Shut down the EPA?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:44:07 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Shut down the EPA?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Poll
Question: Shut down the EPA?
#1
Yes, we shouldn't have a federal EPA.
 
#2
No.
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 105

Author Topic: Shut down the EPA?  (Read 4858 times)
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2014, 08:41:09 PM »

It has no legislative or judicial capacity, only executive, and to my knowledge, it has not erred.  For example, we have all been the beneficiaries to the Clean Water Act, and its amendments and extensions. 

Doesn't it basically have legislative capacity though?  It makes decisions on what items can't be sold or manufactured.  Regulating commerce is a legislative function, not an executive.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2014, 08:55:58 PM »

It has no legislative or judicial capacity, only executive, and to my knowledge, it has not erred.  For example, we have all been the beneficiaries to the Clean Water Act, and its amendments and extensions. 

Doesn't it basically have legislative capacity though?  It makes decisions on what items can't be sold or manufactured.  Regulating commerce is a legislative function, not an executive.

Not really.  Whatever power the EPA has comes from statutes passed by Congress.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 13, 2014, 09:29:17 PM »

The EPA is not abusing its power unless you don't believe in what science defines as pollution.

My dad deals with the EPA working with transmission lines in Texas and landfill regulations in New Mexico, always on the side of the private sector. They always give a fair hearing and decision. He's won a few regulatory battles during this Presidency. According to him, it's usually the state government (especially Texas if you can believe it) that is more unreasonable when it comes to taking unfounded environmentalist concerns seriously.
Logged
Flake
Flo
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,688
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 13, 2014, 09:33:51 PM »

Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 13, 2014, 09:51:21 PM »

Go to any major city in China and ask the first person you see if they think people should be able to pollute as much as they want.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 13, 2014, 10:01:50 PM »

Go to any major city in China and ask the first person you see if they think people should be able to pollute as much as they want.

You can still see people there? The pollution must not be bad enough.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 13, 2014, 10:26:27 PM »

It has no legislative or judicial capacity, only executive, and to my knowledge, it has not erred.  For example, we have all been the beneficiaries to the Clean Water Act, and its amendments and extensions. 

Doesn't it basically have legislative capacity though?  It makes decisions on what items can't be sold or manufactured.  Regulating commerce is a legislative function, not an executive.

Not really.  Whatever power the EPA has comes from statutes passed by Congress.

Those statutes give functionally legislative power to the EPA.  Congress is saying "Here, make some laws."


The EPA is not abusing its power unless you don't believe in what science defines as pollution.

What is the scientifically derived definition of pollution and how does it give power to the EPA?
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 14, 2014, 07:39:36 AM »

It has no legislative or judicial capacity, only executive, and to my knowledge, it has not erred.  For example, we have all been the beneficiaries to the Clean Water Act, and its amendments and extensions.  

Doesn't it basically have legislative capacity though?  It makes decisions on what items can't be sold or manufactured.  Regulating commerce is a legislative function, not an executive.

Their website explains the enforcement capacity, but under the Laws and Executive Orders menu it only mentions that it follows them.  There is a long list of directives to the EPA, but they all come from the congress except for the three which were orders from Bill Clinton's office.  (Those three have to do with federalism, recordkeeping, and dealing with Tribal governments.)  Overall, it seems that any power the EPA has derives from the consent of those people governed.  The people have the right to dismantle the EPA but I don't think it's a good idea.

She's pretty far out there, from what I've read.  I'd hate to have to choose between a loon and an asshole.  Unfortunately, that's almost always the choice in candidates that I have.  

Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 14, 2014, 09:47:47 AM »

It has no legislative or judicial capacity, only executive, and to my knowledge, it has not erred.  For example, we have all been the beneficiaries to the Clean Water Act, and its amendments and extensions. 

Doesn't it basically have legislative capacity though?  It makes decisions on what items can't be sold or manufactured.  Regulating commerce is a legislative function, not an executive.

Not really.  Whatever power the EPA has comes from statutes passed by Congress.

Those statutes give functionally legislative power to the EPA.  Congress is saying "Here, make some laws."


That's kind of a stretch.  The Supreme Court doesn't agree for one thing.  But, the bigger point is that we can't create all these minute regulations through Congress.  That's just a recipe for having the Federal government of 1910.  You probably think that would be a good idea, but your problem isn't with the EPA, but with the modern administrative state.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 14, 2014, 11:02:06 AM »

Either shut them down or their ability to land grab or stop development over some rare rodent species who is probably better off dead.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 14, 2014, 11:07:42 AM »

Either shut them down or their ability to land grab or stop development over some rare rodent species who is probably better off dead.

Do you mean repeal the Endangered species Act?  Or, would you also want to repeal CERCLA?

And, do you really think that most of what the EPA does is protect spotted owls?  Regardless of the merits of protecting our ecological systems, would you really trade polluted air, land and water for the ability to kill spotted owls?  That seems like a bad trade, even if you really hate owls.
Logged
Middle-aged Europe
Old Europe
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,178
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 14, 2014, 12:36:14 PM »

The EPA should be merged with the Department of the Interior to form a Department for the Environment.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 14, 2014, 12:38:02 PM »

The EPA should be merged with the Department of the Interior to form a Department for the Environment.

EPA deals far more with Energy and Justice than it ever talks to Interior.
Logged
Mordecai
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,465
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 14, 2014, 12:51:55 PM »

No (sane), I'd rather not have rivers looking like this:

Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 14, 2014, 12:55:36 PM »

The idea of shutting down the EPA is nothing short of evil.  I would sooner close literally any other federal department.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 14, 2014, 07:58:16 PM »

The debate about the EPA is not about EP, but about the nature of the agency.

