clean coal technology.
Gov. Steven L. Beshear of Kentucky and Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, both Democrats, had urged the Bush administration not to approve the rule. Mr. Beshear said he feared that it would lead to an increase in pollution of “Kentucky’s beautiful natural resources.”
Several members of Congress also opposed the rule, including Representative John Yarmuth, Democrat of Kentucky.
In giving his blessing to the new regulation, Mr. Johnson, the head of the E.P.A., noted that Mr. Bush had promoted the use of clean coal technology as a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
“Americans should not have to choose between clean coal or effective environmental protection,” Mr. Johnson said. “We can achieve both.”
But environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council see the mountaintop mining rule and pending changes in air pollution regulations as part of a final effort by the Bush administration to cater to the needs of energy industries.
The proposal that would give more leeway to coal-burning power plants, to increase their emissions when they make repairs and renovations, was on the original wish list of the energy task force convened by Vice President Dick Cheney in 2001.
In 2006, a federal appeals court struck down an effort by the Bush administration to loosen the rules on such coal-burning plants.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 02-12-2011).]
Heh, I don't read lefty gobbley gook, we HAVE to mine. The country depends on it. There was really no story there but eco waco's doing what they do.
Tell yourself whatever you need to to get through your day... I just find it convenient that no story counts unless it supports a set of political beliefs. I dont buy into the left or right BS.. they are both wrong. And with this, Bush was majorly wrong. It was basically Bush cow-talling to his big energy company friends with complete disregard for the ramifications.. but I dont expect anyone who supported him to see the truth in this matter.
Yes we HAVE to mine, but heck no we dont have to throw the crap leftover wherever. Its irresponsible and will cause polluted drinking water and air. Whn I make a mess and dont clean up, the mess is still there. Why is it when these guys create pollution, people believe its going to magically disappear and not have ramifications? Wow, fantasy land has strange rules. This is not a eco-wacko story, you just live far enough away you likely wont have to deal with any of the consequences. Good for you!
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 02-12-2011).]
The Effects of Mountaintop Mines and Valley Fills on Aquatic Ecosystems of the Central Appalachian Coalfields provides a state-of-the-science assessment on the ecological impacts of mountaintop mining and valley fill operations. EPA researchers identified and reviewed some 277 citations, including books, conference proceedings, journal articles, reports, theses/dissertations and other sources to present a single-volume assessment of the latest science available on the aquatic impacts associated with mountaintop mining.
The analysis identifies five key impacts directly related to mountaintop mining and valley fill:
1.springs, intermittent streams, and small perennial streams are permanently lost with the removal of the mountaintop and from burial under fill, 2.concentrations of major chemical ions are persistently elevated downstream, 3.degraded water quality reaches levels that are acutely lethal to standard laboratory test organisms, 4.selenium concentrations are elevated, reaching concentrations that have caused toxic effects in fish and birds and 5.macroinvertebrate and fish communities are consistently and significantly degraded. The second report, A Field-based Aquatic Life Benchmark for Conductivity in Central Appalachian Streams, provides the scientific basis for using a field-data-derived, conductivity-based measurement as the benchmark for water quality in order to protect aquatic organisms living in Appalachian surface waters. Conductivity is a measure of the level of salinity (salt) in the water. Because mountaintop mining operations can raise the salinity levels of nearby streams, measuring it provides an indication of those operations’ impacts on water quality. EPA scientists conducted more than 2,000 field samples to derive a conductivity benchmark that protects 95% of the genera (sets of similar and closely related species) of aquatic organisms living in streams in central Appalachia.
