# What's wrong with the EPA? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 28, 2017, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414 "2017-01-28T18:40:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414/21 "2017-02-01T06:24:25Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > :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. Created by a Republican 46+ years ago. More than a decade before the coke/yuppie/Izod generation. cf. _Wall Street_, _Boiler Room_. Sorry, you don’t get to claim the Republican party isn’t _all_ about ‘Greed is good’ anymore. ---
**Author:** ![HumbleThinker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@HumbleThinker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumbleThinker)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414/22 "2017-02-01T15:12:12Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > :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. I share the opinion of those that think Nixon would be decried as a socialist/communist or something similar if he were to run today with his same policies. No party, Democrat, Republican, or otherwise, has had the same platform for its whole existence, so saying that a Republican president created the EPA decades ago doesn’t mean much for the Republican party today. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414/23 "2017-02-01T17:37:13Z")
The EPA like everything else is subject to the law of diminishing returns. To illustrate think of taking down a Christmas Tree. Undecorating and disposing of a pine tree means huge numbers of needles falling onto the floor. In order to clean this up you take a broom and dustpan and in five minutes pick up 90% of the needles. Then you take a vacuum and in five minutes get 90% of the needles that are left. That still leaves 1% of the needles so you get down on your hands and knees and pick and in five minutes pick up the rest by hand. Picking up the last 1% took as much time and more effort than picking up the first 90%. If you decide to skip the hands and knees step it does not mean you are for having the floor covered with needles. Since the EPA was first created the air is much cleaner, the water is much cleaner, and so is the environment generally. The EPA is responsible for some of that. Doing good work forty years ago does not mean they are exempt from criticism. No bureaucracy will go away even after it has accomplished its mission so the EPA is looking for new areas to regulate that do not pass a cost benefit analysis. For example they wanted to pass a mercury [regulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_v._EPA)that is estimated would cost $9.6 billion a year and have $4 to 6 million in benefits. They [tried](http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/news/a28850/epa-abandons-proposal-to-ban-converting-street-cars-for-racing/)to regulate emissions by amateur racers. As has been discussed up thread they used social media to advocate for positive feedback for a proposed rule. They also tried to change the law to get Carbon Dioxide classified as a pollutant without congressional approval. ---
**Author:** ![nate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nate/32/13085_2.png) [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414/24 "2017-02-01T18:31:25Z")
> [@chacoguy](#): > > [That shit was intentional.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBlR05tDCbI&t=99s) > > [Go to the 39 minute mark.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mimyO9k1O6c) > [Now, here we are.](http://www.waterworld.com/articles/2017/01/epa-denies-claims-in-gold-king-mine-spill.html) > > [LINK](http://www.denverpost.com/2015/10/22/review-gold-king-mine-spill-was-preventable-disaster-potential-not-understood/) Uh… admittedly, I’m not going to watch the videos, but nothing in the Denver Post article contradicts my point: the disaster was preventable but not malicious. ---
**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:** [February 1, 2017, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414/25 "2017-02-01T18:56:23Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > For example they wanted to pass a mercury [regulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_v._EPA)that is estimated would cost $9.6 billion a year and have $4 to 6 million in benefits. That is a bit misleading because the regulation did not look just at mercury. > **[The Supreme Court throws a small wrench in the EPA's crackdown on mercury...](https://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8861167/supreme-court-EPA-ruling-mercury-coal)** > > Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology,... > [@](#): > > Yet, when the EPA analyzed the rule, it calculated that the benefits of reducing mercury from power plants were just $4 million to $9 million. There’s a decent case that the EPA understated those benefits, in part because economists aren’t yet able to quantify all the damages from mercury. But regardless, what the EPA’s published numbers said is that the benefits from curbing mercury were way lower than the costs. > > At that point, however, EPA took another step. The agency pointed out that if coal-fired power plants installed scrubbers to clean up mercury, that would also reduce other pollutants, particularly fine particulates like soot. And these pollutants are widely known to damage lungs and kill people. The EPA estimated that these “co-benefits” were worth some $26 billion to $89 billion per year. Looked at in this light, the benefits of the mercury rule far exceeded the cost. > > When the rule came out, environmentalists hailed it as a sweeping public health measure and a worthwhile investment. Industry groups complained that the costs of compliance vastly outweighed the benefits of cleaning up mercury. And, in a sense, both sides were right. ---
