# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/61 "2011-08-16T21:17:19Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > 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. Odd, I was talking to a friend just last night about this. A new conservatory has just been built on the campus he works at, and he’s quite upset that it was designed by American architects according to an American environmental standard that’s 15-20 years behind the times. It would be a remarkable coincidence if I knew the only person who did look or does care. The campus is pretty keen on being, or seeming to be, environmentally conscious in its operation. I’m sure the foreign architectural firm (another black mark) takes an interest, otherwise they wouldn’t build to the outdated Yankee standard in question. So I reject your claim that it’s unlikely anyone will look or care. ---
**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, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/62 "2011-08-16T21:17:48Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > 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. Also, jobs either developing alternate cleaner technologies, or following more labor-intensive cleaner processes. Of course it’s true that adhering to environmental standards can cost companies more–but one of the _ways_ that can happen is by _requiring more jobs_ in the industry. If the industry’s products are something that we really want, we’ll find ways to do it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/63 "2011-08-16T21:25:35Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > You know, you can oppose the EPA while still supporting environmental protection. Canada doesn’t have an EPA. Canada does have a Cabinet-level (which the EPA is not) department called [Environment Canada.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_Canada) ---
**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, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/64 "2011-08-16T21:34:23Z")
Guys, I know that other countries have environmental regulations and regulatory bodies. My point was that it’s possible to argue against the _specific implementation of an environmental regulatory regime_ without arguing against the need for environmental regulation. For example, when it comes to drug regulation every country has its own equivalent of the FDA. And yet, drugs do not get approved at the same time everywhere, or at the same cost. Some countries legalize drugs that other countries do not. Sometimes drugs are available for years in other countries before the FDA approves them, and I imagine the reverse is also true. There’s nothing wrong with looking at the specific structure and powers of a regulatory agency to see if it still makes sense in a new era, or whether it made sense at all. And yet in the U.S., such debates instantly cause people to withdraw into their partisan corners and start sniping at each other. Maybe that’s one of the reasons why the U.S. government is so bloody screwed up. ---
**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, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/65 "2011-08-16T21:54:06Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > There’s nothing wrong with looking at the specific structure and powers of a regulatory agency to see if it still makes sense in a new era, or whether it made sense at all. And yet in the U.S., such debates instantly cause people to withdraw into their partisan corners and start sniping at each other. Maybe that’s one of the reasons why the U.S. government is so bloody screwed up. I agree on the overall premise. A global FDA might make sense. An international body agrees to standards then an international body tests and approves new drugs according to those standards and the new drug can go on the market everywhere at the same time. Hell, pharmaceutical companies would save a fortune not having to jump through regulation hoops everywhere they go. Not going to happen though. There is partisan sniping…or rather lunatic sniping already from the Tea Partiers on the notion you are talking about. This is a big part of the bloody screw-up you mentioned. Meet Agenda 21: > [@](#): > > First, they took on the political establishment in Congress. Now, tea partiers have trained their sights on a new and insidious target: local planning and zoning commissions, which activists believe are carrying out a global conspiracy to trample American liberties and force citizens into Orwellian “human habitation zones.” > > At the root of this plot is the admittedly sinister-sounding Agenda 21, an 18-year-old UN plan to encourage countries to consider the environmental impacts of human development. Tea partiers see Agenda 21 behind everything from a septic tank inspection law in Florida to a plan in Maine to reduce traffic on Route 1. The issue even flared up briefly during the midterms, when Colorado Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes accused his Democratic opponent of using a bike-sharing program to convert Denver into a “United Nations Community.” > > SOURCE: [“We Don’t Need None of That Smart-Growth Communism” – Mother Jones](http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/11/tea-party-agenda-21-un-sustainable-development) ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/66 "2011-08-16T22:01:10Z")
> [@Ike\_Witt](#): > > 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. While my username is inspired by Hooker Chemical, the company behind the Love Canal fiasco, I’m no expert in Love Canal (or CERCLA/Superfund, the regulation that resulted from the incident). Most of my work is Clean Air Act and greenhouse gas (even before it became tied to the CAA), with some RCRA and related work. > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > 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. People have already hit on the