Should the EPA be able to regulate greenhouse gases?

[Necronic]

I recently recieved a call to action from my company to support a bill in congress that would strip the EPA's right to regulate greenhouse gases under the clean air act. As disturbed as I am to be getting an email like that from my company (I'm still trying to figure out if that is legal), I am still trying to decide whether or not this makes sense.

To me the EPA's purpose should be to maintain environmental standards in our country. They have been repeatedly empowered to do so by congress and the supreme court. However, I wonder whether at some point their ability to enforce vague enough regulations effectively makes them a legislative body, which to me is....questionable.

However, I feel that the EPA has done a good job at maintaining environmental standards in our country, and while they are not a legislative body they are theoretically a better regulatory body than Congress ever could be, due to its volatility and beholdenness to public opinion/lobyists.

I guess I can't support this bill. I do think that the current wording of the Clean Air act gives the EPA too much broad authority, but stripping them of that ability is not a solution. What needs to be done is for Congress to give them more direction, more specific direction, one way or another.

Removing their ability to enforce a law because "we should be the one's writing the laws" and then not actually writing any laws is.....stupid.

 

[AshburnerX]

Essentially what your asking is if the EPA should be able to regulate what goes into the environment... which is stupid, because that is the sole function of the organization. Without the ability to enforce it's own acts, it becomes yet another useless governing body that has to wait for Congress to get off it's ass to do something (which it never does). The only reason the EPA is able to do it's job at all is because it ISN'T an elected body like Congress, and thus doesn't have to cave into political pressure.

There is only ONE reason a company would want the EPA to lose it's authority: Because it believes that it's profits are more important than the health and safety of the people in it's community. That kind of thinking is WHY we have the EPA in the first place.

 

[SpecialKO]

Pretty much agreed with Ash on the EPA, as to the email thing....

It's probably not illegal exactly, but it could be varying degrees of unethical. Check your employee handbook/HR.

 

[Chazwozel]

Essentially what your asking is if the EPA should be able to regulate what goes into the environment... which is stupid, because that is the sole function of the organization. Without the ability to enforce it's own acts, it becomes yet another useless governing body that has to wait for Congress to get off it's ass to do something (which it never does). The only reason the EPA is able to do it's job at all is because it ISN'T an elected body like Congress, and thus doesn't have to cave into political pressure.

There is only ONE reason a company would want the EPA to lose it's authority: Because it believes that it's profits are more important than the health and safety of the people in it's community. That kind of thinking is WHY we have the EPA in the first place.

Agreed.

 

[rabbitgod]

Essentially what your asking is if the EPA should be able to regulate what goes into the environment... which is stupid, because that is the sole function of the organization. Without the ability to enforce it's own acts, it becomes yet another useless governing body that has to wait for Congress to get off it's ass to do something (which it never does). The only reason the EPA is able to do it's job at all is because it ISN'T an elected body like Congress, and thus doesn't have to cave into political pressure.

There is only ONE reason a company would want the EPA to lose it's authority: Because it believes that it's profits are more important than the health and safety of the people in it's community. That kind of thinking is WHY we have the EPA in the first place.

Agreed.[/QUOTE]

Agreed

I don't want the EPA to turn out like the FDA. I'm not pro big government, but I'd like certain agencies to be fully functioning.

 

[Troll]

Should the Environmental Protection Agency be allowed to protect the environment? Hmmmmm...

 

[sixpackshaker]

What will chap my ass, is that Houston already refines the oil and gas to be used in the rest of the nation. It is done here to keep other towns clean. Now they are facing being punished for doing all these other towns a fucking favor.

 

[crono1224]

What will chap my ass, is that Houston already refines the oil and gas to be used in the rest of the nation. It is done here to keep other towns clean. Now they are facing being punished for doing all these other towns a fucking favor.

They are doing it purely out of good will, there is no cost saving or anything because of it?

 

[Necronic]

Ha, a fellow Houstonian. Got to love it. (edit: our energy prices are actually pretty bad in houston. The craziest thing, is that those companies are not in Houston proper they are in these other towns like Pasedena, deer park, and Baytown, those are the ones that get the big taxes from them, and those towns are all mostly total shitholes.)

