The Instigator
polticialwiz
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
4001001
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

EPA consolidating with the Department of Energy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
4001001
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,286 times Debate No: 19010
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

polticialwiz

Pro

In recent years studies after studies have showed how poorly the EPA is handled and ran. Many members of Congress and Candidated have proposed eliminating the EPA altogether.

Instead I have a better idea, the President, (via Excutive Order) should instruct the Department of Energy to oversee the EPA for good. After issuing the Execuitve Order the president hould make note to Congress and the American people that the Current EPA Administrator is still in charge of the EPA, but instead will assume the new title: Assistant Energy Secretary for Enviromental Protection.

I feel that doing this will allow the energy Department to oversee the EPA since it is doing a poor job of helping the enviroment.

I hope viewers will read the Background history of both the EPA and Department of Energy before judging this debate. Then it is my hope that viewers wille valuate the recent problems seen by the American people handled by the EPA.
4001001

Con

The problem with the EPA is that it is doing too much in order to try to help the environment. The best way is to simply get rid of it, along with the Department of Energy. To put it concisely, why should the government have to regulate something the private sector is already doing? Air quality has improved over the years with technological innovations. Free enterprise is the best way to solve our environmental problems. The only thing the EPA does is kill jobs, and consolidating it with the Department of Energy isn't going to change that simple fact. Even the Obama administration has delayed fuel economy requirements because they would add thousands of dollars to the price of a car. These regulations are detrimental to economic growth. Why do we have to worry so much about global warming? A recent study by CERN said that cosmic rays, not human actions, are responsible for climate change. The science behind global warming is not settled, yet the EPA pretends that it is. We should also eliminate the Department of Energy along with it. The department clearly has not done its job in leading us toward energy independence. The way to get to energy independence isn't bigger government: instead, the government should allow companies to drill for more oil and mine for more coal right here in America. In summary, I believe that the EPA and the Department of Energy shouldn't be consolidated because neither were good ideas to begin with. My counter-plan is to eliminate both agencies, which would save billions of dollars and create jobs.
Debate Round No. 1
polticialwiz

Pro

In recent years studies after studies have showed how poorly the EPA is handled and ran. Many members of Congress and Candidated have proposed eliminating the EPA altogether.

Instead I have a better idea, the President, (via Excutive Order) should instruct the Department of Energy to oversee the EPA for good. After issuing the Execuitve Order the president hould make note to Congress and the American people that the Current EPA Administrator is still in charge of the EPA, but instead will assume the new title: Assistant Energy Secretary for Enviromental Protection.

I feel that doing this will allow the energy Department to oversee the EPA since it is doing a poor job of helping the enviroment.

I hope viewers will read the Background history of both the EPA and Department of Energy before judging this debate. Then it is my hope that viewers wille valuate the recent problems seen by the American people handled by the EPA.
4001001

Con

This is the exact same argument that you posted previously.

I have refuted parts of your argument and you haven't addressed them.

For example, did you debunk my evidence from CERN?
Debate Round No. 2
polticialwiz

Pro

Its obviouthat my oppnent stands shoulder-shoulder wth the GOP/TEA PARTY ideaology, because he supports not consolidating the EPA with the Department of energy.

Aside from that point, I will say that many states have file llawsuists against the EPA because of failure Gov't regulations. There have been serveral issues of Controversie surrounding the EPA:

Air quality standards review

Since its inception the EPA has begun to rely less and less on its scientists and more on non-science personnel. EPA has recently changed their policies regarding limits for ground-level ozone, particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and lead. New policies will minimize scientist interaction with the agency and rely more on policy makers who have minimal scientific knowledge. This new policy has been criticized by Democrats. On March 12, 2008, the federal government of the United States reported that the air in hundreds of U.S. counties was simply too dirty to breathe, ordering a multi-billion dollar expansion of efforts to clean up smog in cities and towns nationwide.

Fuel economy

In July 2005, an EPA report showing that auto companies were using loopholes to produce less fuel-efficient cars was delayed. The report was supposed to be released the day before a controversial energy bill was passed and would have provided backup for those opposed to it, but at the last minute the EPA delayed its release.

The state of California sued the EPA for its refusal to allow California and 16 other states to raise fuel economy standards for new cars. EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson claimed that the EPA was working on its own standards, but the move has been widely considered an attempt to shield the auto industry from environmental regulation by setting lower standards at the federal level, which would then preempt state laws. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with governors from 13 other states, stated that the EPA's actions ignored federal law, and that existing California standards (adopted by many states in addition to California) were almost twice as effective as the proposed federal standards. It was reported that Stephen Johnson ignored his own staff in making this decision.

