Wednesday, May 11, 2011

A Needed Change in EPA Motives - A Guest Article

Instead of ripping off borrowing this weeks Global Warming post, I have a Guest Article. This weekend Ryan H. emailed me and asked if he could post a guest article here. I do not know Ryan, but I like his style, and his post saved me from having to search for a post about green tyranny. I will not postulate why Ryan does not have a blog of his own, but I am not above capitalizing on helping a fellow writer. I am sure Ryan would like feedback, so please leave all suggestions in the comments, and I will make sure Ryan gets it. So without further adieu..........

Alright, a little more adieu:

The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the original author. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of Right Wing Extreme, the RWE Staff, (RWE's alternate personalities) and/or any/all contributors to this site (there are no other contributors except for the previously mentioned alternate personalities).

Republican Party representatives on a committee for energy have put the EPA under fire this week, questioning them on future power regulations. This is yet another assault by the Republican Party who has revealed the EPA as a megalomaniacal organization that is out dated in the current year.

The regulations placed on the power sector are being brought to light as the next primary issue for debate, and have previously attacked the EPA budget, restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, and the Clean Air Act. What’s the relation of all three? Stagnant revenue and employment growth largely related to those relying on power plants and factories.

Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma has been a proprietor of EPA criticisms on their restrictions and the impacts they have caused. Inhofe said "I think everyone is aware of the huge cost to the American taxpayer on these huge bills that the Democrats are trying to push through, but they're not as aware of the cost of over-regulation. These regulations are the EPA, having to do with industrial boilers, having to do with ozone requirements, the endangerment finding. They would lose hundreds of thousands of jobs, and the cost is just tremendous. We cannot be globally competitive as long as we have over-regulation in America." Inhofe definitely does make a strong argument, pointing out the amount of regulations and problems the EPA have imposed on business leaders.”

Even the federal budget agreement was yet another failure by the EPA in recent months. The EPA had their budget slashed by 16% in the agreement, although not to any of the larger programs in question. The agency has spent a large part of 2010 and 2011 defending some seemingly useless regulations. The fight they have engaged to keep taxes up on costly regulations and restrictions has averted a lot of the attention from programs that directly affect health in the United States like asbestos removal and water contamination, preventing illnesses like leukemia, and mesothelioma, a deadly cancer directly related to asbestos exposure. Reallocation of resources towards these programs instead of restrictions with financial interests in mind would greatly help the EPA return to its original purpose.

Granted, support of the Clean Air Act and attempting to reduce the chances of global warming is one thing, but the continual support of stifling greenhouse gas emissions seems to be more motivated by money than with improving the health of Americans. These restrictions allow the EPA to enforce cap and trade taxes on the industries leaders, forcing them to pay out colossal amounts of money while the regulations themselves have a very minute impact on actual health issues.

As the EPA seems bent on keeping the course in regards to costly regulations, they have frequently discussed the “sensibility” of these rules. It can be expected for the [R]epublicans to continue to restrict the agency and it can be assumed that even more cuts are to follow in the coming years.


No comments: