Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The Republicans want to get rid of the EPA

Posted 9 years ago on Oct. 21, 2011, 8:21 p.m. EST by Cicero (407)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

According to many prominent Republicans the EPA is to blame for America's faltering economy.

If only American corporations could pollute without regard to safety and environmental impact we could be more like China and have 4% unemployment instead of 9%.

But what would the cost be.

Please take a look at these pictures of pollution in China. Then decide if we should allow the EPA to be destroyed.




Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Democracydriven (658) 9 years ago

I have heard the term " race to the bottom" It's starting to look like that more everyday

We need to have a race to the top, like old America


[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 9 years ago


[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 9 years ago

HAHA It does remind me of Mordor now that you mention it!!

[-] 2 points by SpaghettiMonster (90) 9 years ago

I've heard republicans talk along this line before, and honestly... it makes my blood boiling just thinking about it. Just because lazy companies see doing the right thing as too troublesome, and republicans too stupid to see the flawed logic. Everything for the economy! What the hell is the point of any of this if we're just going to destroy it all that's important anyway. Less oversight, cheaper goods and a stronger economy - yeah, a lot of frakking good that will do.

I really don't even know how to respond to this kind of environmental terrorism. I will say this however - if the EPA is ever abolished without proper replacement, you can expect a civil war. I'd fight and die without a second thought to help protect this planet from these selfish, shortsighted people.

[-] 2 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 9 years ago

The usual cycle for them.

  1. Create or wait for a problem (terrorists, economy). Wait til we are desperate.
  2. Change the laws to their advantage
  3. $ Profit $
[-] 2 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 9 years ago

right, so thats one good reason why republicans of ANY stripe are stupid and evil and can not be trusted.

on the other hand, we need to reform the crooked EPA..

[-] 2 points by efschumacher (74) from Gaithersburg, MD 9 years ago

Yes, and China is doing everything on an accelerated timescale. They industrialized quicker than the US, they polluted quicker than the US, they will clean up quicker than the US. Following China down the re-polluting road would be foolish.

Still the most eloquent testament to me of the urgent need to maintain good housekeeping of the air and water, was the picture of the Cuyahoga river on fire in 1968. It won't happen there again as Ohio has been raped and left for dead by the industrialists. It can not be allowed to happen anywhere again.


[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Directly apropos to the environmental regulations v. jobs question: http://www.grist.org/pollution/2011-10-21-pollution-is-not-the-secret-to-job-creation

[-] 2 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

I know, it's always profiits over human health with this bozes

[-] 2 points by Cicero (407) 9 years ago

I agree.

Plus like I said below what about the people employed by and as a result of the EPA wouldn't disbanding it cause us to lose jobs?

[-] 2 points by Howtodoit (1232) 9 years ago

that's a tragedy in in own rights, as we speak, the rep. lead hill is trying to dismantle it. and the companies can polutae more with less help, youn are so right

[-] 1 points by Satyr000 (86) 9 years ago

Lets not allow them to do so before scientists are able to prove that pollution isn't causing global warming that has now been confirmed. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44996377/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/#.TqJ0AbJ-6A8

[-] 1 points by MarkDuwe (127) 9 years ago

Let's make a deal with them. They can dismantle the EPA if they will eat nothing but fish or what ever we can dredge out of the East river for a month.

[-] 1 points by SpaghettiMonster (90) 9 years ago

Why are people in this country so obstinate when it comes to change? How many people in this country don't accept evolution, or, how old the earth is? We are a nation that seems to be adopting technology quite rapidly, and yet at the same time we're completely ignorant in terms of science/math; and it shows. How many of our students are seeking degress in law, art, or business? Now compare that to those studying the sciences, the contrast between the two is frightening. Science and engineering are critical - everything we do rests on the pillars of science.

"I can find in my undergraduate classes, bright students who do not know that the stars rise and set at night, or even that the Sun is a star." ~Carl Sagan

You'd think we'd be willing to believe just about anything. Heck, 70% of us accept the crap written in the bible. And yet when it comes to science, it's, "where's the evidence, sir?". Evolution is a fact - there's no ambiguity anymore, it's still just a "theory" because science is too honest to ever claim outright facts. I think its the lack of thought, the ability to believe in unbelievable things that allows this country to be used so easily by corporate interests. Why try and save the now when raptures coming soon anyway?

We have to prepare now - prepare in every way possible, prepare every way we can. We have to reevaluate our taboo on discussing things like overpopulation. We have enough work to do in this country to last a generation, because we're already a generation behind. We should have been preparing for this 40 years ago, we knew it was coming. We really need a national imperative towards revitalizing this countries energy and transportation infrastructure. Solar can play a huge role in this endeavor, especially coupled with a smarter grid. Every home and business should be in the energy business, selling any excess back to local energy demand. And more importantly, hydrolysis, water-pumping, molten salts, and many other techs can be used to store excess solar energy.

Obviously base load power still has to be around. But the progress needs to start somewhere, hopefully we're able to do it.

