Shut down the EPA?

[Sbane]

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?

Did I say anything negative about the EPA? No? Then just lay off, won't you?

When discussing the EPA or anything environment related, it is always smart to stay on top of what is actually going on in that area. In the Bay Area, activists use the environment as a cudgel to stop development. I may be wrong, but aren't you one of those who think development in the Bay Area needs to be increased, not stopped? Trust me, the people who want to stop development in the Bay Area don't give two sh**ts about frogs or vernal pools or any of that bullsh**t. They want to protect their property value. Are you in favor of that?

[bedstuy]

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?

Did I say anything negative about the EPA? No? Then just lay off, won't you?

When discussing the EPA or anything environment related, it is always smart to stay on top of what is actually going on in that area. In the Bay Area, activists use the environment as a cudgel to stop development. I may be wrong, but aren't you one of those who think development in the Bay Area needs to be increased, not stopped? Trust me, the people who want to stop development in the Bay Area don't give two sh**ts about frogs or vernal pools or any of that bullsh**t. They want to protect their property value. Are you in favor of that?

That's not the fault of the EPA.  I would bet that it's the fault of crazy California laws and their state version of NEPA and requirements involving EIR.

[Sbane]

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?

Did I say anything negative about the EPA? No? Then just lay off, won't you?

When discussing the EPA or anything environment related, it is always smart to stay on top of what is actually going on in that area. In the Bay Area, activists use the environment as a cudgel to stop development. I may be wrong, but aren't you one of those who think development in the Bay Area needs to be increased, not stopped? Trust me, the people who want to stop development in the Bay Area don't give two sh**ts about frogs or vernal pools or any of that bullsh**t. They want to protect their property value. Are you in favor of that?

That's not the fault of the EPA.  I would bet that it's the fault of crazy California laws and their state version of NEPA and requirements involving EIR.

I am not very knowledgeable about those laws but I wouldn't be surprised if you were right.  California needs to chill out a bit about environmental law. Unfortunately, may use those laws for personal enrichment. NIMBY's need to be destroyed. No one has come out with a plan for that.

[AggregateDemand]

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.

Commenting and research are procedural, not substantial. Judicial review is the business-end of APA, but it still circumvents Congress and the Executive Branch, which puts it beyond the reach of voters. The needless disregard for proper checks-and-balances incites action from Congress, which merely delays a slow process. Furthermore, judicial review can have unintended consequences, like LEAF suing hydraulic fracturing into EPA jurisdiction, after the EPA declined to regulate fracturing in the mid-90s.

CAFE 2025, for instance, is not a final rule yet because Congress negotiated the power of review in 2017 (IIRC). We have auto manufacturers spending billions to satisfy regulations that aren't even law.

What is the meaning of this mess?

[traininthedistance]

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?

Did I say anything negative about the EPA? No? Then just lay off, won't you?

When discussing the EPA or anything environment related, it is always smart to stay on top of what is actually going on in that area. In the Bay Area, activists use the environment as a cudgel to stop development. I may be wrong, but aren't you one of those who think development in the Bay Area needs to be increased, not stopped? Trust me, the people who want to stop development in the Bay Area don't give two sh**ts about frogs or vernal pools or any of that bullsh**t. They want to protect their property value. Are you in favor of that?

To be fair there's a massive difference between greenfield development and brownfield/infill/upzoning in areas that are already developed.  I loathe NIMBYism in general just as much as you- probably more- but it's reasonable to set boundaries when it comes to undeveloped pristine land, especially when it's legitimately sensitive as in the case of hillsides and wetlands.  The direction the Bay Area (and, really, most everywhere) needs to grow is up, not out.

[bedstuy]

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.

Commenting and research are procedural, not substantial. Judicial review is the business-end of APA, but it still circumvents Congress and the Executive Branch, which puts it beyond the reach of voters. The needless disregard for proper checks-and-balances incites action from Congress, which merely delays a slow process. Furthermore, judicial review can have unintended consequences, like LEAF suing hydraulic fracturing into EPA jurisdiction, after the EPA declined to regulate fracturing in the mid-90s.