EPA/endangered species issue, so I’ll take this one on. The EPA doesn’t require environmental impact reports. They don’t frequently enforce them, comment on them, or file suit over them. An EIR is required by the NEPA regulation. The review can fall to many agencies. I’ve seen the FAA file comments on a landfill’s EIR, so you’d be surprised which agencies are interested. Many types of projects, not only construction projects, have to go through an environmental review to determine what their environmental impact will be. This can include air and water impact, endangered species issues, and even the view (this is where the FAA commented, as there was an airport nearby). Nothing in an EIR prohibits a project from proceeding, but “significant” findings will require that the agency with jurisdiction over the project (typically the county here in California) acknowledge the significance and state that the project benefits outweigh the impacts. So other than the EPA’s administration of two programs it doesn’t have jurisdiction over, would you care to add another example, **smiling bandit**? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/67 "2011-08-16T22:01:15Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Guys, I know that other countries have environmental regulations and regulatory bodies. My point was that it’s possible to argue against the _specific implementation of an environmental regulatory regime_ without arguing against the need for environmental regulation. > > For example, when it comes to drug regulation every country has its own equivalent of the FDA. And yet, drugs do not get approved at the same time everywhere, or at the same cost. Some countries legalize drugs that other countries do not. Sometimes drugs are available for years in other countries before the FDA approves them, and I imagine the reverse is also true. > > There’s nothing wrong with looking at the specific structure and powers of a regulatory agency to see if it still makes sense in a new era, or whether it made sense at all. And yet in the U.S., such debates instantly cause people to withdraw into their partisan corners and start sniping at each other. Maybe that’s one of the reasons why the U.S. government is so bloody screwed up. And then we should all sing “Kumbaya”! See, posts like this one: > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > 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. Really don’t advance any kind of useful argument. Because it only takes about 30 seconds for even us ignorant Americans to discover the existence of [Environment Canada](http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=BD3CE17D-1). So…what was the point of saying “Canada doesn’t have an EPA”? I mean, it’s **technically** true–there is no agency or department of the Canadian government called “the Environmental Protection Agency”. Guess what–_no other country on Earth_ has a government department called “Environment Canada”!!! (I didn’t actually bother to verify this–I’m just going with my gut on that one.) Perhaps you could explain to us what “Environment Canada” does or does not do that is different from (and better than) what the “United States Environmental Protection Agency” does or does not do. I’m fairly certain, though, that whatever advantages Environment Canada may have over the EPA, making the EPA more like Environment Canada could not, in any way, be described as “abolishing the EPA”. ---
**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, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/68 "2011-08-16T22:18:45Z")
> [@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. > [@spark240](#): > > 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? What he’s saying on this issue is true. The law says a property owner can’t develop land if it’s the habitat of an endangered species. So let’s say you buy a piece of property that has some wilderness on it. You realize based on the area you live in and the type of land it is that there may be some endangered species living on your property. But the species hasn’t actually been seen on your land yet. Now you might not have had any immediate plans on developing the wild areas of your property. But you also know that you might want to develop it some day in the future or perhaps sell the property to someone else. So at this point, the smartest thing to do from the viewpoint of your own self-interest is plow up the wilderness area of your property as quickly as possible. That way there’s no possibility that the endangered species will be found on your property and your development opportunities won’t be restricted. I assume this is what smiling bandit was referring to. That said, the fact that there are flaws in the system doesn’t justify to me a need to scrap the entire system. ---
**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, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/69 "2011-08-16T22:25:29Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > And then we should all sing “Kumbaya”! > > See, posts like this one: > > Really don’t advance any kind of useful argument. Because it only takes about 30 seconds for even us ignorant Americans to discover the existence of [Environment Canada](http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=BD3CE17D-1). So…what was the point of saying “Canada doesn’t have an EPA”? I mean, it’s **technically** true–there is no agency or department of the Canadian government called “the Environmental Protection Agency”. Guess what–_no other country on Earth_ has a government department called “Environment Canada”!!! (I didn’t actually bother to verify this–I’m just going with my gut on that one.) The whole point was to suggest that the EPA is not the only environmental regulatory body around, and that it’s totally fair to suggest changes to the EPA without being tarred as an anarchist or a hater of the environment, or whatever. