EPA - Environmental Polluting Agency?

[Pie]

Just got this forwarded to me by my environmentally-conscious grandmother. Figured I'd offer it up, since there's been a call for more debates anyway. (And if you wanna know my view? Let's just say tree-hugging runs in my family, so this has me foaming at the mouth in anger.)

The Toxic Release Inventory Program (TRI) started in 1987. It requires companies to report toxic releases to air, land and water, as well as toxic waste that is treated, burned, recycled, or disposed. Approximately 26,000 industrial facilities disclose information about any of the 650 chemicals in the program.

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson is proposing changes to the program. These changes would be three-fold:

* A rule to propose that companies be allowed to release ten times as much pollution before they are required to report their releases.

* A rule that would allow companies to withhold information about some of the most dangerous chemicals, such as lead and mercury.

* A notification to Congress that EPA Administrator Johnson intends to release a rule to change the frequency of reporting to the program next fall from every year to every other year.

The first two rules are currently open for public comment while the third proposal is a notification of a future rule that Stephen Johnson will propose in October 2007.

If these rules become law, there will be devastating implications in a variety of areas:

* Lost Incentives to Reduce Pollution : Since the inception of the program in 1987, releases have dropped by nearly 60%. In the past five years, EPA has reported a 42% drop in the 600 chemicals in the program. When companies are required to disclose their pollution, they have an incentive to reduce it. Under the proposed rules, not only would this incentive be reduced, but companies could also increase their releases and we wouldn't even know it.

* Impacts on Public Health : The 650 chemicals that are currently a part of the Toxic Release Inventory are chemicals of concern. Many are known carcinogens, reproductive toxicants and respiratory toxicants. Increases in these releases could have devastating impacts on our health.

* State and Local Regulators Impacted : State and local regulators use the Toxic Release Inventory to implement specific state programs. For instance Washington state regulators are opposing the Bush administration's plan because they use the TRI to identify facilities eligible for their pollution prevention program.

* Communities Would Lose Powerful Tool : Many communities and citizen organizations use TRI information in their campaigns and to protect their family's health. The PIRGs have long used this information in air, water and other successful campaigns.

Besides this, it had a short intro and wrapped up with a paragraph commanding we tell the EPA we want to know what's being released and giving a link to a site for taking action (here, if you'd like it) but I figured that wasn't as relevant to the debate as the information.

All right, where's the opposition? Because I wanna hear your view - what benefits could possibly outweigh putting our health and that of our environment at this much risk?

 

[The Big Al]

My neighborhood tried to get the EPA to protect some wetlnds from a developer and they okayed the developement that caused silt to onto several properties and and decimated the wildlife.

I'm sorry but the EPA is not doing its job and it doesn't even care when their stupidity or greed affects human interests.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

The EPA has ALWAYS done a piss poor job. The problem is that it's a government-run agency. They're notoriously easy on big business and could care less about the environment or the people affected. This is another example of how this country is run by big business, ESPECIALLY with a Republican-run EVERYTHING.

Check FoxNews' "Junk Science" whenever they have an environmental topic. The last one contradicted itself within a paragraph (apparently it's NOT global warming because it's getting warmer, and it's NOT global warming because it's getting colder in another area entirely, although at a slower rate than it's getting warmer).

 

[The Big Al]

I think that's why they call it climate change now. It's not as simple as the whole planet getting warmer.

Fox News actually keeps a junk science area? Let me guess, all things evolution and enviromental wind up there.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

I don't think they allow evolution on the site, but there's PLENTY of global warming articles.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

The EPA has ALWAYS done a piss poor job. The problem is that it's a government-run agency. They're notoriously easy on big business and could care less about the environment or the people affected. This is another example of how this country is run by big business, ESPECIALLY with a Republican-run EVERYTHING.

Check FoxNews' "Junk Science" whenever they have an environmental topic. The last one contradicted itself within a paragraph (apparently it's NOT global warming because it's getting warmer, and it's NOT global warming because it's getting colder in another area entirely, although at a slower rate than it's getting warmer).

Nixon (OMG EVIL REPUBLICAN COMMUNIST NAZIS!!!!!1111) started the EPA.

 

[The Big Al]

Nixon (OMG EVIL REPUBLICAN COMMUNIST NAZIS!!!!!1111) started the EPA.

And Theodore Roosevelt, another Republican, created the park service and other conservation efforts. Ah, back when Republicans gave a damn about the enviroment. What happened? Oh yeah, Reagan. -_-

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Nixon (OMG EVIL REPUBLICAN COMMUNIST NAZIS!!!!!1111) started the EPA.

You can't be a Communist and a Nazi. Nixon was pure Nazi. And just because you start something doesn't mean you have good intentions. Or that you particularly care (Kennedy/Johnson and Vietnam, Bush and Iraq, Bush and Iraq, Clinton and anything, Reagan and anything, etc...). Often programs are started in order to appease groups by paying them lip-service. Honestly, I don't know WHY Nixon started the EPA, but I doubt he did it because he was worried about pollution. I think Vietnam was a WEE BIT more important. And the protests. And then Watergate. Hell, I'm surprised he even had the time to start it.

