Amazon.com Widgets
  • Government Should stay out of protecting the environment.

    Whenever we put legislation to protect the environment, it fails. The EPA wants to ban coal. Ban coal. That's too much government. There is no problem in the environment. There love to teach this delusion. EPA also wants "green" vehicles. Those are expensive. Not everyone can afford a vehicle like that. The EPA is unconstitutional.
    EPA= Evil Protection Agency. EPA= Too.Much. Spending.

  • We Got This..

    State has plenty of rules and regs that can be locally enforced..Keep the feds out of it !! With all the current laws in place in every state, county, city, town, neighborhood and HOA. What would be the reason to keep throwing money at an agency that is no longer needed.. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/mainpage/default.htm

  • We Got This..

    State has plenty of rules and regs that can be locally enforced..Keep the feds out of it !! With all the current laws in place in every state, county, city, town, neighborhood and HOA. What would be the reason to keep throwing money at an agency that is no longer needed.. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/mainpage/default.htm

  • We Got This..

    State has plenty of rules and regs that can be locally enforced..Keep the feds out of it !! With all the current laws in place in every state, county, city, town, neighborhood and HOA. What would be the reason to keep throwing money at an agency that is no longer needed.. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/mainpage/default.htm

  • To much Government.

    While the need for clean air and water is of course vital to our success, so is limited government. Instead of actually protecting the environment we have people who are left wing activists running a program that stifles job growth and harms the individual citizen. It should be abolished and reestablished with strict guidelines of operation, to protect individual liberties and economic success.

  • Go ahead kill off the EPA...

    I miss the days when waterways were so polluted they actually caught fire... Corporations have always had our health and safety in mind when they make their decisions... We do NOT need any regulations at all... Matter of fact, why don't we just ditch ALL regulations... I really look forward to the upcoming time period when the people that voted for Trump get EXACTLY what they wished for... I'm just sad that I will be along for the ride...

  • Clean water. Clean air. For America. Trumps words.

    Let’s get down to basics with people that will use logic and common sense. The EPA is way out of control. Back Trump as he cleans house in The EPA. The EPA will spew lies through the fake mainstream media.
    It is the same with the Public Education Program.
    It is not easy to drain the swamp! People don't want to lose their cash cow.

  • EPA is subject to corruption

    The EPA masquerades as a protector of the environment. It's existence implies that human beings in general can't police themselves to protect the environment. This is totally wrong. Companies will police themselves because it is in their best interests to put up a good image in order to attract the best employees available they can acquire. As an prospective employee, if you have two choices of companies to work for, both of which offering same compensation, you would choose the company that has a better reputation when it comes to how much disruption it gives the environment. This voluntary process of making the choice can be done without government intervention. The real reason for the existence of the EPA is it becomes a political arena for the big companies. The big oil companies love strict EPA regulations because it keeps away competition from small companies. Small companies cannot keep up with the regulations, these small companies are forced to leave the marker. The EPA is one example of federal government overreach that is prohibited by the constitution.

  • EPA over reach it's authority.

    The EPA supportable is there to protect the environment (Global Warming). First there is conflicting evidence to prove if global warming is real. Second, when the EPA takes water rights from land owners because they currently do not have a well drilled on their property has nothing to do with global warming. I was told by the EPA to get water rights back you must pay a fee and fill out an application requesting them back. I was also told they will not give them back because water is a valuable commodity and they don't give it back. They can't stop you from filing but the list is very long and a waste of your time and money. By their actions you will be require to buy your water from a local municipality. EPA should not be called Environmental Protection Agency. It should be called. Extremely Powerful A**H***'s

  • EPA Oversteps their boundaries.

    You continually hear people say the EPA is there to control Climate Change. That is far from true. First there is no proof of global warming.
    Second when they come on your property and tell you they are taking you water rights that wrong. Now you have to pay for water from a municipality. You can pay a fee to buy your water rights back and be put on a list but I was told by the EPA that they do not give water rights back because water is a valuable commodity. It's all about control. Their dumb argument about the military is ridiculous. Of course we spend more money to keep us safe. That is different than taking your God given rights from you.

  • We need to protect the environment - the spending is justifiable

    In 2014 the EPA had a budget of about $8.2 BILLION [1]. The US Military had a budget (presumably also for 2014) of $543.3 BILLION [2], outclassing the EPA by over 66x! Now, look at the good they're doing for the world...

    -EPA: Working on regulating emissions to protect the atmosphere and thus YOU
    -EPA: Working with manufacturers to promote "green" technology, cutting down on both emissions and your bill at the gas station
    -Military: spending $1.283 TRILLION to kill an estimated 108,000 insurgents or Taliban islamists [3]. That's about $12 million per person, which is enough to fund a medium size high school ($12,000 per student [4]
    -Military: Entirely dedicated to essentially squashing people we don't like. At the end of the day, it's not a win for us, it's a loss for humanity.

    Which would you rather fund? A force dedicated to killing and destroying (which is part of the "protection" reference I feel coming) or a force dedicated to preserving the planet?

    [1] http://www2.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget
    [2] http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget
    /p/military_budget.htm
    [3] http://owni.eu/2011/05/05/the-war-on-terror-in-numbers/
    [4] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/

  • Absolutely necessary to protect environment

    America is a much better place to live because we have a government that regulates pollution. Markets do not provide this; in fact they create environmental problems. Clean water and air are public goods that cannot be created by the private sector. As any basic economics text will explain, markets do not work well when a company can pass the costs/consequences of its actions to a third party(in economic jargon, externalities).

  • Rivers, Lakes, and Animal Life.