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you could explain to us what “Environment Canada” does or does not do that is different from (and better than) what the “United States Environmental Protection Agency” does or does not do. I’m fairly certain, though, that whatever advantages Environment Canada may have over the EPA, making the EPA more like Environment Canada could not, in any way, be described as “abolishing the EPA”. Why not? I’m actually not up on the differences between the way Environment Canada works and how the EPA works. I’m not saying Environment Canada is the right model. My point was that it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that you either have to support the EPA as it exists or you’re an enemy of the environment. ---
**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, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/70 "2011-08-16T22:55:50Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > 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. This is exactly the what I’m talking about. You want to give EPA unlimited powers with no accountability and no cost accounting to look at the cost effectiveness and too much use of the precautionary principle. If the evidence isn’t strong enough to convince Congress that new regulations are needed then they can’t regulate it. Giving the EPA the power means giving an limited budget and power to unelected bureaucrats. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/71 "2011-08-16T23:09:43Z")
I work in water quality regs for the state. As has been said more than once in this thread, EPA–even under the current administration–bends over backwards for industry. And most state environmental agencies are the same way. You think these places are full of idealistic tree-huggers? Ha! Real tree-huggers hate us because they know we kow-tow too much to Big Industry. Unfortunately all their comments to public notices and letters to the editor of their local fish wrap have little influence compared to the clout of industrial dischargers. EPA is bound by the law. The law is created by Republicans and Democrats alike. If citizens and corporations do not like what the EPA does, they are well within their right to sue them. The courts do not always rule in their favor. You can have all the environmental regs on the books that you want, but without a body dedicated to enforcing these laws, you’re basically doing nothing. What, is a police officer supposed to hand-cuff a municipal waste-water facility operator for being out of compliance with their permit? How would this go about? Does Officer Bubba walk around with a Winkler test tied to his belt and a portable wet lab in his black-and-white? Without a regulatory agency in charge of protection, are you _really_ willing to trust that the well water you drink is not contaminated with toxics and nastiness from your unsewered neighbors, the water you swim in is not swarming with E. coli, and the fish you eat are not chockful of mercury from the landfill leachate upstream? Yeah…why don’t we test it out and see how many people complain when their kids become double-amputees after wading in their local streams or there are no more bluecrabs or salmon to eat any more because their habitats have been destroyed. Or better yet, when watermen no longer have any jobs any more! I’m sure no one will be complaining then. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2011, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/72 "2011-08-16T23:41:33Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > 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? We still need the EPA. Some jobs are probably diminished by regulations, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. And some might be saved because of it. No, Congress cannot be expected to make good decisions about the environment. ---
**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, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/73 "2011-08-16T23:50:51Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I assume this is what smiling bandit was referring to. > > That said, the fact that there are flaws in the system doesn’t justify to me a need to scrap the entire system. I realized what he probably meant later. That points to what has been seen in different contexts as a strength and a weakness of ESA-based protection, that it depends on particular places being identified as homes to particular species. This is a strength in the sense that it’s usually easier for people to identify with animals rather than habitats, and a species sighting obviates to some extent the need for more complicated analysis. It’s a weakness in the sense that _endangered habitat_ is really more important environmentally. Every parcel of land protected by ESA on the basis of Species X living there is effectively protecting many other species–and such protections would still be relevant even if Species X disappeared, or alternatively moved out of the endangered category. ---
**Author:** ![Baracus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@Baracus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baracus)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/74 "2011-08-17T00:07:27Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The whole point was to suggest that the EPA is not the only environmental regulatory body around, and that it’s totally fair to suggest changes to the EPA without being tarred as an anarchist or a hater of the environment, or whatever. Well, if that was your point, then maybe you should have just said that. I doubt you would find many people that think “the EPA” is the perfect incarnation of a environment regulatory agency. However when Bachmann and others call for abolishing the EPA, I don’t get the sense that the are opposed to “the EPA” but any federal environmental agency. They don’t say “here are the changes I would make” or “here is what I would replace it with”. They just say they want it gone, period. