Should we abolish the EPA?

Michelle Bachmann and other conservative candidates like this one have been railing against the EPA for some time, proposing that it has outlived its usefulness (or is even wrecking the economy by excessive regulation that costs jobs) and that we should abolish it altogether. Their idea, I guess, is that future environmental regulations would be enacted by Congress (though in the absence of the EPA, it’s unclear where they would obtain the information necessary to make such decisions).

What’s your take? Do we need the EPA anymore? Are jobs unnecessarily being crushed under the burden of excessive environmental regs? Could Congress be expected to make good decisions with regard to environmental stewardship?

No, we need the EPA and people like her want to get rid of it simply so corporations will have even more leeway to destroy the landscape and dump poison wherever they like than they do now.

This poll was taken in February. The headline claims “little support” for curbing the EPA, but frankly I’m shocked there was as much support as there was. Close to 1/3 of those surveyed think the EPA overreaches.

In this poll, 25% of respondents favor abolishing the EPA.

So it’s not just the candidates, there’s a surprisingly large (to me, at least) fraction of the public who are on board with the idea.


Those who don’t remember poisoned lakes and rivers or brown air would do well to consider what life was like before the EPA stepped in.

Michelle Bachmann thinks it’s a good idea, which tells you all you need to know. Whether the EPA overreaches and whether it needs to be abolished are totally unrelated questions.

“How do you like your new history teacher, Jimmy?”
“She’s nice, but she covered a few things that aren’t on the syllabus.”
“Like what?”
“Oh, like the effects of the Great Depression on child laborers and stuff.”
“She did what? I’m going to call the school board and have her fired right now!”

The past.

Here’s an example of what happens without an EPA:

Mr. Moto is using an alternate definition of “cite” which reads “Bite my crank for a while providing evidence that everyone knows perfectly well but doesn’t suit my own raging ideological prejudices.” Maybe this all would have happened if there had never been an EPA, after all. Maybe the Cuyahoga was on the verge of becoming a paradise, and would have, quicker and cheaper, if not for that nasty EPA. Can you prove it wasn’t?

Can you prove that while biting my crank?

I’m guessing that if in 2012 Bachmann gets elected and every Tea-Party candidate does as well and there’s an overall filibuster-proof Republican majority in both chambers of Congress…
… well, the Americans are totally fucked and it will have been gleefully self-inflicted.

Don’t think you’re getting off scott-free, Canuck. Prevailing wind from our regulated-into-the-ground factory towns is northerly.

Then this means WAR!

As noted above, history.

Hell, not even history…happens today.

Look at the pollution woes (with nothing like an EPA) is facing. Pollution is becoming a staggering problems for China.

Google pictures of China’s pollution problem.

Companies are not seeking to be “good citizens” of their own accord. If they can save a buck by dumping toxic waste into the air or water they do it.

But fine, forget China. We are the US! A country with about 1,280 Superfund sites (areas which are deemed toxic to humans).

But hey, if you think the EPA is overreaching I invite you to move you and your family to one of those areas. I bet property is cheap.

Yes. I would be willing to abolish most other government agencies before the EPA. Clean water, clean air, and clean soil are necessities, not luxuries.

No. Implementation could certainly be better in many cases, but regulations needn’t be net negatives for jobs. With proper direction of resources, we ought to be creating more jobs finding ways to do the things we want to do without trashing our own backyard.

Sounds like one of those times satire can’t keep up with reality.
Kinda like Bachmann herself, truth be told.

Agreed. We need the EPA.

We could sell the power over water quality and air pollution to Exxon. Everybody knows that privatizing the government is so much better. I am sure we could sell Dow the rights to policing the Saginaw River and other Michigan rivers. The Detroit River would be much cleaner is we sold the rights to the steel companies. They turn parts of it into such a pretty reddish brown color.

“We’ve got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?”

– Lee Iacocca

No, history can’t be the cite. China can’t be the cite. Der Trihs said that people like her want corporations to have the freedom to destroy the environment.

I’m one of the more conservative people on these boards, and I don’t support that. Furthermore, environmental protection isn’t merely handled by the EPA - it is a responsibility of many government agencies operating across many jurisdictions.

I haven’t looked at the matter overly much, but my time in government service was enough to convince me that even without the EPA, the law would still have to be followed and enforcement mechanisms would still be in place. The Coast Guard, for example, would still have marine environmental protection responsibilities. The Forest Service would still implement environment policy on forest lands.

I don’t personally think abolishing the EPA is a necessity or desirable, and I don’t think it is politically possible anyway - but politicians that make noises in this area aren’t automatically beyond the pale.

If you were worried about our F-22s, just wait til you see our acid rain.