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.

  • Checks and Balance

    The United States Federal and State governments are all set up with three competing branches to try to achieve balance. The EPA is able to make laws and take money from citizens with little or no oversight. If the EPA is dismantled the Federal Government can create laws with the balance of the legislative, judicial and executive branches.
    Taking money from people with no oversight is wrong and leads to corruption. Abolishing the EPA would allow balanced legislation and States to take control within the normal system.

  • This job belongs in to the states.

    There are very few things the federal government is supposed to do and policing the environment is not a function of the federal government. The people that work there should be treated fairly as far as retiring them goes. States will need to take up the slack though to insure clean air and water. An agency that makes sure the environment is safe does not make the laws but enforces them. These laws also should come from the states and be enforced by the states.

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • Pollution and environmental destruction

    If the government doesn't step in the greedy people will destroy the environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  • Bottom Line Economics

    People want to say that we, citizens and corporations will govern and protect themselves when it comes to the environment. Citizens by choosing to purchase items or work for environmentally aware businesses... Who do we buy the most products from? China. Who is the biggest polluter out there? China. Corporations are worried about 1 thing and 1 thing only, profits. If they can save $5 Million dollars by not properly disposing of chemical waste's they produce, they would do that, it has been proven, it has happened, it has been prosecuted in a court of law. To assume that greedy humans, and greedier board members of corporations will do what is right for all of society and not just themselves is stupid. We have hundreds of years of proof of humanities inability to govern itself or to look out for the well being of others. The EPA is a necessary evil. Yes, they have some changes that need to be made there, and employee spending could be better distributed... But who else is looking out for our society as a whole? Not the coal companies who want to dump slag in our rivers, not the gas companies who poison our well water and bankrupt families and farms of those who try to make them pay for the destruction. Not car companies who drill baby drill into our oceans and national parks, displacing and sometimes flat-out killing off entire species.

  • Humans have a great impact on the earth and its health, and need certain restrictions to protect the earth from the harm they cause.

    Global warming isn't real" is Perhaps the most ignorant, and uninstructed argument possible. Please take the time to visit https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ to become educated on a topic that some say is "fake". The proof is in the pudding, and I'm not sure I'm going to trust anyone who isn't an expert. It seems that the experts all agree that Humans have a large impact on a number of nature-decimating incidences. We need the EPA.

  • Of course not

    The EPA is the only thing preventing corporations from pumping out as much filth into the air and water as they want. With no EPA the entire country would end up with the water quality of Flint, MI and the air quality of China. Our environment is already in big trouble. We need more environmental protection not less.

  • People cannot be trusted to protect the environment.

    The EPA certainly contains flaws which should be fixed, but this is one area of exception I hold for my primarily small-government stance.

    Many large corporations are beyond the point of consumer will and are, in all practical terms, boycott-proof. A lowering in demand can easily be made up for by cutting expenditures, often in ways which are either environmentally harmful or amorale, creating a self-perpetuating cycle.

    By all means reform the EPA, but believe me when I say that there are means of getting energy which will in a few short years become more economically viable than fossil fuels. These options are the much better investment from a financial perspective AND a green perspective, yet we refuse to acknowledge their potential.

    Please, to my fellow conservatives: Think twice before endorsing this massive change. This movement could throw away the opportunity for one of the greatest investments we've ever had, and could destroy our planet as well.

  • The EPA keeps Americans safe and healthy

    The EPA has protected our health and safety numerous times, for example the clean water & air acts. The Clean Water Act sets regulations to limit the amount of toxins in our water. It limits the presence of Arsenic and Lead (heavy metals that have been proved to weaken immune systems and cause cancer) as well as nitrates and phosphates (plant nutrients that aren't harmful in small amounts, but in higher doses can interfere with the red blood cells ability to transport oxygen, and high levels in water usually indicate the presence of fecal matter) along with the sterilization of water that kills harmful bacteria that may be present in what you drink (such as Giardia and Cryptospridium, Giardiasis can cause Diarrhea and abdominal cramps, and cryptosporidium can cause Diarrhea, cramps, weaken the immune system, and possibly lead to death) which is also regulated in the guidelines of the EPA's center for disease control. Without the EPA Americans would struggle to find and pay for clean water.


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