# Should we abolish the EPA? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 16, 2011, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888 "2011-08-16T12:34:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/41 "2011-08-16T18:27:11Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I’m sorry, but I was under the impression this is the year 2011, not 1960-whatever it was. The climate (not temperature) is a lot different now than it was forty plus years ago. So, does the city of West Bumblefuck have the expertise to assess what waste products come from a given industrial plant that wants to setup shop in their area? When the plant pays off the city council will they care much? How much damage do you suspect needs to occur before the people have had enough (see Love Canal)? Once the damage is done who pays for the staggering cleanup costs to put it back to right? What about the people downwind living in East Bumblefuck who will be sucking on most of the emissions? They are just SOL? There is no historical or current precedent suggesting it will all just work out as you suppose. There is a lot of historical and current precedent to suggest you are incredibly wrong about this. ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/42 "2011-08-16T18:28:07Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > The idea that companies would simply pollute to their heart’s content if the EPA was abolished in a lot of fearmongering. Even if the EPA was abolished, most local municipalities would pass their own laws limiting how much a business could pollute (or they would offer incentives for a company to not pollute). Companies have more say at the local level. “What? Pass this legislation, ordnance, or what have you, and I’ll move my company to a more _business-friendly_ location!” In particular, I’m reminded of a large paper company in North Carolina engaged in precisely this behavior in order to avoid having to put pollution controls. When the EPA _finally_ intervened (a story in itself) and called their bluff, they installed the pollution controls and remained in business. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/43 "2011-08-16T18:31:39Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I’m sorry, but I was under the impression this is the year 2011, not 1960-whatever it was. The climate (not temperature) is a lot different now than it was forty plus years ago. Yes it is and why is that? Because we have the EPA. This is the same logic liberals use when they argue against prisons. We put a bunch of people in prison and the crime rate went down. So they argue that now that the crime rate has dropped there’s no reason to keep imprisoning people. If you stop putting people in prison, the crime rate will go back up. And if you stop enforcing environmental laws, the pollution will come back. ---
**Author:** ![Kiber](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kiber/32/317_2.png) [@Kiber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kiber)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/44 "2011-08-16T18:32:20Z")
Totally anecdotal, but I spent 15 years doing environmental cleanup driven by EPA. In my experience, EPA was painfully willing to negotiate, relax standards, ease requirements, etc. This notion that they are over-reaching jackbooted thugs imposing their will on poor, outgunned businesses is something that I’ve never seen, that’s for sure. ---
**Author:** ![Baracus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@Baracus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baracus)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/45 "2011-08-16T18:36:52Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > The idea that companies would simply pollute to their heart’s content if the EPA was abolished in a lot of fearmongering. Even if the EPA was abolished, most local municipalities would pass their own laws limiting how much a business could pollute (or they would offer incentives for a company to not pollute). That might work if the pollution stayed put, but I think you would have a problem convincing a municipality to reduce its power plant pollution because acid rain was falling 500 miles away or to implement riparian buffers around a river because of algae blooms 1000 miles downriver. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/46 "2011-08-16T18:45:42Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Yes it is and why is that? > > Because we have the EPA. > > This is the same logic liberals use when they argue against prisons. We put a bunch of people in prison and the crime rate went down. So they argue that now that the crime rate has dropped there’s no reason to keep imprisoning people. > > If you stop putting people in prison, the crime rate will go back up. And if you stop enforcing environmental laws, the pollution will come back. I try to avoid, “Me, too,” posts, but this logic seems unassailable. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/47 "2011-08-16T18:52:21Z")
> [@HookerChemical](#): > > As I said, I work with the EPA or local districts implementing EPA regulation. There are plenty of headaches for my clients, but our hands have never been tied so completely we couldn’t find a solution. Best user name/ post combination in the thread. For those who think you can manage without the EPA, you should ask **HookerChemical** about a section of Niagara Falls, New York. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/48 "2011-08-16T19:03:54Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > This seems like it would devolve into a “lowest bidder” scenario: the municipality willing to enact the most lenient ant-pollution laws is the one that’s going to host the most corporations. Moreover, part of the problem is that air and water pollution generated in one area can easily migrate to another. So Los Angeles sets strict pollution limits, and Santa Monica says “build your plant here and crank out as much toxic shit as you like;” LA ends up looking just like it did in the '60’s and '70’s. > > See [tragedy of the commons.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons) This is a pretty good intuition. But there is somewhat more to the issue. [This](http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/SR142.pdf) is an extremely good paper on the subject by a pair of economists. It is highly technical and quite long, but you can get the gist from the abstract and the first few pages and the concluding remarks beginning on page 56. The argument is that fully decentralized markets are very bad at providing pure public goods (i.e., environmental protection) when there are global externalities. Chari & Jones’ first example is the classical Coasian problem of how to allocate the right to avoid air pollution when you live near a factory. I cite this paper here both because it is very good and because it highlights the naivete of OMG’s argument. