H.R.861 - To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency

a reply to: TheRedneck

But, at its core, it serves a needed function.

Seems like Congress is slowly coming to that conclusion about the ACA, too.

Don't count on seeing this bill even leaving committee.

a reply to: Phage

Who told you that?
They lied.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Yeaaay lets make America acid rain again..
I think i'll invest in bottled portable oxygen tanks or breathing apparatus, yeah let the market decide your faith , it's not like business both big and small do not cut corners to save a nickle and the expense of everyone, corporations are amoral nothing else matters but the bottom line..highly recommend the series Incorporated.
Btw the EPA was a Republican thing, but that was a very long along time ago before they went totally corrupt and could be reasoned with.

a reply to: Phage

I don't expect anything. It's the Federal government.

TheRedneck

a reply to: peter vlar

But you can band together with people from that state to get law enacted. Law. Not regs.
Federal laws are already on the books people. States can enforce them. They do it on an hourly basis. Nothing is going to change except we'll be spending those billions on something other than duplicate services.

You folks act like there are no anti-pollution laws on the books. geeze...
It is much cheaper to buy two or three federal representatives than to have to buy off every state and local official. The corporations that want to pollute know this. You can bet they're pooling their cash right now to lobby against this.

originally posted by: Nyiah

Do we really need to leave the door wide open & unattended for crap like the Cuyahoga (Ohio) River being on fire again?

People need to be aware of what they wish for.

Every action has a re-action.

a reply to: diggindirt

You folks act like there are no anti-pollution laws on the books.

I was hoping you would point that out. And it is true. And it is true that States can enforce federal laws to a certain extent (and expense). That's why the EPA serves as the primary enforcement agency for federal environmental laws. Requiring States to take on that role would be burdensome, overly so. Without a central authority, enforcement would inconsistent at best. Think of it as "sanctuary States" for polluters.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: diggindirt

You folks act like there are no anti-pollution laws on the books.

I was hoping you would point that out. And it is true. And it is true that States can enforce federal laws to a certain extent (and expense). That's why the EPA serves as the primary enforcement agency for federal environmental laws. Requiring States to take on that role would be burdensome, overly so. Without a central authority, enforcement would inconsistent at best. Think of it as "sanctuary States" for polluters.

That's a great way to put state-level control without oversight. People think the sanctuary cities not doing anything about illegals is bad? The same attitude applied to barely adhered to/lax local enviro laws is worse.

Edit: "Local" referring to state in this context.

originally posted by: Metallicus
Here is some great news about the push to end the Government sponsored terror organization that is the EPA. These anti-science thugs do the bidding of their corporate masters and not that which benefits the people. I have linked the Bill and information of the damage and terror that the EPA promotes.

Hopefully we can replace the EPA with something that actually serves the people and the environment.

Link 1

Link 2

You have it halfassed backwards, "serves the environment, therefore the people".

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: diggindirt

You folks act like there are no anti-pollution laws on the books.

I was hoping you would point that out. And it is true. And it is true that States can enforce federal laws to a certain extent (and expense). That's why the EPA serves as the primary enforcement agency for federal environmental laws. Requiring States to take on that role would be burdensome, overly so. Without a central authority, enforcement would inconsistent at best. Think of it as "sanctuary States" for polluters.

No.

They would be doing exactly the same duties they are performing today---enforcing the law. States would be collecting the fines instead of the feds.

Taking the feds out of the picture does not mean all environmental protections laws are removed from the books. No matter what the feds try to make you believe.

You think enforcement is consistent now? Seriously?

There are any number of agencies that can act to enforce laws.

I like that Trump is trying to get rid of duplicate services and hand power back to the states at the same time. Less cookie-cutter government is better.

a reply to: diggindirt

States would be collecting the fines instead of the feds.

And investigating. And going to court. Which takes resources which the feds do not provide to the States. Do you think State representatives will be in favor of taking responsibility for enforcement of federal laws?

States would be collecting the fines instead of the feds.