[-] 1 points by CapitalismRulesPeriod (160) 9 years ago

we don't want to get rid of environmental standards. just unnecessary goverment bureaucracy.

[-] 1 points by Marc526 (44) from Lodi, NJ 9 years ago

The EPA is not world police they only can protect where they can be governed in. Everyone complains about China yet if I go to your homes I bet you bought Wal-Mart, Kohl's and Target clothes, furniture and candy and food and oh right you just let China win. Stop China stop Shopping there end of story

[-] 2 points by Cicero (407) 9 years ago

I never suggested that the EPA could do anything about pollution in China. All I said was that if we get rid of pollution regulation's that we may end up being a nation with horrible air and water quality like China.

[-] 0 points by roloff (244) 9 years ago

Mayor Bloomberg wants the EPA to disappear so he can turn the Hudson river into the biggest bank making the most profits off hardworking people's back so more billionaires can buy another jet. The bastards.

[-] 0 points by AntiCorp (187) 9 years ago

I thought the OWS crowd was pro environment? What is the carbon footprint of the "occupation" in NYC, in the U.S.A., around the world? Do I need to place a call to Al Gore?

[-] 0 points by e307465 (147) 9 years ago

I totally believe the creators of the EPA had good intentions. However, like most Government Agencies, it grew into something that is both counterproductive to growth and generally corrupt. Obama promised the stimulus would get our infrastructure growing again yet the EPA puts a halt to almost every permit applied for. You just have to love governement fighting government.

[-] 0 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

The problem is we can't afford gas but they won't let us drill out in the middle of nowhere 1,000 miles away in Alaska.

[-] 3 points by Cicero (407) 9 years ago

There is 100 billion dollars worth of Oil in the area of Alaska of which you speak. It would cost 99 billion to get it out and turn it into gasoline.

Do you see the problem here?

[-] 0 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

As the price rises it becomes more profitable to go for the shale oil in Utah and Wyoming, then. We just can't have the EPA shut everything down because the demand for oil in this country makes us go to the middle east instead, where we get involved in their business and they get mad and then bomb us or we get involved in wars that last for decades.

[-] 3 points by Cicero (407) 9 years ago

And if the proposed methods could contaminate ground water supplies? Which by the way is essential to agriculture in the plains. Many of the areas in middle America are deserts in terms of avg. annual rainfall. Without irrigation from among other sources groundwater. Our breadbasket would not be able to produce the amounts of foods that we do today.

[-] 2 points by Cicero (407) 9 years ago

If our currency wasn't so inflated we could by gas for a much better price.

We go to war because in the words of Dick Cheney "the American way of life is non-negotiable" We'd rather go to war than trade in the SUV for a hybrid. We'd rather go to war than decrease our use of fertilizers, plastics, paints, etc.

We could use a lot less oil but we don't want to change our lives that much.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

I agree with you on inflation and that Dick Cheney is a sociopath. I would rather be polluted than dead however. We've been sending Americans to die for oil for decades and part of the problem is that it's because we can't get any of our own, here in America which is a huge continent and there is plenty of oil, here. I'm all for new technologies but we're not there yet. (Solyndra, ethanol)

[-] 0 points by Cicero (407) 9 years ago

We can get enough oil from Canada and other nations willing to sell it to us. We entered Desert Storm because Saddam invaded Kuwait and seized an oil company owned by then President George Bush senior. One of the tankers for the company was the U.S.S Condeleeza Rice.

[-] 2 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

I'd like to send the Bushes on a one-way flight to Baghdad. Just drop em off and say good luck

[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 9 years ago

High gas prices are a needed catalyst for change. Or are you one of those that think petrosociety is sustainable?

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

I am one who thinks that others shouldn't try to be king and decide something for everyone else.

[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 9 years ago

We have a shared fate here on planet earth, as much as libertarians like to believe every man's an island (or better yet, owns one).

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

I'm not a 100% against what you're saying I'm just a believer in moderation. I don't like the extremes on either side.

[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Ok, But have human consumption, growth and environmental footprint been moderate? I'm for moderation too...

Also, would you consider that those who feel as I do are enslaved by your prevailing views? We can't escape this planet, any more than you, and it's dominated by apathy and greed - which affects all of us. You are, in effect, deciding for everyone else.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

Good argument. Let's find the happy middle. I'm worried more about nuclear, though. Wouldn't it suck if what happened in Japan, happened here?

[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Thanks. However in my experience, we on the left keep compromising, and the right continually moves the yardsticks on us, so the middle is treacherous, always shifting away... But yeah. I do appreciate your open-mindedness. I've noticed you playing this role around the forum and it's a good thing. Unrewarding work I'm sure. :)

Nuclear. I see it as a necessary transitional technology in certain scenarios. The global ecosystem damage being done by CO2 outweighs the relatively localized impact of even a tragedy like Fukushima, or Chernobyl - I just saw a PBS documentary about "nuclear wolves." Basically the area around Chernobyl is an ecological paradise, and the last refuge for some species that are otherwise extinct or extremely endangered in the wild - like european wild horses, bison, etc. It's effectively a biosphere preserve because it's off-limits to human activity. Ironic.

