It would be hard not to notice the right’s disdain for the EPA and I want to know why. Is there any logical, factual evidence that the EPA is corrupt or not making policies based on evidence?
Of all of Trump’s EOs, the one forcing political filtering of EPA (et al) findings is the most disturbing. I’d like to think I’m just unaware of all of the terrible things the EPA is doing and maybe this is a good thing, but I just can’t connect the dots.
I seriously doubt the free market can address the types of problems the EPA studies due to the tragedy of the commons theory, so I believe the function of the EPA is an essential part of our gov’t. It infuriates me when my conservative co-workers say that we should shut the EPA down… like somehow they are going to benefit from that. It’s insane. Look at industrial countries without environmental regulations, do they really envy that? Do they really want to be like China or India? At least China is now paying lip service to the environment, not poo-pooing it in the name of cheaper goods. It’s hard to get regulations in place and enforced, but really quick and easy to get rid of them. It’s hard to build something but easy to destroy it, and I fear that even if the left gets back into power that we’ll get back to where we are now, and that’s scary.
The GOP is traditionally the party of business. The defender of corporations against government regulation. One of the primary functions of the EPA traditionally has been to attempt to determine acceptable levels of pollution, waste, and environmental impact that certain businesses generate, and to decide how financially responsible those businesses are for any damage that they do. These regulations can be expensive and time consuming for these corporations to comply with.
So in a TL/DR nutshell, Conservatives (in a general sense) have traditionally been champions of capitalism and corporatism over environmental concerns. They often equate the EPA with a tree-hugging, liberal sort of ideal which stands in the way of economic expansion. To be fair, it can be at times.
That’s a really good point. The tact that the Trump administration has taken towards the EPA is a magnitude of order more hostile than any other Republican administration has been up to this point. As the link that GIGObuster posted notes, it was the Nixon administration (a Republican administration) that founded the agency.
It stifles business and puts US companies at an economic disadvantage compared to countries without an EPA. Some folks don’t agree that it’s worth it to have a cleaner environment when it costs jobs and profits.
In addition, a lot of folks on the right feel that the whole climate change thing is a hoax and basically just the left wing eco types finally finding an issue they can stick it to business over…and that the EPA has assisted them in doing so.
It’s basically because you have a different world view than those who are making the claims. You feel that having a safe and healthy environment is worth the costs in terms of jobs and profits and probably feel that since the vast majority of experts in the field of climate science are sure that global climate change is happening and it’s root cause is mainly human in origin and that it’s not a vast left wing eco nut conspiracy to make us all go back to hunting and gathering.
Both have environmental regulations btw. The real differences is that they aren’t enforced, since in the case of the CCP they can pretty much decide what is or isn’t enforced by fiat. On the books, however, China has some very tough regulations.
Their environmental disasters are becoming so overwhelming that even the CCP has to pay attention and at least look like they are trying to do something. Mainly, though, the CCPs initiatives are doing things like censorship in China and on Chinese (state controlled) social media, attempting to stifle or deflect knowledge of how bad it is externally, moving the bar for polution counters so it doesn’t alert until it hits a higher mark, claiming the smog is really just fog so it isn’t a problem, etc etc. IOW, it’s more than lip service but a lot of it is just damage control or simply censorship. That said, they almost HAVE to start doing something on this as it’s a major problem in China.
I know less about India so maybe someone can chime in on that. I was in India in the 90’s working on building network infrastructure there
Just to offer an alternative as to why individuals may hate the EPA.
There is a perception that the EPA deals with issues unfairly. In some cases this could be justified and in others not.
Large companies often have the money to work within the EPA’s restrictions or the political capital to carve out exceptions for themselves. This creates situations where an individual may perceive the EPA as working against them.
‘I wanted to build a house on my property but the EPA said no it’s wetland so I sold it for pennies on the dollar. Then Walmart bought the property and put it in a giant box store hows that fair’
Perfect example for how the EPA is unfairly scapegoated for general hatred of environmental regulations. The EPA doesn’t regulate wetlands, the Army Corps of Engineers does. And if Walmart built in a wetland, they paid a whole lot of money in permitting and mitigation costs - far more than would be worth the trouble for a homeowner.
You got that right ! It cost money to have your business be environmental friendly and if you get catch for breaking environmental laws it going to cost you big $$$!
It’s a lot easier and cheaper for a factory to dump it hazard waste into the river or any body of water , this happen in a town near me . I happen to like having clear air to be breathe and water to drink .
Does anyone have any specific verified examples of the EPA kowtowing to big industry? Carving out exceptions or prefered treatment to them? Basically corruption? Does anyone have examples of EPA regulations that actually are ridiculous?
My fox-news obsessed dad has always complained about how he can’t use effective grass-safe weed killer on his lawn due to those damn EPA regulations. Like they exist just to make his fight against weeds harder. I usually tell him I don’t know why it’s banned, but maybe they had proof that runoff caused environmental impact in streams and rivers, or maybe the chemicals caused cancer in mice or something, but I believe they probably had good reason to ban it. He thinks it probably negatively affected some insignificant bug or some rare minnow and now no one can use it due to some bleeding heart libs personal belief.
A quick Google search mostly reveals corruption of a political or partisan sort. Things like holding up new regulations until after an election (so as to avoid negatively affecting the chances of an incumbent) or using public funds to send out lobbying materiel to various environmental groups. There was a early email scandal involving Carol Browner, a former head of the EPA who purportedly destroyed many electronic files that she had no business deleting. All fairly minor, seemingly rather partisan complaints, methinks.
“The Environmental Protection Agency engaged in ‘covert propaganda’ and violated federal law when it blitzed social media to urge the public to back an Obama administration rule intended to better protect the nation’s streams and surface waters.” - New York Times, 12/14/2015
In Michigan et. al. vs EPA, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had illegally refused to consider the cost of regulations while making decisions.
The EPA attempted a massive power grab by expanding its own authority under the Clean Water Act. The CWA gives the EPA power to regulate runoff into lakes and rivers. The EPA tried to expand its authority from what is actually in the law and give itself authority over things like small ponds, streams, and ditches. 27 states fought back in court. They won, with the court ruling that the EPA’s action was not justified.
Other environmental regulations from other agencies involve illegal government overreach as well. For example, the Fish & wildlife Service has tried to classify species as endangered, which are not actually endangered. This could be used to give the government power over large areas of land, shutting down drilling, mining, and ranching on those areas. That’s been knocked down in court as well.
So in summary, federal environmental regulators have broken the law many times. Some people are upset about this because they believe that the government should obey the law.
:rolleyes: Nice rewrite of history. The EPA was created by a Republican (Nixon). Recently Obama used it as a sound-bite hand grenade on his way out the door to generate knee-jerk reactions like this thread. He should have to pay for any financial damage he caused.
It was a disaster by incompetence or laziness or underfunding for sure. But not nefarious. Mistakes, even huge mistakes happen and should be appropriately handled, but that doesn’t mean the EPA overall is not a net positive for the country. I mean, we wouldn’t scrap the military if they accidentally bombed a hospital full of civilians because we expect the occasional disaster to happen.