**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:** [February 1, 2017, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414/26 "2017-02-01T19:33:12Z")
BTW AFAIK that bit about the EPA "tried to change the law to get Carbon Dioxide classified as a pollutant without congressional approval. " Is a bit silly, it ignores that the EPA had discretion in looking at what current science is reporting about pollutants. The current congress is full of Republicans who deny that very issue and the administration and the EPA were the ones making the best efforts to control the issue with that restriction. Conservative states did try to defeat the regulations but even Scalia, while chastising the EPA for not getting more congressional input, (again, their input was to deny the whole thing) granted that the EPA had a point though. > **[Supreme Court justices rap EPA, but uphold global warming rules](https://heraldcourier.com/news/supreme-court-justices-rap-epa-but-uphold-global-warming-rules/article_d9b02a92-fb50-11e3-8fbe-0017a43b2370.html)** > > WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court largely left intact Monday the Obama administration’s only existing program to limit power plant and factory emissions of the gases blamed for global warming. But > [@](#): > > But by a wider, 7-2 margin, the court preserved EPA’s authority over facilities that already emit pollutants that the agency regulates, other than greenhouse gases. > > “EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case,” Scalia said. He said the agency wanted to regulate 86 percent of all greenhouse gases emitted from plants nationwide, and it will it be able to regulate 83 percent of the emissions under the ruling. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said they would go farther and bar all regulation of greenhouse gases under the permitting program. > > The EPA called the decision “a win for our efforts to reduce carbon pollution because it allows EPA, states and other permitting authorities to continue to require carbon pollution limits in permits for the largest pollution sources.” ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414/27 "2017-02-01T20:40:52Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > They also tried to change the law to get Carbon Dioxide classified as a pollutant without congressional approval. In fact, in 2007, a [divided Supreme Court (5-4) ruled](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency) that the EPA had the **duty** (not just the right) to regulate CO2. This is way beyond saying that they don’t have the authority to do it…It is saying they don’t have the authority NOT to do it. More recently, with an Administration that wanted to regulate CO2, [the Supreme Court ruled 7-2](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/supreme-court-limits-epas-authority-regulate-carbon-dioxide-emissions/) to uphold the right of the EPA to regulate CO2, while slightly limiting that right (so that it covered 83% rather than 86% of all emissions). This ruling was even endorsed by conservatives Scalia (who wrote the decision), Roberts, and Kennedy. Only the ultra-right Alito and Thomas dissented from the notion that the EPA had this right. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414/28 "2017-02-01T20:44:02Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > In [Michigan et. al. vs EPA](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-46_10n2.pdf), the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had illegally refused to consider the cost of regulations while making decisions. That was a 5-4 decision, so in other words, there is lots of disagreement over whether what they did was legal or illegal. That is hardly an example of some sort of dramatic illegality when the Supremes are as closely divided as possible over whether such illegality occurred. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414/29 "2017-02-01T20:49:45Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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.](http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/246539-27-states-challenge-obama-water-rule-in-court) They won, with the court ruling that the EPA’s action was not justified. Where did you see that they won? What I saw as of the summer is that the rule has been temporarily blocked while litigation proceeds on it. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414/30 "2017-02-01T20:53:54Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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. You’ve presented a very biased view where you have cherrypicked the cases where there have been rulings that the regulators broke the law by going too far (and with the issues I noted above with 2 of your examples), but have ignored the cases where Courts have ruled that the regulators have not gone far enough. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2017, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414/31 "2017-02-01T21:08:18Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > 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.](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373810/sue-and-settle-racket-stephen-moore) Could you provide us a link to the decision? Your link talks about Scott Priutt filing the lawsuit, not the outcome of that suit. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2017, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414/32 "2017-02-02T04:04:20Z")