CAFE 2025, for instance, is not a final rule yet because Congress negotiated the power of review in 2017 (IIRC). We have auto manufacturers spending billions to satisfy regulations that aren't even law.

What is the meaning of this mess?

The rulemaking is all pursuant to statute that Congress passed and Congress can repeal. 

And, again, what do you mean by clandestine?  The proposed rules are published in the Federal Register.  It's not the least bit clandestine. 

[RINO Tom]

No, the EPA should not be abolished, but some of its regulations are insane, its regulatory power is too much.

Like what for example?  Do you want to see more marketable permit trading programs?  And, how does the EPA have too much regulatory power?  I don't really get that.

I am huge proponent of protecting the environment, and abolishing the EPA all together would be a set back, but I think the program should be reformed. There is a lot of red tape that agencies have to jump through to get a project going, a prime example of that is what we are seeing with South Coast Rail in Massachusetts, and that is a government program. A lot of money is spent with studies, and it takes years for a program to be approved by the EPA.

Great post, and agreed.

[AggregateDemand]

The rulemaking is all pursuant to statute that Congress passed and Congress can repeal. 

And, again, what do you mean by clandestine?  The proposed rules are published in the Federal Register.  It's not the least bit clandestine. 

I just referenced the LEAF case, where an outside third-party organization was successfully able to sue hydraulic fracturing into EPA jurisdiction, by exploiting personnel changes to the judiciary.

Perhaps this is not particularly unusual in the grand scheme, but what is the purpose of the extraneous independent agency? It certainly isn't adding protection for the citizens, nor is it simplifying the legislative/executive process.

[bedstuy]

The rulemaking is all pursuant to statute that Congress passed and Congress can repeal. 

And, again, what do you mean by clandestine?  The proposed rules are published in the Federal Register.  It's not the least bit clandestine. 

I just referenced the LEAF case, where an outside third-party organization was successfully able to sue hydraulic fracturing into EPA jurisdiction, by exploiting personnel changes to the judiciary.

Perhaps this is not particularly unusual in the grand scheme, but what is the purpose of the extraneous independent agency? It certainly isn't adding protection for the citizens, nor is it simplifying the legislative/executive process.

I'm not familiar with that particular case.  But, you can't change jurisdiction with a lawsuit.  It's possible that the EPA misinterpreted the law and was forced to regulate when the judiciary clarified the law.

The purpose of the EPA is to protect the environment from pollution.  It certainly does that.  Clean air and water and land are all critically important to every America citizen because we all breath, drink and live on the land. 

But, whatever, you're not making any sense as usual.  I can never understand what you're trying to say.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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?

Did I say anything negative about the EPA? No? Then just lay off, won't you?

When discussing the EPA or anything environment related, it is always smart to stay on top of what is actually going on in that area. In the Bay Area, activists use the environment as a cudgel to stop development. I may be wrong, but aren't you one of those who think development in the Bay Area needs to be increased, not stopped? Trust me, the people who want to stop development in the Bay Area don't give two sh**ts about frogs or vernal pools or any of that bullsh**t. They want to protect their property value. Are you in favor of that?

That's not the fault of the EPA.  I would bet that it's the fault of crazy California laws and their state version of NEPA and requirements involving EIR.

I am not very knowledgeable about those laws but I wouldn't be surprised if you were right.  California needs to chill out a bit about environmental law. Unfortunately, may use those laws for personal enrichment. NIMBY's need to be destroyed. No one has come out with a plan for that.

You really need to quit blaming the EPA for Californian NIMBYism. I suppose you think that the EPA is responsible for all the Republicans suing to stop HSR?

Also, it turns out that frackers illegally dumped 3 billion gallons of polluted wastewater into the groundwater here in California. Is that the EPA's fault too?

http://www.planetizen.com/node/71609

[Sbane]

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?

Did I say anything negative about the EPA? No? Then just lay off, won't you?