Yall are making a pretty fatal flaw in you reasoning. Just because its called the EPA doesn't mean its god when it comes to the environment. The EPA only does what congress tells it to. So don't use the fact that Environmental is in its name to justify any and all actions. The issue is that when the Clean air act was written it was never intended to cover CO2. as the whole global warming thing wasn't even a debate back then. When the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had to determine whether or not CO2 fell into the Clean Air Act's provision I got the sense that the EPA was like "oh...shit....this is kind of big" and didn't rush to deal with it.

Think of it like you are Andy Griffith. You take care of your town, and you do a good job. Then one day Truman walks up to you and says "here's this button. If you push it you will end WW2, but millions of people will die". Just because he is in law enforcement doesn't mean he should be in a position to make a decision like that.

And I feel the same way about the EPA. Its not their job to make a decision as to whether or not to drop the bomb. And it would be a bomb. Its facile to think that big companies can take any size of a hit because they are all just giant bottomless wallets. If the EPA goes too far (especially in a recession) you could cause major problems. Now, I do think that change should be made, but I don't think the EPA should be the one to decide the change. It should be congress. Then the EPA enforces it, that's how its always been done. But this proposed bill is just a way for congress to avoid taking any risk by making a decision themselves. So its like "oh, no no no you don't get to call the shots on this, we do. Don't worry, we'll get around to it...."

 

[AshburnerX]

This isn't giving Andy Griffith the right to drop the bomb and end the war, it's giving Patton or Truman the right. Like Patton/Truman, the EPA is highly educated and deeply involved in the situation at hand and it without a doubt the best choice to make the decision. Allowing Congress to make the call is the equivalent of giving Hirohito the right to drop the bomb: They have everything to gain and nothing to lose by saying no.

Allowing Congress to decide would simply bring bipartisan politics into the debate, as well as allowing those already in the pockets of companies who would benefit effect the vote. We would in essence be giving those whom stand to profit from the decision the power to decide it and that has never brought good things as far as the environment is concerned.

The EPA is NOT in the pockets of any corporation and it's only answerable to the US Government. It's in the best position to decide because it's decision is less likely to be effected by outside sources and more likely to be driven by it's own studies.

 

[Covar]

What will chap my ass, is that Houston already refines the oil and gas to be used in the rest of the nation. It is done here to keep other towns clean. Now they are facing being punished for doing all these other towns a fucking favor.

They are doing it purely out of good will, there is no cost saving or anything because of it?[/QUOTE]
Would that make a difference?

 

[sixpackshaker]

What will chap my ass, is that Houston already refines the oil and gas to be used in the rest of the nation. It is done here to keep other towns clean. Now they are facing being punished for doing all these other towns a fucking favor.

They are doing it purely out of good will, there is no cost saving or anything because of it?[/QUOTE]

Actually it would be cheaper and safer to have refineries near every population center. Crude Oil transport is much easier than transporting the Gasoline and other products.

---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:59 PM ----------

And Necronic,

those refineries are NEAR Baytown, Deer Park, Stinkadena, etc... but the land on both sides of the ship channel are in Houston. So those towns get some concessions from the oil companies, but not the taxes.

 

[Necronic]

The EPA is NOT in the pockets of any corporation and it's only answerable to the US Government. It's in the best position to decide because it's decision is less likely to be effected by outside sources and more likely to be driven by it's own studies.

Wait what? You're arguing that Congress should have no say because it is corrupt/bipartisan/somewhat worthless (which I agree with to a point) and that the EPA is the one who should handle it then argue that it's only answerable to the Government. As in Congress. As in exactly the opposite of what you just said.

 

[AshburnerX]

The EPA is NOT in the pockets of any corporation and it's only answerable to the US Government. It's in the best position to decide because it's decision is less likely to be effected by outside sources and more likely to be driven by it's own studies.