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/49 "2011-08-16T19:25:51Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Yes it is and why is that? > > Because we have the EPA. > > This is the same logic liberals use when they argue against prisons. We put a bunch of people in prison and the crime rate went down. So they argue that now that the crime rate has dropped there’s no reason to keep imprisoning people. > > If you stop putting people in prison, the crime rate will go back up. And if you stop enforcing environmental laws, the pollution will come back. I was unaware that I said anything about _not_ enforcing any kind of environmental protection laws. I’m quite curious how you go from my post, to this. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/50 "2011-08-16T19:27:28Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > Perhaps you’d like to offer some specific examples we could consider? Certainly. For example, most big construction projects these days have big environmental reviews to go through. These things are pricey as all get out, and at the end of it it’s unlikely that anyone will look or care. If they do, it’s further unclear as to whether or not the document means anything: whether or not the project actually is stopped for environmental reasons seems to have more to do with local politics. Much more importantly, it’s “handling” of endangered species is flat embarassing. The regulations which supposedly protect endangered species quite often lead to whole habitats being demolished, even if neither property owners nor the EPS want that. The EPA can’t comprehend anything between “total wildland, ignore it” and “nothing growing whatsoever”. So it will try to nail down prime real estate people need even if the actual environmental value is minimal, while ignoring areas where they could do much more good in terms of promoting species recovery. I could go on, but there’s little point. I despise the EPA, among several other agencies which at this point do mroe harm than good. Note, too, that regulations redated the EPA by many years. it needs to be taken down and rebuilt.\* \*Lest this confuse people who think in terms of “Mend It, Don’t End It” slogans, repeated studies demonstrate that changing workplace culture is extremely difficult. I’m all for smashing the EPA and hiring entirely new staff, who might have a clue. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/51 "2011-08-16T19:42:27Z")
I’d get rid of the NRC first. They cause more pollution by keeping us by replacing coal plants with nuclear plants. Seriously the biggest problem with the EPA is that there is no way for them to stop. They can’t say we have reached the point of diminishing returns and there are no proven health problems with the current limits. The best thing to do would be to say they enforce existing regulations and limits, but the can’t change them. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/52 "2011-08-16T19:48:08Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > Could Congress be expected to make good decisions with regard to environmental stewardship? This made me laugh out loud. I’m just picturing a politician blocking a pollution ban to further his own ends, “cut taxes or the drinking water gets it.” Recently congress has proven they can’t or are unwilling to do what is best for the country, they will use anything as a political bargaining chip to make it through the next election. I’d really prefer we keep the EPA as an independent organization that remains stable regardless of political power changes. The day to day activities need to happen day to day not whenever congress gets a chance to look at environmental legislation. Congress still has the ability to make adjustments to the EPA as necessary, if it is overreaching or under-performing, they can fix that. If they can’t keep their own agency in check maybe it’s Congress that needs to be abolished and not the EPA. ---
**Author:** ![Twoflower](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/twoflower/32/22_2.png) [@Twoflower](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twoflower)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/53 "2011-08-16T19:49:21Z")
The EPA has nothing to with enforcing the endangered species act. That’s the Fish & Wildlife Service’s department. They also have little or no involvement in most environmental impact studies – the various federal agencies are responsible for assessing their own projects. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/54 "2011-08-16T20:16:45Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > I was unaware that I said anything about _not_ enforcing any kind of environmental protection laws. I’m quite curious how you go from my post, to this. Because your post is disingenuous. Dozens of small regulatory agencies will cost at least as much as one centralized agency so there won’t be any reduction in government spending. But what there would be is a reduction in efficiency - the small agencies collectively won’t be able to do as much as the single centralized agency. Which is the real point of course. Corporations don’t really want a small government or an elimination of government waste - heck, plenty of corporations are living off government money. What they want is a government that’s big and expensive but weak. Environmental regulation is one of those things that the political process handles poorly. It’s like the deficit - the benefits are here today and the costs are years in the future. Legislators would be willing to deregulate for jobs and political contributions, confident that the rise in the cancer rate won’t show up for twenty years or so. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/55 "2011-08-16T20:25:41Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I’d get rid of the NRC first. They cause more pollution by keeping us by replacing coal plants with nuclear plants. > > Seriously the biggest problem with the EPA is that there is no way for them to stop. They can’t say we have reached the point of diminishing returns and there are no proven health problems with the current limits. The best thing to do would be to say they enforce existing regulations and limits, but the can’t change them. How then do we deal with the unknowns of new technology? One example is the budding field of [nanotechnology.