After the federal government bailed out General Motors and Chrysler in the Automotive industry crisis of 2008–2010, the 2010 Chevrolet Equinox was released with EPA fuel economy rating abnormally higher than its competitors. Independent road tests found that both vehicle did not out-perform its competitors, which had much lower fuel economy ratings. Later road tests found better, but inconclusive, results.

Global warming

In June 2005, a memo revealed that Philip Cooney, former chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, had personally edited documents, summarizing government research on climate change, before their release. Cooney resigned two days after the memo was published in The New York Times. Cooney said he had been planning to resign for over two years, implying the timing of his resignation was just a coincidence. Specifically, he said he had planned to resign to "spend time with his family." One week after resigning he took a job at Exxon Mobil in their public affairs department.

In December 2007, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson approved a draft of a document that declared that climate change imperiled the public welfare - a decision that would trigger the first national mandatory global-warming regulations. Associate Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett e-mailed the draft to the White House. White House aides - who had long resisted mandatory regulations as a way to address climate change - knew the gist of what Johnson's finding would be, Burnett said. They also knew that once they opened the attachment, it would become a public record, making it controversial and difficult to rescind. So they didn't open it; rather, they called Johnson and asked him to take back the draft. U.S. law clearly stated that the final decision was the EPA administrator's, not President Bush's. Johnson rescinded the draft; in July 2008, he issued a new version which did not state that global warming was danger to public welfare. Burnett resigned in protest.

Greenhouse gas emissions

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) from mobile and stationary sources of air pollution under the Clean Air Act ("CAA" or "Act") for the first time on January 2, 2011. Standards for mobile sources have been established pursuant to Section 202 of the CAA, and GHGs from stationary sources are controlled under the authority of Part C of Title I of the Act. See the page Regulation of Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act for further information.
4001001

Con

It's obvious that my opponent(with his numerous typographical errors) didn't take time to proofread his arguments.

Rebuttal:
Air quality standards review-The fact that the EPA doesn't rely on actual scientists is exactly why we need to get rid of it. For example, the EPA ignores the fact that the well-respected institute CERN reported that global warming isn't caused by human activity. Government regulation isn't the way to cleaner air. According to the Project for Economic Freedom, the most economically free countries have much cleaner environments than the least free. Texas had the biggest reduction in emissions and also puts the least regulation on its businesses and factories. The free market, not the EPA, is best at improving the environment.

Fuel economy:
Tyranny shouldn't be OK at either the state or federal level: fuel economy government mandates do not contribute to a productive economy. Instead, they crush job creation at its core and increase the cost of gasoline. The EPA has unreliable estimates because it is a government organization. Thus, it is not held accountable when it screws up. Therefore, the EPA has little incentive to thoroughly test fuel economy. Independent corporations do a much better job at measuring fuel economy because if they screw up, they could go out of business.

Global warming:
Regardless of who said what, you never refuted my evidence from CERN that global warming is caused by cosmic rays and not by greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, any actions by humans to reduce CO2 emissions isn't going to help cool the planet.

In summary, we need jobs, not a job-killing organization like the EPA that stifles job creation. The science of global warming is unsettled at best and a lie at worst. It's time for economic freedom, and we can achieve this by eliminating the EPA. It shouldn't be consolidated because the unconstitutional organization shouldn't exist in the 1st place.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by polticialwiz 5 years ago
polticialwiz
After much consideration, I have decided (in the intrest of my opponent and readers) to (without) incident conceed this debate, and urge all voters to support CON.

Thank you for understading, I pledge to do better in future debates.
Posted by davidhancock 5 years ago
davidhancock
"I hope viewers will read the Background history of both the EPA and Department of Energy before judging this debate."

im pretty sure the debaters are supposed to show this to us when listening to an arg i want it to be explained
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Actually, Larz is right. The criteria for judging a debate should be based on who presented the most convincing arguments, not on who is "right" or "wrong."
Posted by Kethen 5 years ago
Kethen
Right and wrong matters! Just as long as it is formed by the arguments not their own beliefs.
Just saying though Idk how this works but shouldn't the EPA be over the energy because energy is part of environment protection but the environment isn't part of energy. Energy is focusing on making it and controlling it. which is pretty narrow where the EPA is anything that effects the environment.
Also though with this reasoning the EPA should be over the military to because that effects the environment.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
"I hope viewers will read the Background history of both the EPA and Department of Energy before judging this debate."
-- I hope viewers will judge any debate on the quality and persuasiveness of the debaters, not who is actually right or wrong.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Spritle 5 years ago
Spritle
polticialwiz4001001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The Pro wasted a round stating the exact same thing he said in the previous round. Also, Pro's spelling is HORRIBLE but when you look at his rebuttals they are perfectly clean and grammatical correct. I suspect that the Pro c/p information from the internet. Neither side used sources. I found Con's argument more persuasive so he got more convincing argument. And Con also got conduct because of Pro's "party affiliation" statetment.