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/75 "2011-08-17T00:10:22Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The whole point was to suggest that the EPA is not the only environmental regulatory body around, and that it’s totally fair to suggest changes to the EPA without being tarred as an anarchist or a hater of the environment, or whatever. The problem is that the people advocating this are not arguing for changes, they are arguing that the agency shouldn’t exist at all. They are also many of the same people who generally don’t believe in government, or its ability to affect change. I would even go further to speculate that most of them couldn’t point to any specific examples of ineffectiveness or overreach, or provide a reasoned argument for their position beyond a general belief that government is bad. It’s not that people can’t fathom that the EPA has room for improvement, it’s that calls for its demise are usually not borne out of any concern for the environment or government efficiency. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/76 "2011-08-17T01:04:20Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Some jobs are probably diminished by regulations… Actually, I would argue that environmental laws have created many jobs. Facilities hire staff who make sure they are within compliance of permits for air and water, and retain environmental lawyers just to deal with state agencies and EPA. Land developers hire firms to handle all the Clean Water Act requirements (environmental impact statements, wetland permitting, etc.). Other firms are hired to do remediation and habitat restoration and to calculate TMDLs (total maximum daily loads…what the politicians like to call a “pollution diet” required for every navigable waterbody that has impairments). Not to mention…EPA and state environmental agencies employ many engineers, biologists, geologists, chemists, statisticians, and lawyers. They also contract with universities and consulting firms. ---
**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 17, 2011, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/77 "2011-08-17T01:56:21Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > I realized what he probably meant later. That points to what has been seen in different contexts as a strength and a weakness of ESA-based protection, that it depends on particular places being identified as homes to particular species. This is a strength in the sense that it’s usually easier for people to identify with animals rather than habitats, and a species sighting obviates to some extent the need for more complicated analysis. It’s a weakness in the sense that _endangered habitat_ is really more important environmentally. Every parcel of land protected by ESA on the basis of Species X living there is effectively protecting many other species–and such protections would still be relevant even if Species X disappeared, or alternatively moved out of the endangered category. And as others have pointed out, the EPA has very little to do with endangered species. The EPA is the agency that monitors air and water pollution and they’re usually working around factories not forests. The agency that watches endangered species and habitats is the Fish and Wildlife Service. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/78 "2011-08-17T02:10:21Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The whole point was to suggest that the EPA is not the only environmental regulatory body around, and that it’s totally fair to suggest changes to the EPA without being tarred as an anarchist or a hater of the environment, or whatever. > > Why not? I’m actually not up on the differences between the way Environment Canada works and how the EPA works. I’m not saying Environment Canada is the right model. My point was that it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that you either have to support the EPA as it exists or you’re an enemy of the environment. The question in this thread is not “Should we make changes to the EPA?”. It is “Should we abolish the EPA?”. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/79 "2011-08-17T02:32:12Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > 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. Uh, The lead federal agencies for implementing ESA are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. There are parts of the ESA implemented by the EPA, but IIUC it is the ESA who tells the EPA what to do more often. ---
**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 17, 2011, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888/80 "2011-08-17T12:30:18Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > This is exactly the what I’m talking about. You want to give EPA unlimited powers with no accountability and no cost accounting to look at the cost effectiveness and too much use of the precautionary principle. That’s not what I said. You originally asserted: > [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > The best thing to do would be to say they enforce existing regulations and limits, but the can’t change them. and my response, summarized here, was that freezing regulations at some totally arbitrary point in time is foolhardy because it eliminates the ability to respond to new information and new environmental threats, and the ability to take advantage of new technology. It presupposes that the current state of affairs is the best that things can possibly be, and that no further consideration is required. Example: if your proposal to freeze regs had been adopted 40 years ago, we would still be driving carburetted cars that had no exhaust aftertreatment. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-we-abolish-the-epa/592888.md?page=5)