[Court vacates lesser prairie chickens’ threatened status.](http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/252548-court-vacates-lesser-prairie-chickens-threatened-status) Regarding the lawsuits about the Clean Water Act power-grab, multiple lawsuits are in progress at various stages. It’s true that there has been no final ruling, but given that the CWA clearly defines that “navigable waters” are covered and that the EPA regulations clearly went beyond that, chances for the rule surviving as written would seem slim. In the current administration the issue may become moot, of course, as may other legal fights involving the EPA currently working their way through the courts. > [@jshore](#): > > You’ve presented a very biased view And I never said I didn’t. The OP asked for help in understanding how the right views the EPA. As there’s been a lot of talk lately about the possibility that some elite liberals are in a bubble, it may be worth noting that for a typical lawyer in DC or socialite in Manhattan, these sorts of EPA regulations have few direct effects. But for millions of people, mainly out in that big stretch of the country between the Appalachians and the Sierra Nevada, they do. For many ranchers, miners, oil rig workers, factory workers, truck drivers, and others, these issues directly impact their ability to earn a good living. ---
**Author:** ![pyromyte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d26b3c/32.png) [@pyromyte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pyromyte)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2017, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414/33 "2017-02-02T14:34:55Z")
I don’t mind the idea of the EPA, in fact I think they’ve done a lot of good for our country. But I sure curse their frigging name while I’m spilling a bunch of gasoline on my grass while trying to fill my lawnmower with one of those ventless gas cans that require three hands to operate. Seriously, how do the vented vapors cause more environmental harm, than spilling a pint of gas directly on the ground. ---
**Author:** ![nate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nate/32/13085_2.png) [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2017, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414/34 "2017-02-02T16:39:40Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > [Court vacates lesser prairie chickens’ threatened status.](http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/252548-court-vacates-lesser-prairie-chickens-threatened-status) > > Regarding the lawsuits about the Clean Water Act power-grab, … Can you unpack your “power-grab” statement? I’m not seeing the incentive for the EPA to grab more and more “power”. It’s my guess that some in the EPA may see it is their responsibility to ensure clean water, and may have evidence that chemicals dumped into a pond completely enclosed in one’s property will eventually seep into the ground water, affecting us all, so they see it as a duty to regulate/enforce this sort of thing. Labeling it as a power-grab places nefarious intentions on this, and if you don’t have any evidence of that, why do you insist on calling it that? Why would anyone at the EPA intentionally make up regulations to harm business? What motivation or incentive do they have for doing that? It doesn’t make any sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2017, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414/35 "2017-02-02T16:44:44Z")
> [@nate](#): > > Can you unpack your “power-grab” statement? I’m not seeing the incentive for the EPA to grab more and more “power”. It’s my guess that some in the EPA may see it is their responsibility to ensure clean water, and may have evidence that chemicals dumped into a pond completely enclosed in one’s property will eventually seep into the ground water, affecting us all, so they see it as a duty to regulate/enforce this sort of thing. Labeling it as a power-grab places nefarious intentions on this, and if you don’t have any evidence of that, why do you insist on calling it that? Why would anyone at the EPA intentionally make up regulations to harm business? What motivation or incentive do they have for doing that? It doesn’t make any sense to me. Could it be because the law doesn’t authorize them to regulate ponds completely enclosed in one’s property? ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2017, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414/36 "2017-02-02T17:48:30Z")
> [@nate](#): > > Can you unpack your “power-grab” statement? I’m not seeing the incentive for the EPA to grab more and more “power”. It’s my guess that some in the EPA may see it is their responsibility to ensure clean water, and may have evidence that chemicals dumped into a pond completely enclosed in one’s property will eventually seep into the ground water, affecting us all, so they see it as a duty to regulate/enforce this sort of thing. Labeling it as a power-grab places nefarious intentions on this, and if you don’t have any evidence of that, why do you insist on calling it that? Why would anyone at the EPA intentionally make up regulations to harm business? What motivation or incentive do they have for doing that? It doesn’t make any sense to me. It’s projection. Those against the EPA have selfish motives for their opposition, so they assume that those in favor of the EPA must have selfish motives for their support. Its the same reason that climate deniers claim that the 90+% of climate scientists who promote global warming as a problem are faking their data to indicate a crisis so that they can get more funding to do more faulty research. ---