Wait what? You're arguing that Congress should have no say because it is corrupt/bipartisan/somewhat worthless (which I agree with to a point) and that the EPA is the one who should handle it then argue that it's only answerable to the Government. As in Congress. As in exactly the opposite of what you just said.[/QUOTE]

The EPA is only financially accountable to Congress, as it has to report to the Inspector General each year to ensure it's books are clean. It's Administrator is almost always given a position in the President's Cabinet (Which it currently has), which clearly makes them accountable to the President, not Congress. Remember, the Legislature is not the only branch of government.

 

[Necronic]

The EPA is NOT in the pockets of any corporation and it's only answerable to the US Government. It's in the best position to decide because it's decision is less likely to be effected by outside sources and more likely to be driven by it's own studies.

Wait what? You're arguing that Congress should have no say because it is corrupt/bipartisan/somewhat worthless (which I agree with to a point) and that the EPA is the one who should handle it then argue that it's only answerable to the Government. As in Congress. As in exactly the opposite of what you just said.[/QUOTE]

The EPA is only financially accountable to Congress, as it has to report to the Inspector General each year to ensure it's books are clean. It's Administrator is almost always given a position in the President's Cabinet (Which it currently has), which clearly makes them accountable to the President, not Congress. Remember, the Legislature is not the only branch of government.[/QUOTE]

Ah ok, so you meant it only answers to the president. That's a big difference. Its also wrong.

The legislation here is general environmental protection legislation, and may also apply to other units of the government, including the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture.
[edit]Air
1955 - Air Pollution Control Act PL 84-159
1963 - Clean Air Act PL 88-206
1965 - Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act PL 89-272
1966 - Clean Air Act Amendments PL 89-675
1967 - Air Quality Act PL 90-148
1969 - National Environmental Policy Act PL 91-190
1970 - Clean Air Act Extension PL 91-604
1976 - Toxic Substances Control Act PL 94-469
1977 - Clean Air Act Amendments PL 95-95
1990 - Clean Air Act Amendments PL 101-549
[edit]Water
1948 - Water Pollution Control Act PL 80-845
1965 - Water Quality Act PL 89-234
1966 - Clean Waters Restoration Act PL 89-753
1969 - National Environmental Policy Act PL 91-190
1970 - Water Quality Improvement Act PL 91-224
1972 - Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 PL 92-500
1974 - Safe Drinking Water Act PL 93-523
1976 - Toxic Substances Control Act PL 94-469
1977 - Clean Water Act PL 95-217
1987 - Water Quality Act PL 100-4
1996 - Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 PL 104-182
[edit]Land
1947 - Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
1964 - Wilderness Act PL 88-577
1968 - Scenic Rivers Preservation Act PL 90-542
1969 - National Environmental Policy Act PL 91-190
1970 - Wilderness Act PL 91-504
1977 - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act PL 95-87
1978 - Wilderness Act PL 98-625
1980 - Alaska Land Protection Act PL 96-487
1994 - California Desert Protection Act PL 103-433
1996 - Food Quality Protection Act
[edit]Endangered species
1946 - Coordination Act PL 79-732
1966 - Endangered Species Preservation Act PL 89-669
1969 - Endangered Species Conservation Act PL 91-135
1972 - Marine Mammal Protection Act PL 92-522
1973 - Endangered Species Act PL 93-205
[edit]Hazardous waste
1965 - Solid Waste Disposal Act PL 89-272
1969 - National Environmental Policy Act PL 91-190
1970 - Resource Recovery Act PL 91-512
1976 - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act PL 94-580
1980 - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("Superfund") PL 96-510
1982 - Nuclear Waste Repository Act PL 97-425
1984 - Hazardous and Solid Wastes Amendments Act PL 98-616
1986 - Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act PL 99-499
2002 - Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act ("Brownfields Law") PL 107-118


That's what directs the EPA. Legislation. From Congress.

 

[AshburnerX]

That's what directs the EPA. Legislation. From Congress.

Which doesn't really negate the fact that this bill is only being proposed because various lobbies influencing Congress believe that their right to pursue profits supersede the citizen's right to live in an environment conducive to health living. Stripping the EPA of it's ability to do it's job only helps big business, not the majority of American citizens.

 

[Chibibar]

latest article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100610/ap_on_bi_ge/us_greenhouse_gases