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology) I’m speaking here not about futuristic tiny robots, but rather nanoparticles - extremely small particles of common chemicals that exhibit unusual properties as a result of their extremely high surface-area-to-volume ratio. To cite the example shown at the Wikipedia link: whereas large particles and chunks of zinc oxide aren’t particularly toxic, research is showing that ZnO nanoparticles can exhibit unusual toxicity. It may not be wise to stick to old rules when new ways of using/producing old chemicals are developed. How also do we deal with new information? Example: pollution research has shown in recent years that the toxicity of particulate exhaust from engines and industry/power plants is closely related to the size of the particles. So even if you severely limit the total mass of particles emitted, the stuff that’s still being emitted (if composed of nanoparticles) may mean that the exhaust isn’t a whole lot less dangerous than when the engine was billowing black smoke (which is mostly very large particles). Finally, if we freeze current regs, how can we take advantage of new technology? It’s not wise to regulate pollution so strictly that you crush the economy. That is of course the complaint these days from some sectors, but if you observe the history of (for example) automotive emissions regulations, you will see that there has been a gradual tightening of the rules over time. Rules implemented within the past decade could not possibly have been enacted in the mid-1970’s because the technology did not exist at that time to meet those goals. Similarly, technology will continue to advance in the future, enabling the EPA to pursue even tighter regulations - not because they hate business, but because even in the current state of affairs there are still many, many [non-attainment areas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-attainment_area) in the US; numerous cities experience “[ozone action days](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_Action_Day)” or days with hazardous levels of particulate pollution. So it seems to me that you need to maintain a body of scientists and policymakers who can respond to the development of new technology (both to limit its negative impact and to take advantage of the benefits it might offer) and also pursue/utilize new knowledge about the science of pollution. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/56 "2011-08-16T20:30:14Z")
**smiling bandit** , you’re offering generalizations, and as noted not necessarily ones within the EPA purview anyway. > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Much more importantly, it’s “handling” of endangered species is flat embarassing. The regulations which supposedly protect endangered species quite often lead to whole habitats being demolished, even if neither property owners nor the EPS want that. I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Can you point to a specific case example, so we can try to examine what happened and why? > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > I could go on, but there’s little point. That may be… ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/57 "2011-08-16T20:48:07Z")
You know, you can oppose the EPA while still supporting environmental protection. Canada doesn’t have an EPA. In fact, only the U.S. does. But other countries manage not to foul their own environment at least as well without it. The primary argument with the EPA as well with other federal bureaucracies like the FDA is that they are too politicized and unaccountable. If a president appoints an activist EPA administrator, suddenly the entire regulatory landscape changes - if not in the laws themselves, but in the threats of new laws or the administration and enforcement of current ones. Then another president comes along and appoints a laissez-faire administrator, and the entire regulatory landscape changes again. This makes it hard for businesses to plan, and it drives up business risk which lowers investment. There’s been a trend in Washington to increase the size of the bureaucracy, to create more departments and more administrators. But Congress itself is roughly the same size as it was when the overall size of government was much smaller. This means oversight becomes more difficult, transparency vanishes, and more decisions are made behind closed doors and under the influence of lobbyists. You can argue that this is not a healthy trend and that reform is needed, without also advocating that the rivers be allowed to burn and sewage be dumped willy-nilly into the environment. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/58 "2011-08-16T21:03:04Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > What’s your take? Do we need the EPA anymore? Absolutely > [@](#): > > Are jobs unnecessarily being crushed under the burden of excessive environmental regs? Prior to the EPA _lives_ were be unnecessarily crushed under the burden of excessive environmental pollution. If anything, there are more jobs on the balance due to the need to staff the EPA, the impetus to start companies to provide equipment to test, monitor, and deal with pollution sources, and provide clean up services. > [@](#): > > Could Congress be expected to make good decisions with regard to environmental stewardship? Sometimes - I thought forming the EPA was a good move on their part, for example. But Congresscritters aren’t environmental experts - it makes total sense for Congress to set up an agency staffed with experts and experience in that area for the actual regulation enforcement and study of problems. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/59 "2011-08-16T21:12:02Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Canada doesn’t have an EPA. I thought [Environment Canada](http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=BD3CE17D-1) was the Canadian equivalent of the EPA. Certainly Canada has environmental regulations and enforces them. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/60 "2011-08-16T21:14:51Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > There’s been a trend in Washington to increase the size of the bureaucracy, to create more departments and more administrators. But Congress itself is roughly the same size as it was when the overall size of government was much smaller. This means oversight becomes more difficult, transparency vanishes, and more decisions are made behind closed doors and under the influence of lobbyists. You can argue that this is not a healthy trend and that reform is needed, without also advocating that the rivers be allowed to burn and sewage be dumped willy-nilly into the environment. Do you have examples of the EPA running amok? That it is an out-of-control agency that has established its own little fiefdom due to lack of oversight from Congress and no transparency? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888.md?page=4)