Key findings of the report include:
•Concentrations of salts as measured by conductivity are, on average, 10 times higher downstream of mountaintop mines and valley fills than in un-mined watersheds. •The increased levels of salts disrupt the life cycle of freshwater aquatic organisms, and some cannot live in these waters. Water with high salt concentrations downstream of mountaintop mines and valley fills is toxic to stream organisms. •There are also higher levels of the chemical selenium downstream of mining sites. Selenium exceeded the level established by EPA to protect aquatic life at more than half of the sites surveyed downstream of mountaintop mines and valley fills. •By plotting the conductivity levels at which organisms are no longer observed in streams, we can determine a level of conductivity that results in their loss. •EPA identified a conductivity benchmark (300 microSiemens per centimeter) that protects 95% of the genera of aquatic organisms living in streams in central Appalachia.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 02-12-2011).]
Excuses aside, these flat earth no gowth marxist environmentalists have been hiding their red behind the pretense of green for more than long enough. They need to be exposed for what they are, rooted out, and eliminated. Let them go find jobs doing something useful, instead of just leeching off the productive while trying to subvert everything that makes the economy actually work.
At CPAC last week, Speaker Gingrich called for an all-American energy plan and a new Environmental Solutions Agency to replace the Obama administration's war on American energy.
An All-American Energy Plan will aggressively develop all sources of American energy: oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar, bio-fuels. American prosperity and national security are dependent on abundant, low cost American energy supplies.
A new Environmental Solutions Agency would replace the EPA, which has transformed from an agency designed to "protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment" into a job-killing, centralizing engine of ideological litigation and regulation that blocks economic progress. A new Environmental Solutions Agency would bring together science, technology, entrepreneurs, incentives, and local governments to maintain a clean environment and a strong economy, all while decentralizing power and decision-making out of Washington and restoring authority to states and local communities.
Of all the government agencies that have become unnecessary barriers to job creation and economic growth, the Environmental Protection Agency is the worst offender.
Since its founding 40 years ago, the EPA has transformed from an agency with the original noble mission of protecting the environment into a job-killing, centralizing engine of ideological litigation and regulation that blocks economic progress. The EPA's current push to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, and thereby the entire American economy, is the latest and definitive proof that the EPA has gone well beyond its original mandate.
Even worse, the EPA has become the bureaucracy of choice for Presidents and ideologues to exert more control over the decision making of the private sector and local and state governments, stifling the very innovation and entrepreneurship that is necessary to achieve a cleaner environment.
Here are but a few examples of how the EPA has become a job-killing agency:
Revoking Approved Permits: The EPA recently voided a previously-approved permit issued for the Spruce No. 1 coal mine in West Virginia, the first time in the Clean Water Act's forty-year history that an approved permit has been retracted by the EPA. This sets a dangerous precedent for all future operations, as the EPA's decision means all currently approved permits are now subject to agency review, which in turn means no company that has followed the rules and obtained the necessary approval can have any confidence or certainty about its operations. Such ambiguity is often referred to an "uncertainty tax," as it imposes costs on business operations similar to those arising from a tax.
Regulation of Carbon Dioxide: The Clean Air Act was written to address numerous air pollutants, including nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, which contribute to ozone pollution and acid rain. It was not intended to regulate carbon dioxide. The EPA's decision to regulate CO2 under the Act actually confirmed that fact: Under the EPA's plan, the Clean Air Act would have to be rewritten to delineate that carbon will be regulated at a different threshold than other air pollutants. Miraculously, the EPA has granted itself the power to rewrite its own statutory authority, a power that is constitutionally reserved only for Congress. If the Clean Air Act must be changed to justify the regulation of carbon, then it's clear that the law as written was never intended to cover carbon.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: The EPA's own economic analysis (PDF) of NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide concluded that the costs of this regulation would dramatically outweigh the benefits. In fact, under virtually all possible scenarios the EPA found that the benefit (in dollars) would be zero. There is absolutely no justification for a regulation that imposes millions of dollars in costs and minimal-at-best environmental benefits.
