Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My argument is that the EPA is not a charity organization doing altruistic favors. They are a governmental agency at the federal level entrusted and assigned to do a job.
They don't get a pass on that job when it is done incorrectly or even poorly.
Be that as it may, that isn't how our Congress and President are approaching this.
They do not care about how effective or competent the EPA is. They simply want it to have less authority to prevent firms from polluting, full stop.
The U.S. justice system does not prevent environmental issues. That is not its function. Waiting for people to pollute and then suing is inadequate as a remedy and almost useless as a deterrent.
Mining firms declare bankruptcy. The judge can't do anything, and the legislature is too incompetent to prevent such shrirking of shareholder responsibility.
I agree with you , although I do realize stating it as you have is akin to saying the justice system does not prevent burglary.
You think it was the EPA responsible for most of the clean up and environment? You must love Nixon then. He was the one who decided to put all the environmental protection at the federal level in an easy sock puppet like form. Think 1970 is when environmentalism began?
Quote:
i have no idea what this is supposed to mean. On the surface it sounds really, really stupid, like you don't even know the basics of American government. i'm pretty sure you aren't stupid so I'm going to leave it to you to develop this point.
I know you are not stupid either. So I will put it another way. Do you see a problem with these federal agencies lacking independence from the ruling administration?
Quote:
It doesn't. The EPA isn't the reason we trade with China. the EPA isn't the reason we can't get China to sign a global warming treaty.
Regardless not all pollution is global in impact. Some of this stuff the EPA regulates is local/regional air, soil, and water.
It certainly is one reason why we may trade with China. The EPA can set standards such that competition with China is impossible. So we simply import from them and let them destroy the environment.
I am very concerned about the environment. In fact I am concerned so much so I would like more manufacturing here with more oversight on what is being done. I would also add import tariffs of our trading partners if they do not generally comply with our environmental and labor laws.
However in general why is the left so concerned about federal power at the administrative level now ? Where were they before?
Agreed. Which is why I believed the federal agency should be an oversite on each state agency, and yet not more than that. Macro vs micro management.
I think that environmental regulation should be mostly on a federal level. Here in New York, the state seems to want its own policy on nuclear reactors (one is due for shutdown notwithstanding its location in a power-starved area), and on fracking (to ban it). Both are at tension with overall federal policy to encourage nuclear fuel as a way of producing electricity without greenhouse gases. Also it is yet another layer for businesses to work through.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