    I am a little 50/50 on the whole situation here. I say no because our rivers and fish and all of marine wildlife are in danger. Fish and even pelicans are dying (!) because of litter and garbage that is just thrown out of a car window, or when taking a walk. Oil and gas plants are leaking, causing the oil and gas to spill into rivers and lakes! Take the Cuyahoga river for example. The river caught on FIRE because of an oil spill and litter that surrounded the bay! It caught on fire and the fish could not breathe, so they suffocated. We need the EPA to keep our marine animals alive. At the ocea, people who are on runs on the beach, just throw their garbage on the side. And baby sea turtles that go out to the ocean will try to eat the plastic or glass, and they will suffocate. That moves on to endangered species, and less marine life. This also goes for land animals too! When people just throw their trash on the ground, birds and other animals like moles will eat it. This just causes less animals, and more endangered species. These are all reasons why we need the EPA.

  • The EPA is important, they are keeping out ecostems from falling apart!

    The EPA has changed so many things, from the pollution in the air, to the trash in the river. If we were to take away the EPA our ecosystem would fall apart. Our air would become gray and thick with smog, like in Beijing China. Our rivers would be full of trach and oil, causing it to catch fire, like the Cuyahoga river did 7 times Animals would die from eating the trash that we throw carelessly on the ground. But, even with the EPA we still do these kind of things, it's sad to see what our world is becoming. Maybe if we were to change our ways we would not have to have an EPA. I am only 12 years old and I want my future to be green.

  • Keeps us healthy and clean.

    The EPA should not be abolished because, they keep us healthy and clean. The EPA only limits factories ability to put the smoke into the air, because they want to keep our air clean. If we have clean air we have less of a chance of getting sick. They keep our water clean too. If we didn't have clean water, the animals who live in the water could die. Most of the polluted water goes to our houses. Even though the water is filtered, it is still not healthy. The EPA does much more to protect us too. Their rules are so strict because they want a less polluted world. So the EPA should not be abolished because they help us have a better, cleaner world.

  • The epa has protected us and cleanse the world for we need the epa

    The epa is needed because they have saved us money and are making our world a better place by being strict about picking up trash and laws that can help our world so that's why we need the epa incase something or someone break a rule that's why we need the epa

  • The EPA should not be Abolished

    Without the EPA the world still would have pollution. People want the EPA to be abolished, then it would just go back to like it was then (polluted rivers, and smog), all the rules that the EPA has would be gone. People shouldn't vote for something to be gone if it is helping the environment and helping them live in a cleaner place.

  • The EPA should not be Abolished

    Without the EPA the world still would have pollution. People want the EPA to be abolished, then it would just go back to like it was then (polluted rivers, and smog), all the rules that the EPA has would be gone. People shouldn't vote for something to be gone if it is helping the environment and helping them live in a cleaner place.

  • EPA Should be elevated.

    Its stupid the EPA is still just a government agency that has its leadership and agendas changed every four years. The EPA as is can't and doesn't even do its job very well because its responsibilities are so many and great compared to the funding and staffing it receives. As for the pertinant laws, a lot can be changed imo so key decisions can be better made about how to go about say, addressing superfund sites.

    For example, the federal insecticide, fungicide and rodenticide act requires the EPA to evaluate more than 50,000 individual pesticide products containing more than 600 active ingredients and 900 inert ingredients. The EPA was supposed to finish its first round of reviews by 2004 but hadn't yet completed it in 2010. The Food quality protection act of 1996 requires the EPA to review data on 600 pesticides, 1,800 inert ingredients in 20,000 pesticide products and 75,000 industrial chemicals, plus consumer products.

    Asbestos is a case in point, in the book Im drawing from (Rosenbaum: Environmental Politics and Policy), its states "Presently, 300,000 lawsuits are pending in the nations courts and 20k to 50k lawsuits are predicted annually for several decades. U.S. corporations and insurers have spent more than 30 billion to defend and settle asbestos lawsuits. The total cost of these lawsuits according to several professional estimates, may exceed $200 billlion.

    And science sometimes takes many years or decades to get enough data and evidence on a chemical to make a good enough reccomendation for what is considered safe levels etc. The policy process of course has many different organized interested groups that will defend on both sides of an argument, etc.

  • EPA Should be elevated.

    Its stupid the EPA is still just a government agency that has its leadership and agendas changed every four years. The EPA as is can't and doesn't even do its job very well because its responsibilities are so many and great compared to the funding and staffing it receives. As for the pertinant laws, a lot can be changed imo so key decisions can be better made about how to go about say, addressing superfund sites.

    For example, the federal insecticide, fungicide and rodenticide act requires the EPA to evaluate more than 50,000 individual pesticide products containing more than 600 active ingredients and 900 inert ingredients. The EPA was supposed to finish its first round of reviews by 2004 but hadn't yet completed it in 2010. The Food quality protection act of 1996 requires the EPA to review data on 600 pesticides, 1,800 inert ingredients in 20,000 pesticide products and 75,000 industrial chemicals, plus consumer products.

    Asbestos is a case in point, in the book Im drawing from (Rosenbaum: Environmental Politics and Policy), its states "Presently, 300,000 lawsuits are pending in the nations courts and 20k to 50k lawsuits are predicted annually for several decades. U.S. corporations and insurers have spent more than 30 billion to defend and settle asbestos lawsuits. The total cost of these lawsuits according to several professional estimates, may exceed $200 billlion.

    And science sometimes takes many years or decades to get enough data and evidence on a chemical to make a good enough reccomendation for what is considered safe levels etc. The policy process of course has many different organized interested groups that will defend on both sides of an argument, etc.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.