Boiler MACT: In June 2010, the EPA proposed the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. Also referred to as the "Boiler MACT" rule, this proposal sets limits on mercury, hydrogen chloride, and air pollutants. While reducing these emissions is necessary, the EPA's proposed rule is so stringent that virtually none of the covered entities will be able to comply with it. For example, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA), which represents several companies employing roughly 750,000 people, has noted that of their six best performing units, "none can comply with the standards" as set forth by EPA. If covered sources cannot meet the requirements, the result will be either perpetual and economy-wide noncompliance, or a complete shut down of industry. In fact, the regulation would be so costly that a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators (18 Democrats and 23 Republicans) wrote to the EPA in September 2010 asking for the EPA to scrap the boiler rule and start over.
Replace Not Reform
Some say the EPA should be reined in and reformed, but the agency's animus against the private sector runs deep within its operating culture. Efforts to change the way an inherently destructive agency does business will ultimately fail.
Since the EPA's first operating budget (fiscal year 1970), the agency's workforce has more than quadrupled, which coincides with the EPA now costing taxpayers more than ten times what it did forty years ago. At more than $10 billion, the EPA's annual budget exceeds the GDP of about 60 countries worldwide, and it has entrenched in the American psyche the notion that protecting the environment must come with high costs and a destructive culture of litigation. Such an agency cannot simply be reformed, as it has ingrained in itself for more than a generation the notion that environmental protection must coincide with bigger government and more litigation.
The EPA should be replaced with the Environmental Solutions Agency, which would incorporate the necessary statutory responsibilities of the old EPA while eliminating the job-killing regulatory abuses and power grabs of the old EPA. This would be achieved by bringing together science, technology, entrepreneurs, incentives, and local creativity to create a cleaner environment through smarter regulation.
Such an agency would create a stronger economy with more American jobs and more American energy, all while protecting human health and the environment. And at a time when Americans are demanding smaller government, the time to replace the EPA with a leaner, more efficient agency has never been better.
Replacement Has a Strong Track Record
Replacing federal agencies has been done many times before, and the history of the federal government confirms that agencies and offices are routinely replaced as they outline their original missions: The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was replaced by the CIA in 1947. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission replaced the Atomic Energy Commission in 1974. The Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002 to replace several agencies. Replacing the EPA with a new and improved Environmental Solutions Agency would thus be rooted in decades of comparable federal government reorganizations.
Additionally, there is strong evidence that cultural change can lead to dramatically improved results. Take, for example, then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani's decision to change New York City's welfare offices into "Job Centers." In his book Leadership, Giuliani describes how New York City was "being destroyed by the preaching of entitlement," a cultural institution that "locked people into poverty." Instead of continuing to dole out entitlements to people who were out of work, Mayor Giuliani overhauled the fundamental culture and focused on the solution: getting people back to work. That kind of transformation would not have been possible had the mayor simply reformed how public assistance was distributed; it required a cultural shift to make people think about what will actually fix the problem. Giuliani's efforts led to a dramatic decline in welfare caseloads, and increased the number of people working to get off of public assistance.
This is why a fundamental cultural shift is also needed in the way the federal government approaches environmental protection. The EPA's model is based on the idea that environmental problems can only be solved by adding more regulations and more bureaucrats, the product of forty years of internal standards and procedures that are simply unfit to deal with 21st century problems. The emphasis is not on solutions, but rather creating new ways to clamp down on economic growth. Like Giuliani's decision to change attitudes about welfare, it's time for the federal government to change its attitude about the best way to protect the environment without destroying jobs.
Better Environmental Results at Lower Cost with More Jobs
By emphasizing a culture of economic growth, innovation, and technology, the Environmental Solutions Agency can achieve the same goals - clean air, clean water, improved public health - for much less cost to taxpayers through regulatory reform and smarter regulatory approaches. It also will minimize frivolous litigation that, while cast in the guise of environmental protection, is actually used by the EPA and so-called environmentalists to stifle economic progress for all Americans.
In fact, 79% of Americans believe we can solve our environmental problems faster and cheaper with innovation and new technology instead of relying on more litigation, more regulation, and more government red tape. An overwhelming majority also believes entrepreneurs are more likely to solve energy and environmental problems than government bureaucrats, and nearly 70% believe we don't need to impose costly taxes if we incentivize technology and innovation. All of these are completely inconsistent with the current EPA's model for addressing the environment and public health, and no amount of simple reforms will change that.