Why should the EPA be an independent agency, largely beyond Congressional review? People need more clandestine government activity in their lives?
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 14, 2014, 08:03:10 PM »

The debate about the EPA is not about EP, but about the nature of the agency.

Why should the EPA be an independent agency, largely beyond Congressional review? People need more clandestine government activity in their lives?

All Federal rules go through notice and comment rulemaking and are subject to the APA.  How in god's name is that "clandestine?"  Come on.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 14, 2014, 08:38:29 PM »

As the EPA is a random haphazard creation of the US Congress of yesteryear, its random babbling and assaults on the economy should be subject to veto by the US Congress.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 14, 2014, 08:39:47 PM »

It has no legislative or judicial capacity, only executive, and to my knowledge, it has not erred.  For example, we have all been the beneficiaries to the Clean Water Act, and its amendments and extensions. 

Doesn't it basically have legislative capacity though?  It makes decisions on what items can't be sold or manufactured.  Regulating commerce is a legislative function, not an executive.

Not really.  Whatever power the EPA has comes from statutes passed by Congress.

Those statutes give functionally legislative power to the EPA.  Congress is saying "Here, make some laws."


That's kind of a stretch.  The Supreme Court doesn't agree for one thing.  But, the bigger point is that we can't create all these minute regulations through Congress.  That's just a recipe for having the Federal government of 1910.  You probably think that would be a good idea, but your problem isn't with the EPA, but with the modern administrative state.

True, it pretty much is, but I don't see why the EPA can't make recommendations and then Congress can act on them. Plus a lot of the regulations are hardly minute. Requiring each state to meet a carbon emissions target, for just the most glaring example, is equivalent to directing both state and national energy policy.  How is that not the purview of our elected representatives?
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 14, 2014, 08:42:46 PM »

aren't all of these agencies staffed by former Monsanto and ConAgra execs to begin with?  I can't see what "harm" they'd be doing, in the GOP sense of the word.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 14, 2014, 09:48:27 PM »

It has no legislative or judicial capacity, only executive, and to my knowledge, it has not erred.  For example, we have all been the beneficiaries to the Clean Water Act, and its amendments and extensions. 

Doesn't it basically have legislative capacity though?  It makes decisions on what items can't be sold or manufactured.  Regulating commerce is a legislative function, not an executive.

Not really.  Whatever power the EPA has comes from statutes passed by Congress.

Those statutes give functionally legislative power to the EPA.  Congress is saying "Here, make some laws."


That's kind of a stretch.  The Supreme Court doesn't agree for one thing.  But, the bigger point is that we can't create all these minute regulations through Congress.  That's just a recipe for having the Federal government of 1910.  You probably think that would be a good idea, but your problem isn't with the EPA, but with the modern administrative state.

True, it pretty much is, but I don't see why the EPA can't make recommendations and then Congress can act on them. Plus a lot of the regulations are hardly minute. Requiring each state to meet a carbon emissions target, for just the most glaring example, is equivalent to directing both state and national energy policy.  How is that not the purview of our elected representatives?

Congress doesn't act anymore. And that's basically a legislative veto which is unconstitutional anyway.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 14, 2014, 10:35:42 PM »

No. I would rather reform the department than abolish it. We need environmental protection without excessive regulation.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 14, 2014, 10:47:15 PM »

Either shut them down or their ability to land grab or stop development over some rare rodent species who is probably better off dead.

Do you mean repeal the Endangered species Act?  Or, would you also want to repeal CERCLA?

And, do you really think that most of what the EPA does is protect spotted owls?  Regardless of the merits of protecting our ecological systems, would you really trade polluted air, land and water for the ability to kill spotted owls?  That seems like a bad trade, even if you really hate owls.

I think the point is to look at things from a more realistic perspective. The part of California I grew up in recently approved a plan to massively increase the site of the city by developing hills that had never been touched. There was opposition to the plan, especially regarding some random frog. Fortunately, that plan went through and that city is one of the up and coming places in the San Francisco Bay Area, but what I am really interested in now are the frogs. Unfortunately, the research into this species AFTER the development has occurred is not that easy to get. The development made sure that there was plenty of open space left (not just for the animals, but also for real estate value), meaning that plenty of those frogs live in that area. No one cares about these stories though. It's all about stopping development at all costs, isn't it?
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 14, 2014, 10:50:29 PM »

No (sane), I'd rather not have rivers looking like this:



Are you dumb?
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: October 14, 2014, 10:54:50 PM »

Either shut them down or their ability to land grab or stop development over some rare rodent species who is probably better off dead.

Do you mean repeal the Endangered species Act?  Or, would you also want to repeal CERCLA?

And, do you really think that most of what the EPA does is protect spotted owls?  Regardless of the merits of protecting our ecological systems, would you really trade polluted air, land and water for the ability to kill spotted owls?  That seems like a bad trade, even if you really hate owls.

I think the point is to look at things from a more realistic perspective. The part of California I grew up in recently approved a plan to massively increase the site of the city by developing hills that had never been touched. There was opposition to the plan, especially regarding some random frog. Fortunately, that plan went through and that city is one of the up and coming places in the San Francisco Bay Area, but what I am really interested in now are the frogs. Unfortunately, the research into this species AFTER the development has occurred is not that easy to get. The development made sure that there was plenty of open space left (not just for the animals, but also for real estate value), meaning that plenty of those frogs live in that area. No one cares about these stories though. It's all about stopping development at all costs, isn't it?

What does that have to do with the EPA?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 15 queries.