**Author:** ![squidfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a87d85/32.png) [@squidfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squidfood)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2017, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414/37 "2017-02-02T19:00:25Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > It’s projection. Those against the EPA have selfish motives for their opposition, so they assume that those in favor of the EPA must have selfish motives for their support. Its the same reason that climate deniers claim that the 90+% of climate scientists who promote global warming as a problem are faking their data to indicate a crisis so that they can get more funding to do more faulty research. So, speaking as an professional environmental person (and generally a supporter of the Endangered Species Act), I’d say that the endangered species act is, in essence, “selfish”. It codifies that a large group of people have a “selfish” interest in a species not going extinct. There’s actually a great deal of research done to quantify this selfishness by placing [non-market value](http://www.greenfacts.org/glossary/mno/non-market-value.htm) on such things. E.g. quantifying “would you pay $10 apiece to ensure that the condor will survive? what about $20? $1000?”. (I understand that you are talking about assuming additional hidden motives such as a personal profit - but it’s important to recognize that the larger tradeoff is collective selfishness - and there’s nothing wrong with that). _Edited to distinguish “ESA” from “EPA”_ ---
**Author:** ![nate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nate/32/13085_2.png) [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414/38 "2017-02-03T00:25:32Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Could it be because the law doesn’t authorize them to regulate ponds completely enclosed in one’s property? But is that a power-grab? And what would be the motivation or incentive to work outside the law to regulate these ponds? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414/39 "2017-02-03T01:00:55Z")
> [@nate](#): > > But is that a power-grab? And what would be the motivation or incentive to work outside the law to regulate these ponds? You started this thread asking about what beef conservatives have with the EPA. This is one of them. It’s certainly not uncommon for conservatives to view it as a power grab. It’s even in [the GOP platform](https://www.gop.com/platform/americas-natural-resources/): > [@](#): > > Like the rest of the economy, agriculture has suffered through eight years of the Democrats’ regulatory juggernaut, particularly from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). States, not Washington bureaucrats, are best equipped to engage farmers and ranchers to develop sound farm oversight policies. The EPA’s Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, issued jointly with the Army Corps of Engineers, is a travesty. It extends the government’s jurisdiction over navigable waters into the micro-management of puddles and ditches on farms, ranches, and other privately-held property. Ditches, dry creek beds, stock ponds, prairie potholes, and other nonnavigable wet areas are already regulated by the states. WOTUS is now subject to judicial review and must be invalidated, but that will not be sufficient. Unelected bureaucrats must be stopped from furthering the Democratic Party’s political agenda through regulatory demands forced upon citizens and businesses beyond that which is required by law. We must never allow federal agencies to seize control of state waters, watersheds, or groundwater. State waters, watersheds, and groundwater must be the purview of the sovereign states. As to the motivation / incentive, here’s another aspect common to conservative’s worldviews: it’s not uncommon for bureaucracies to take on a life of their own, working to gain additional power and budget. You can read up on [Parkinson’s Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law) sometime if you’re interested in it. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2017, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414/40 "2017-02-03T02:37:20Z")
The reason is that GOP voters, GOP legislators, & GOP executives have listened for decades to “right-wing,” “libertarian,” & “pro-business” stories disseminated virally by media and propaganda outfits specifically funded by wealthy political activists. What do the “culturally conservative” Heritage Foundation, and the “libertarian” Cato Institute have in common, and in common with many other “respected think tanks” in the USA? They’re funded by the same billionaires. The Koch family are the big names in those cases. There are also the libertarian Mercers (who elevated “Leninist tea party guy” Steve Bannon), the Forbes family, and whatever Pete Peterson is. There are some other wealthy types who play this sort of donation game but avoid controversy, like the Mellons. In a free market society, the richest of the rich tend to be more sociopathic, because at the top levels of wealth, those with less conscience give less to charity, and they cheat their way into more profit more. So over time, the less empathetic and less moral get richer and richer, and the influence of lobbying organizations & political parties is bent to those who can fund them. The Kochs (through various outlets pretending to be conservative, libertarian, traditional, rationalist, reformist, or skeptical, to gain as much audience as possible) have won over enough hearts and minds to direct the GOP base overall in a low-tax, low-service, anti-regulation direction. And any GOP legislator who goes wobbly can expect to be shot down by a direct mail campaign (usually through “Americans for Prosperity”) and replaced. So conservatives have been taught to be not conservationist for thirty years. At this point, the old-fashioned sort of conservatives have no political representation, and may be dying off. I have heard that in Canada, former PM Steve Harper apparently went to a _church_ that taught that petroleum was a precious gift from God, and that both restrictions on the industry & the environmental science that led to them were therefore bad, We may find that in another thirty years, complaining about the smog is considered treason and punishable as such. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-the-epa/778414.md?page=3)