It's time to get serious about permanently reducing the size of government, and it's time to get serious about promoting a healthy economy along with a healthy environment. It's time to replace the EPA.
"Speaker" Gingrich? Isn't he the guy who resigned in disgrace from the House of Representatives in the 1990s? Has Boehner heard about this? AS far as I am concerned, Gingrich has relevance on Hannity's show and now he's being considered as president. President Newt. Nice ring to it. The Republican's answer to Barack. Surely we can do better than him.
so - are we suggesting we leave it up the corporations to police themselves, eh? well, lets put on that silly hat, and picture it....
we can start with the endlessly easy example last summer in the Gulf of Mexico and go backwards from there....
I can see validity in re-structuing the EPA. sure can. But to be so endlessly naive to think we can go without the EPA (or the likes) is endlessly chilidish. unless - maybe - we can try this: corporations can produce NOTHING but their product. no waste. no garbage. no emmisions. they must contain their outputs. if a process they do creates endless gallons of goop. well, they must contain & store it. if they create exhaust - they must bottle it. make them responsible for their processes. responsible. not a word corporations like, is it?
so - are we suggesting we leave it up the corporations to police themselves, eh?
I think of other countries who don't have EPA's (in favor of their product pricing undercutting the rest of the world) and who's factories pump out huge amounts of poison into the air, land, & sea. Corporations to police themselves won't work when the bottom line is the only bottom line. We have seen it many times before in minning.
As part of this regulatory power grab by the EPA, the agency is proposing propose a combination of major regulations and policy rules that will affect multiple business sectors across the country. Of particular concern to mining, the EPA is proposing:
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Rule - Increase U.S. Energy Costs/Reduce Household income - average income dropping by more than $1,200 annualy by 2030*
EPA has moved forward with greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act. On Jan. 2, the EPA implemented its GHG permitting program for certain sources that emit GHG's above a certain threshold. In 2011, EPA will roll out GHG performance standards for power plants and refineries, including coal-fired power plants. This power grab will give the EPA unprecedented ability to regulate America's economy. American mineral and metal producers, small and large manufacturers and businesses of every variety that rely on affordable electricity will suffer the consequences.
*Dr. Roger Bezdek, "Potential Harm of Greenhouse Gas Control Regulations to Minorities, Low-income Persons, the Elderly, and Those Living on Fixed Incomes," September 2010
Transport Rule - Estimated Cost: $130 Billion by 2015*
In 2005, EPA finalized the Clean Air Interstate Rule aimed at reducing nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions by 70 percent by 2025. Only six years later, EPA is poised to impose a new nationwide mandate that, according to an analysis by Bernstein Research, has the potential to severely impact nearly 20 percent of the nation's coal-based generation.
*Metin Celebi, Frank Graves, "Potential Coal Plant Retirements under Emerging Environmental Regulations", The Brattle Group, December 8, 2010
Maximun Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Rule - Projected coal-plant closures as a result of rule: 30-70 GW*
EPA is slated to propose new standards requiring costly emissions controls, forcing coal units to install equipment that in some cases is prohibitively expensive, and other cases simply do not yet commercially exist. According to FBR Capital, the combination of the Transport and MACT rules could force the retirement of 30-70 GW of the lowest cost electricity generating capacity.