Why would States collect fines from violations of federal laws?

You think enforcement is consistent now?

No. Do you think letting 50 states, each handling it differently, would be more consistent?

a reply to: Nyiah

If your state does not have a Natural Resources Department, I'd suggest you lobby them to create one. Oversight should come from the people, not some bureaucrat thousands of miles from the site of potential problems.
If you have people breaking the laws, you need to report them, follow up and keep reporting them. If you care about the environment. If not, just let the feds handle it.
I will repeat, corporations pay big fees for permits to pollute. They trade carbon credits for the right to pollute. The EPA is a scam and needs dismantling.
Those of us who have long been conservationists but didn't drink the radical enviro movement kool-aid realized long ago that the corporations are going to win at the federal level. That's why they want cookie-cutter laws and regs. They don't want to have to go to the trouble and expense of having to continually buy off hundreds of state and local officials. It's easier and cheaper to buy off federal officials, Senators and Reps.

a reply to: diggindirt

They trade carbon credits for the right to pollute.

Not much carbon credit activity in the US. But what there is, seems to work.

Carbon emissions in the nine participating RGGI states have dropped by about a third since the trading market opened in 2009, Hibbard said.

www.bloomberg.com...

Cap and trade seems to have helped in reducing SO4 emissions as well.

a reply to: diggindirt

Some pollution and environmental mishaps will not be confine to any one state, for when the SHTF and an emergency distress call is sent out..who is gonna respond?? the much derided Feds which "we" all pay into need to set rules and regs..yes it can be a pain in the ass for those who want cut corners and save a few pennies but screw em..the health and well being of your loved ones should over ride your corporate greed.

a reply to: Phage

The states are currently in charge of their environmental laws. What would change?
I can give you a list as long as your arm of agencies that are empowered to enforce environmental protection laws. At least they tell a lot of people that they are so I assume there is empowering legislation.

Which states are currently allowing the wholesale pollution of the environment? Which have had their Natural Resources Dept. taken over by feds? Why would you expect an explosive outbreak? The Feds don't stop pollution, they issue permits for it.

I don't think all 50 states need cookie-cutter laws on environmental protection. The people of the state need to decide their laws pertaining to their natural resources.

Taking the feds out of the picture makes it much harder for the corporations to buy their way in.

a reply to: diggindirt

What would change?

Enforcement of federal laws which govern activities which cross State lines for starters.

The Feds don't stop pollution, they issue permits for it.

Really?
How does Lake Erie look nowadays?

The people of the state need to decide their laws pertaining to their natural resources.

Maybe. Unless how they use them affect other States.

a reply to: Spider879

I have no corporate greed. Putting in local control actually works against corporate raiding. If you don't understand that, your knowledge of the real world is sadly limited.

I'm older than the EPA. I've watched it become exactly what was predicted when its creation was being debated. Nobody wanted to believe that it could be bought out by the corporate interests. Who ever thought that Earth Day would be sponsored by Monsanto?

If you want to keep the environment safe get with your local conservation organizations. For the sake of all that's sacred, don't rely on the EPA. It's a false dream you've been fed. Pray to the Creator to protect creation, that will in all likelihood do more actual good than trusting the feds.

originally posted by: peter vlar


If you want to know what having almost no environmental regulations looks like, Google "Beijing Smog pictures".

Or New York City circa the early 1970s, prior to many clean air regulations.

Here's what a defunded EPA means for America

The link above gives good info on what the EPA actually does. Sure it can use some streamlining and reforms, but to destroy it? Ridiculous.

a reply to: JAY1980

Because people are notorious for thinking about meeting their short term needs, not their long term needs. Furthermore, the people in question are not experts on the environment... they may simply not even know what they need to do or not do.

You can only do that with an outside agency that's able to view things objectively.

a reply to: diggindirt

In the real world not every state is gonna be on the same pg, one cannot over look local politics going into the negative direction because of corruption , yet I do believe in the axiom Act Locally Think Globally. we need both.