 

[The Big Al]

At the time, pollution was a big problem and it had actually began impeding on people's lives. The clan air and water acts into being around that time. I don't think it mattered what party held the presidency, they had to do something about the pollution because of the voters were starting to notice. And as I said, the Republicans use to be environmentally friendly until Regean came along in which the transformation of the Republican Party from what Roosevelt and Lincoln had been a part of to what it now was completed.

 

[Barb]

The only so-called 'benefits' that I can see coming from this is that profits for chemical companies like DuPont would increase. Shareholders would be happy.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

The only so-called 'benefits' that I can see coming from this is that profits for chemical companies like DuPont would increase. Shareholders would be happy.

Until the CEO is caught embezzling.

 

[Pie]

The only so-called 'benefits' that I can see coming from this is that profits for chemical companies like DuPont would increase. Shareholders would be happy.

Well, how happy will they be when they're being affected by...

...known carcinogens, reproductive toxicants and respiratory toxicants.

Surely even those people can recognize that some things are more important than their wallets.

Well, with any luck, it'll at least mean natural selection will help us out in getting rid of polluters.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

You can't be a Communist and a Nazi. Nixon was pure Nazi. And just because you start something doesn't mean you have good intentions. Or that you particularly care (Kennedy/Johnson and Vietnam, Bush and Iraq, Bush and Iraq, Clinton and anything, Reagan and anything, etc...). Often programs are started in order to appease groups by paying them lip-service. Honestly, I don't know WHY Nixon started the EPA, but I doubt he did it because he was worried about pollution. I think Vietnam was a WEE BIT more important. And the protests. And then Watergate. Hell, I'm surprised he even had the time to start it.

It's called irony.

And Nixon was probably the last good Republican president, as he did some good things like get us out of Vietnam, start the EPA, and open up to China. Unfortunately, he had to tarnish his reputation by getting people to steal from the Democrats.

 

[Mozz]

Reagan reducing the marginal tax rate from 75 to 35 was the greatest move any President has done in the last 50 years.

 

[Girafarig_Magcargo]

Reagan transformed the Republicans from a respectable party of economic freedom and restraint of spending into a fundamentalist clusterfuck that would eventually morph into a big-spending, militarized fundamentalist clusterfuck.

 

[Pie]

Reagan reducing the marginal tax rate from 75 to 35 was the greatest move any President has done in the last 50 years.

Oi, why does every conversation come back this stuff no matter what the original subject is? Unless you can explain how that was beneficial he environment, then right now I could care less about his goddamn tax cuts. Money means shit when your health is in danger, and polluting the environment will damage people's health and/or eventually destroy the planet or at least make it inhabitable for human beings and a slew of other species.

But no, generally people's greed will outweigh their responsibility, and they'll take a little more resources from our Mother Earth, or put a little more pollution into it - because, you know, that's an easier way to get a pot of gold than to go chasing rainbows, and the environment is so big and complex that there's no way a little deterioration's going to have any impact on it! Well, you know what? A lot of little bits of deterioration add up fast. And there's about six and a half billion people on this earth, and about three hundred million of them are so greedy that if everyone consumed as much as one of them they'd need three Earths - three full planet Earths at least - to support them all. Guess who those three hundred million are?

And now we're allowing our pollution output to increase tenfold. And you know what? We already emit the highest level of greenhouse gases, and you know where most of it comes from? Check the graph at the bottom - it's from industry! And yes, I'm aware of the irony of using the EPA's webpage to prove their idiocy in this - I consider it an admittance of their knowing what they're doing wrong. And on that note, even the EPA says these emissions lead to global warming. So, even if you weren't very worried about global warming before, you might wanna start buying lots of extra sunscreen. And that's not the only pollutant we're getting a tenfold of! Mind if I put an emphasis on the reproductive toxicants again?

So, care to explain how tax cuts are more important than my planet? My vagina? The air that is going in and out of my lungs right now?

Money's great and all, but I prefer living.

 

[Mozz]

:edits signature:

 

[Pie]

Damn straight.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

he did some good things like get us out of Vietnam, start the EPA, and open up to China.

...Vietnam was a failure from day one. Nixon got us out because the protests were getting larger and more out of control. It's like saying bin Laden did a good thing by freeing up land in NYC (no, I'm NOT equating Nixon to bin Laden, I just can't think of a better example). As for opening China...yeah...that did us no good. It's hurt the lower class in America more than ANYTHING else. All it's done is ensured that companies can get their products made in China. And the EPA was in the same vein as Vietnam.

Reagan reducing the marginal tax rate from 75 to 35 was the greatest move any President has done in the last 50 years.

You're an economist, OF COURSE you'd say that. Some of us are humanitarians and we see how tax cuts for the rich actually HURT the lower class. In fact, I JUST read a book that called that move the WORST economic move in American history. Now, I'll be honest and say it was written by an admitted socialist, but he made a good point (he justified his claim, I'm not just agreeing with him because he didn't like a Reagan decision...I liked the reasoning behind it).