*Scott Disavino, "EPA regs may shut down 70,000MW of U.S. Coal Plants: FBR," Reuters, December 13, 2010
Ozone Rule - Estimated number of U.S. jobs lost: 7.3 million*
After imposing new rules lowering standards for ozone to 85 parts per billion (ppb) in 1997 and reducing that number again to 75 ppb in 2008, EPA has proposed new reductions to as low as 60 ppb. According to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service, moving the goalposts yet again would push 565 new U.S. counties into non-attainment status under the Clean Air Act. *Unions for Jobs and the Environment, Comments on Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, March 22, 2010, (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0173;FRL-3102-1). Coal Combustion Rule - As many of 350 coal-based facilities shuttered*
Cement, drywall, kitchen counters, even bowling balls - just some of the products that rely on recycled coal residuals as an essential component in their makeup. Such recycling activities could come under new threat if EPA re-categorizes these materials as "hazardous," costing as much as $75 billion over the next two decades according to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
*Neil King Jr., and Rebecca Smith, "White House, EPA at Odds Over Coal-Waste Rules," Wall Street Journal, January 9, 2010
And Workers Agree: New Rules Result in Lost Middle-Class Jobs
According to a report from the United Mine Workers of America, job losses associated with the closure of EPA-targeted coal units could be significant, amounting to more than 50,000 direct jobs in the coal, utility and rail industries, and an indirect job loss figure exceeding 250,000. These are the regions expected to be hit the hardest.
This letter will be sent to the following individual(s): U.S. Senate,
U.S. House Of Representatives,
Subject: Protect America's Economy and oppose EPA's "Train Wreck" Regulations Dear Member of Congress: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is ready to enact a series of back-door mandates that threaten millions of American jobs and affordable electricity that powers American and businesses. As part of this regulatory power grab, EPA is proposing a myriad of rules and regulations that will have a profound negative effect on many business sectors across our economy, including the majority of American mining operations.
With 14 million Americans out of work, I urge you to oppose EPA’s plan to implement these new rules and ask that you support legislation that blocks EPA from unilaterally imposing these job-destroying regulations on America’s mining industry and the economy.
The EPA is planning to propose a combination of major regulations and policy rules, including the regulation of greenhouse gases, which is estimated to eliminate about 2.5 million jobs by 2030 and increase energy costs across all sectors; a proposed “Transport Rule,” which is estimated to cost the energy industry more than $130 billion by 2015; the proposed “MACT” rule expected in March that would shut down about 30-70 gigawatts (GW) of electricity generation (To put that into perspective, 1 GW can power 750,000 homes); and the proposed “Ozone Rule” that could eliminate about 7.3 million American jobs. And those are only a few of the overwhelming EPA proposals in the works.
I ask that you help protect America’s mining, energy, manufacturing and other industries by opposing EPA efforts to regulate our industries out of business.
At a time of great economic stress, our nation's domestic reserves of coal and minerals are more critical than ever before. We need the high-paying domestic jobs the mining industry has to offer.
Without your action, these back-door mandates could threaten the jobs of millions of Americans, impede America’s economic growth and increase the cost of electricity for families and businesses across the nation.
Your Information
*required
*Email Address
*Prefix Mr. Mrs. Ms. Miss Dr. *First Name
*Last Name
*Address 1
Address 2
*City
*State Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming *Postal Code
This letter will be sent to the following individual(s): U.S. Senate,
U.S. House Of Representatives,
Subject: Protect America's Economy and oppose EPA's "Train Wreck" Regulations Dear Member of Congress: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is ready to enact a series of back-door mandates that threaten millions of American jobs and affordable electricity that powers American and businesses. As part of this regulatory power grab, EPA is proposing a myriad of rules and regulations that will have a profound negative effect on many business sectors across our economy, including the majority of American mining operations.
With 14 million Americans out of work, I urge you to oppose EPA’s plan to implement these new rules and ask that you support legislation that blocks EPA from unilaterally imposing these job-destroying regulations on America’s mining industry and the economy.
The EPA is planning to propose a combination of major regulations and policy rules, including the regulation of greenhouse gases, which is estimated to eliminate about 2.5 million jobs by 2030 and increase energy costs across all sectors; a proposed “Transport Rule,” which is estimated to cost the energy industry more than $130 billion by 2015; the proposed “MACT” rule expected in March that would shut down about 30-70 gigawatts (GW) of electricity generation (To put that into perspective, 1 GW can power 750,000 homes); and the proposed “Ozone Rule” that could eliminate about 7.3 million American jobs. And those are only a few of the overwhelming EPA proposals in the works.
