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.
The EPA has become an out of control agency that may be doing more harm than good. Their power just keeps on increasing and their abuse of power is rampant. Here are some good first steps;
------------------------------
Congressional hearings should be used to investigate and shed light on shady science, ties, and practices from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Although many failings of the EPA have already been exposed, proper investigations into these issues could help publicize the agency's looniness and also yield further details about EPA's questionable methods and relationships.
Congressional investigations and publicized hearings provide a way for the public to understand the real objectives of extreme environmentalists (known as "radical greens") and the incredible costs these impose upon America, in terms of both lost jobs and wasted resources. But such an undertaking needs to be done intelligently, with skilled, persistent questioning and sustained focus on particular, egregious issues, not just letting congressmen grandstand for their home districts. Below are six issues these hearings should address to help bring about reform at the EPA and remind Americans to be skeptical of exaggerated EPA warnings.
Is there some reason why I can't comment on this topic without reading the link? Your title basically says it all.
No reason. You can choose to remain ignorant on the topic.
But, since you appear to be concerned about the environment, you should read the link. Here is an example;
A good issue to start with would be exposing the EPA’s role in exacerbating the damage done by BP’s giant oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Few Americans know that the spill might have easily been prevented from reaching shore. Holland offered during the first days to send over its experienced skimmer boats from the North Sea, which take up oil off the sea surface and separate most of it. The Dutch even offered to train Americans in their procedures. But EPA regulations stated that any cleaned ocean water must be 99.9985 percent free of oil before being dumped back into the ocean.
Despite the emergency, the agency refused to modify the regulation until a month later, when oil was already reaching shore. (Many more details are in my 2010 Reason article, "Government’s Catastrophic Response to the Oil Disaster.") A Congressional hearing with subpoena power could get to the bottom of who at the EPA was responsible for this delay, how, and why.
No reason. You can choose to remain ignorant on the topic.
But, since you appear to be concerned about the environment, you should read the link. Here is an example;
A good issue to start with would be exposing the EPA’s role in exacerbating the damage done by BP’s giant oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Few Americans know that the spill might have easily been prevented from reaching shore. Holland offered during the first days to send over its experienced skimmer boats from the North Sea, which take up oil off the sea surface and separate most of it. The Dutch even offered to train Americans in their procedures. But EPA regulations stated that any cleaned ocean water must be 99.9985 percent free of oil before being dumped back into the ocean.
Despite the emergency, the agency refused to modify the regulation until a month later, when oil was already reaching shore. (Many more details are in my 2010 Reason article, "Government’s Catastrophic Response to the Oil Disaster.") A Congressional hearing with subpoena power could get to the bottom of who at the EPA was responsible for this delay, how, and why.
There's a very good reason only a few Americans know, that is not exactly what happened. Sure looks like it was the Coast Guards call, maybe we should get rid of them along with the EPA. The criticism I do have for the EPA is that they allowed the Horizon facility without an Environmental Impact Statement, they thought a spill was remote so if anything BP was under regulated.
Leave it to Reason.com to get to the bottom of things with the real story, 5 years later
It could have easily been prevented, now that's some real speculation.
Quote:
On May 5, the State Department issued a statement acknowledging that it had
received several offers from countries. "While there is no need right now that
the U.S. cannot meet, the U.S. Coast Guard is assessing these offers of
assistance to see if there will be something which we will need in the near
future," the statement said.
The offer of skimmers was accepted on May 23, when BP purchased three Koseq
sweeping arms.
As of June 21, the other Dutch offers were considered "under consideration,"
and the response team had also accepted aid from Mexico, Canada and Norway.
abolish the EPA? no. reign them in? heck yes. EPA officials need to have their power cut radically, and they need to be held responsible for their actions when they are detrimental.
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.