[-] 2 points by number2 (914) 9 years ago

It's all about perspective. If you only ever look at the world from the right you'll never get an accurate picture.

This isn't my pet issue, though. I hate fascists and I can't find moderation on that. We should fight the fascists in big oil, big pharma and wall st.

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I'm with you.

[-] -1 points by technoviking (484) 9 years ago

it's amazing what lens filters can do

[-] -1 points by demonspawn79 (186) 9 years ago

The EPA is absolutely useless and will gladly look the other way in exchange for a fat brown envelope. Do you know what a superfund site is? You should, there's thousands of them all across the U.S. Instead of preventing pollution, the EPA simply uses taxpayers money to clean up the mess left behind by private corporations. It's all a racket.

[-] 3 points by Cicero (407) 9 years ago

All I know is in the decades since the formation of the EPA that our Air and water is cleaner.

[-] -1 points by Frankie (733) 9 years ago

More accurately, they use taxpayer's money to have other private corporations clean up the mess left behind by private corporations. ; )

[-] 0 points by demonspawn79 (186) 9 years ago

Indeed. Like I said, it's all a racket. They put the likes of Al Capone to shame.

[-] -1 points by mimthefree (192) from Biggar, Scotland 9 years ago

there doesn't need to be an EPA.

the problem is putting profit before everything else. Organisations like the EPA are failed attempts to correct the flaw in the system. The same with things like market regulators, consumer watchdogs, etc etc etc.

What does it all tell you? The market system simply does not work. It's completely broken.

[-] 2 points by Cicero (407) 9 years ago

And the Communist system was so good at protecting the environment, Chernobyl? Also, China is a communist nation. Whose largest company is state owned does that company care about the environment?

[-] 1 points by mimthefree (192) from Biggar, Scotland 9 years ago

always just heads and tails with you people. if it's not capitalism, it must instantly be communism. It's laughable.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 9 years ago

My point is name an economic system that would do a better job?

[-] 1 points by mimthefree (192) from Biggar, Scotland 9 years ago

that's exactly the point. It doesn't have a name yet, because we haven't created it.

It's time to create a new one that would do a better job, and incorporate solutions to rectify the mistakes of the past.

Buckminster Fuller famously said "you don't change the system by fighting it, you change it by creating a new system that makes the old one obsolete."

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 9 years ago

Our government will never change in such profound ways. The rich own the government, the rich own the economy. Will the rich agree to a new system where they are less better off.

No, they would fight such a change. With the full might of the American government.

But, no such system exists.

That is my main objection to secular humanism the idea that humans can through collective action create a society that is fair, equitable, and perfect.

You can't take imperfect beings and create a perfect system for them.

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 9 years ago

I don't think secular humanism is a platform for building a system at all. It's an ethic; a philosophy about personal morality and values that isn't dependent on deities, but rather recognizes that all deities have been a reflection of the humans that created them - so go right to the source, so to speak.

[-] -2 points by Frankie (733) 9 years ago

Have you ever actually been to the EPA? I have. I worked there for a while.

Most of what goes on there has little if anything to do directly with the environment. It's a huge bureaucracy that consists largely of administrators, program managers, attorneys, budget analysts, legislative analysts, contract managers, deputy administrators, assistants to the deputy administrators, contractors everywhere, etc., etc., etc. Half of what it does is simply to feed itself and contractors.

Granted you need somebody to manage things but not at the cost that we're paying for all of that overhead. Even if you ended up spending the same amount of money, you could do so much more effectively.

[-] 2 points by Cicero (407) 9 years ago

See above...

Water and Air is cleaner since the EPA was created.

[-] -1 points by Frankie (733) 9 years ago

It could have been just as clean for 60% less money spent purely for bureaucracy.

[-] 1 points by Cicero (407) 9 years ago

Name one government institution found throughout history in any government that has been perfect? That has been free of corruption? That has been 100% efficient?

[-] -1 points by Frankie (733) 9 years ago

Comparing it against another government agency is pointless. Virtually all are extraordinarily inefficient mostly because it's all magic money that rains down on them every year. No meaningful performance measures. No accountability for results. Extraordinary amounts of waste. I've worked with a bunch of them and they're all basically the same. Nobody cares because it's nobody's money and it just keeps coming.

[-] 2 points by Cicero (407) 9 years ago

So by your own admission it is tomfoolery to expect perfection from human institutions since human's being the main drive of such institutions are themselves imperfect.

[-] -1 points by Frankie (733) 9 years ago

Nope, large government bureaucracies are in a class all their own. Which is why we need to fix that versus just continuing to throw more and more tax money at them just to be wasted. It's like giving money to a charity with a 40% adminsitrative overhead.

[-] 2 points by Cicero (407) 9 years ago

With this economy in shambles. This is not the time to fire anyone. If the government fired a bunch of people tomorrow. Do you know what the effect on the economy would be?