I ask that you help protect America’s mining, energy, manufacturing and other industries by opposing EPA efforts to regulate our industries out of business.
At a time of great economic stress, our nation's domestic reserves of coal and minerals are more critical than ever before. We need the high-paying domestic jobs the mining industry has to offer.
Without your action, these back-door mandates could threaten the jobs of millions of Americans, impede America’s economic growth and increase the cost of electricity for families and businesses across the nation.
Thank You.
For your reference, please find below the sources for the information I stated above:
Roger Bezdek, “Potential Harm of EPA Greenhouse Gas Control Regulations to Minorities, Low-Income Persons, the Elderly, and Those Living on Fixed Incomes,” Declaration to United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit, September 2010, http://www.uschamber.com/si...0Roger%20Bezdek.pdf.
Metin Celebi, Frank Graves, Gunjan Bathla, and Lucas Bressan, “Potential Coal Plant Retirements Under Emerging Environmental Regulations,” December 8, 2010, http://www.brattle.com/_doc...brary/Upload898.pdf.
Unions for Jobs and the Environment, Comments on Proposed National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, March 22, 2010, (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0173;FRL-3102
The problem with the EPA isn't it's purpose, a healthy environment is extremely important. And this is an area that does need regulation.
The problem with it and other federal agencies is that they are often used as a tool to push public policy that hasn't been legislated. Presidents who can't get a law they want passed simply instruct an agency to issue a new intepretation or new guidelines. It short circuits the process, and results in a lot of unchecked power. And far too often, many agencies become law unto themselves, in effect creating unelected rulers and unpassed laws.
The EPA is a prime example of this. The BATFE, OSHA, Dept of Labor, and many others come to mind.
If they can't play by the rules they shouldn't be allowed to play at all. The president and the democrats are ignoring the rules of the game. If they do this long enough no one else will want to play the game and that will be the end of it all. Why should anyone pay to play the game if it is rigged?
Republicans unveiled legislation that strips the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, a move that escalates the GOP’s attack on the White House environmental and energy agenda.
It was only part of a boarder assault on energy that took place on Capitol Hill Thursday.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, in an appearance at the House Natural Resources Committee, faced tough questions from a parade of Republicans who lambasted restrictions on offshore drilling.
And EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson came face to face with House Republicans for the first time since they voted to slash her budget, testifying before a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing.
She was questioned on a variety of topics, ranging from the effects of the agency’s proposed climate rules to whether the EPA would regulate spilled milk.
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) made the spilled-milk allegation, asking: “How can the EPA promulgate new rules like this? What’s next — sippy-cups in the House cafeteria?”
Jackson said the agency moved to exempt milk storage from proposed regulations on inland oil containment facilities. “We made it clear in our rules that we were not going to apply the rules to spilled milk,” she said.
Meanwhile, the EPA-related bill, introduced Thursday in both the House and Senate, picked up the backing of one Democratic senator and two senior House Democrats after a weeks-long lobbying effort by Republicans to win some bipartisan support.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who made a campaign ad last cycle where he shot climate change legislation, signed on as a Senate co-sponsor.
Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), the ranking member on the House Agriculture Committee, and Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), the ranking member on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, have signed on as original co-sponsors. Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.) also signed on to the legislation.
The new bill prevents the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, which are blamed for global warming, from stationary sources, including power plants and refineries.
“I believe EPA is headed in the wrong direction with an aggressive and overzealous regulatory agenda that far exceeds the authority it’s been granted,” House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) said at a hearing on the agency’s budget earlier Thursday.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the Energy panel, introduced the House version, while Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced the Senate version.
“The Energy Tax Prevention Act also imposes accountability,” Inhofe said in a statement on the new bill. “It takes power away from unelected bureaucrats and puts it where it belongs: in Congress, where the people can and should decide the nation’s climate change policy.”
Republicans on Thursday released a series of letters from industry groups that praise the bill, including from the American Farm Bureau Federation and the Industrial Energy Consumers of America.
The lawmakers floated a draft version in February, and have been working behind the scenes for weeks to get Democrats to sign on.
Forty-three Senate Republicans are initially sponsoring the bill. They include very conservative members of the GOP conference like Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.), but also Sens. Dick Lugar (Ind.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.). Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, signed on as well. Murkowski is also the ranking Republican on the panel of the Appropriations Committee that controls EPA’s budget.
The bill could clear the House but would be unlikely to advance in the Senate. But it could provide political running room for less aggressive proposals that would delay regulation without stripping EPA’s authority outright.
EPA has begun phasing in initial greenhouse-gas permitting requirements for large new and modified pollution sources, and is planning to craft other regulations, including specific emissions standards for power plants and refineries.
It’s not the first effort by Republicans to limit EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The seven-month GOP spending package that the House approved last month would prevent EPA from using fiscal 2011 funding for implementing climate rules, while Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has attracted backing from several centrist Democrats on a plan to delay regulation of stationary industrial plants for two years.
But it’s unclear if these efforts will take hold. The House is negotiating a compromise with Senate Democrats on a federal spending package, which would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, and it remains to be seen if those provisions will make the final legislation.
One former Capitol Hill aide who is active on energy policy predicted that the more important aspect of the climate fight remains the fate of riders on spending bills to block EPA.
“It is going to come to brinksmanship” on the spending bill, the source said. “It is going to be a showdown in environmental riders on the [continuing resolution].”
The problem with the EPA isn't it's purpose, a healthy environment is extremely important. And this is an area that does need regulation.
The problem with it and other federal agencies is that they are often used as a tool to push public policy that hasn't been legislated. Presidents who can't get a law they want passed simply instruct an agency to issue a new intepretation or new guidelines. It short circuits the process, and results in a lot of unchecked power. And far too often, many agencies become law unto themselves, in effect creating unelected rulers and unpassed laws.
The EPA is a prime example of this. The BATFE, OSHA, Dept of Labor, and many others come to mind.
I have to agree with you. EPA, OSHA and the other Alphabets Agencies for the most part have a good purpose to serve to the public's best interest.
I just wish the politicians leave these agencies to be run by the experts in the field and not by them.
You're right. The politicians use these agencies as either a weapon against their political opponents or they force these agencies to abide by their political agenda.
"Our Mission: Protecting America’s Great Outdoors and Powering Our Future The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future."
VS http://www.epa.gov/ Hard to find a general "mission statement" but.. it's pretty much tasked with doing the same thing. That and the dept of the interior doesn't seem to be as politically motiviated
Joining those 2 could be a good idea....but back in 1970 I'm sure nobody thought that the Dept. of Interior could tackle polluters. They were supposed to settle arguments over western lands, and they were not too good at that.
The Environmental Protection Agency debate lands in the Senate this week, amid the makings of a left-right coalition to mitigate the agency’s abuses. Few other votes this year could do more to help the private economy—but only if enough Democrats are willing to buck the White House.
This moment arrived unexpectedly, with Majority Leader Harry Reid opening a small business bill to amendments. Republican leader Mitch McConnell promptly introduced a rider to strip the EPA of the carbon regulation authority that the Obama Administration has given itself. Two weeks ago, Mr. Reid pulled the bill from the floor once it became clear Mr. McConnell might have the 13 Democrats he needs to clear 60.
The votes are now due as soon as tomorrow, and Mr. Reid is trying to attract 41 Democrats with a rival amendment from Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus. The Baucus plan is a political veneer that would exempt some farms and businesses from the EPA maw but at the cost of endorsing everything else. The question for Democrats is whether their loyalties to President Obama and EPA chief Lisa Jackson trump the larger economic good, not to mention constituents already facing far higher energy costs.
But a vote for the McConnell amendment, which would permanently bar the EPA from regulating carbon unless Congress passed new legislation, is justified on democratic prerogatives alone. Whatever one’s views of Massachusetts v. EPA or climate science, no elected representative has ever voted on an EPA plan that has often involved the unilateral redrafting of plain-letter law.
A vote to overrule the EPA is also needed to remove the regulatory uncertainty hanging over the economy. This harm is already apparent in energy, where the EPA is trying to drive coal-fired power out of existence. The core electricity generation that the country needs to meet future demand is not being built, and it won’t be until the EPA is bridled. This same dynamic is also chilling the natural gas boom in the Northeast, and it is making U.S. energy-intensive industries less competitive world-wide.
Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
I agree. The EPA has laid some groundwork, and can easily be integrated into some other existing organization. Less resources, more efficiency. The trick will be deciding limits of authority. It is sad to say that NASA is in peril with that thinking... much of the work done there is contracted, and many contractors are doing quite well with their own work outside of the government sponsored ones. Perhaps education should be contracted out like the current model used at NASA since it is such an elastic market.
An example of the EPA stepping in that Im familiar with......Theyve pretty much banned lacquer as being a threat to the environment and replaced it with urathanes which in just reading a label, is 20 times more deadly. I know people who have sprayed lacquer for 30 years and never wore any kind of mask. Paint 2 cars with urathane without one and you need a lung transplant. I know the first time I used it, I was choking and coughing for a week afterward and had a sore throat for weeks. There are now so many warnings on a paint label, there is no longer any room for any directions...you request a sheet if you want to know how to use it.
As of Wednesday night, a vote may finally be in sight for an amendment that would revoke the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. After days of back and forth over scheduling, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid signaled late Wednesday that a vote is tentatively set for Thursday afternoon.
The amendment, offered by Minority leader Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, is based off legislation authored by Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma. It is part of a group of highly contentious amendments attached to a small business bill that have kept Democrats from bringing it to the floor for a vote.
Other than McConnell’s, the other two amendments, offered by Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska, would do away with a tax credit for ethanol farmers and repeal the 1099 reporting rule for small business, respectively.
“I am concerned about this,” Inhofe told The Daily Caller in an interview when discussing the ever changing vote schedule.
But according to Inhofe, the reason the EPA amendment hasn’t come up for a vote yet is because Democrats are concerned about what it could do to their re-election chances in 2012.
“The main reason they don’t want a vote on this is because they have 23 Democratic senators coming up for re-election,” he told TheDC. “That would be a huge hit for them.”
Even if Inhofe gets his vote, however, how President Obama would respond should an amendment stripping the EPA’s power to regulate carbon dioxide is anyone’s guess. Senior White House officials have reportedly warned of a veto, but in public, Obama has been silent on the issue.
In his speech at Georgetown University Wednesday on securing America’s energy future, the president was noticeably silent on the battle across town on whether the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. The silence angered some environmental groups, and prompted Damon Moglen of Friends of the Earth to issue a statement Obama for “going AWOL on a crucial fight over the Clean Air Act.”
And earlier this week, nearly 20 Senate Democrats sent a letter to Obama calling on him not to agree to any spending legislation that undermines EPA regulations.
“Our nation is facing tough economic times, but though times call for intelligent decision-making and wisdom, not reckless cuts that will do more harm than good – cuts that will lead to illness and premature death,” said the letter.
But according to Inhofe, the president is in a political bind with the provision. “It’s an amendment on a bill he would hard time vetoing,” he said, referring to the small business bill the amendment is attached to. Moreover, Obama himself falls into the camp of those up for re-election in 2012 who are worried about being labeled as Democrats that voted against a measure that would lower gas prices.
“I think the president would use that as an excuse not to veto it,” said Inhofe, Plus, “I’m going to put this on everything that comes along,” he added
Please the EPA went way beyond keeping the water clean and the air.
very true.. but if we totally abolished it, then we wouldn't even have that! I agree totally that they have waaaay to much power, but we do need some environmental regulations, or the big corporations and factories will have us living in toxic waste.. But i agree it should be totally restructured..