When discussing the EPA or anything environment related, it is always smart to stay on top of what is actually going on in that area. In the Bay Area, activists use the environment as a cudgel to stop development. I may be wrong, but aren't you one of those who think development in the Bay Area needs to be increased, not stopped? Trust me, the people who want to stop development in the Bay Area don't give two sh**ts about frogs or vernal pools or any of that bullsh**t. They want to protect their property value. Are you in favor of that?

That's not the fault of the EPA.  I would bet that it's the fault of crazy California laws and their state version of NEPA and requirements involving EIR.

I am not very knowledgeable about those laws but I wouldn't be surprised if you were right.  California needs to chill out a bit about environmental law. Unfortunately, may use those laws for personal enrichment. NIMBY's need to be destroyed. No one has come out with a plan for that.

You really need to quit blaming the EPA for Californian NIMBYism. I suppose you think that the EPA is responsible for all the Republicans suing to stop HSR?

Also, it turns out that frackers illegally dumped 3 billion gallons of polluted wastewater into the groundwater here in California. Is that the EPA's fault too?

http://www.planetizen.com/node/71609

LOL you do realize that I admitted California NIMBYism is the cause of problems in addition to the EPA, don't you. Indeed, I did it in the very post you responded to.

[AggregateDemand]

I'm not familiar with that particular case.  But, you can't change jurisdiction with a lawsuit.  It's possible that the EPA misinterpreted the law and was forced to regulate when the judiciary clarified the law.

The purpose of the EPA is to protect the environment from pollution.  It certainly does that.  Clean air and water and land are all critically important to every America citizen because we all breath, drink and live on the land. 

But, whatever, you're not making any sense as usual.  I can never understand what you're trying to say.

When an existing law has been administered for over 20 years, and new personnel, including a new chief justice, on the 11th Circuit reinterpret the law to exert federal primacy over a state institution, jurisdiction has changed.

What benefit to we receive from having an independent agency in charge of environmental protection, considering judicial review basically makes the EPA a puppet of the courts? Why are you opposed to having EPA oversight by elected officials?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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?

Did I say anything negative about the EPA? No? Then just lay off, won't you?

When discussing the EPA or anything environment related, it is always smart to stay on top of what is actually going on in that area. In the Bay Area, activists use the environment as a cudgel to stop development. I may be wrong, but aren't you one of those who think development in the Bay Area needs to be increased, not stopped? Trust me, the people who want to stop development in the Bay Area don't give two sh**ts about frogs or vernal pools or any of that bullsh**t. They want to protect their property value. Are you in favor of that?

That's not the fault of the EPA.  I would bet that it's the fault of crazy California laws and their state version of NEPA and requirements involving EIR.

I am not very knowledgeable about those laws but I wouldn't be surprised if you were right.  California needs to chill out a bit about environmental law. Unfortunately, may use those laws for personal enrichment. NIMBY's need to be destroyed. No one has come out with a plan for that.

You really need to quit blaming the EPA for Californian NIMBYism. I suppose you think that the EPA is responsible for all the Republicans suing to stop HSR?

Also, it turns out that frackers illegally dumped 3 billion gallons of polluted wastewater into the groundwater here in California. Is that the EPA's fault too?

http://www.planetizen.com/node/71609

Well, my point is we need more environmental standards not less.

And anyways, NIBMYs and environmentalists are often opposed, such as HSR and denser downtowns.

[pbrower2a]

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?

Because quick-buck damage, especially toxic dumping,  to the environment is typically clandestine. The EPA has legal consequences for such behavior. Do irreparable damage and go to prison.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I'm not familiar with that particular case.  But, you can't change jurisdiction with a lawsuit.  It's possible that the EPA misinterpreted the law and was forced to regulate when the judiciary clarified the law.

The purpose of the EPA is to protect the environment from pollution.  It certainly does that.  Clean air and water and land are all critically important to every America citizen because we all breath, drink and live on the land. 

But, whatever, you're not making any sense as usual.  I can never understand what you're trying to say.

When an existing law has been administered for over 20 years, and new personnel, including a new chief justice, on the 11th Circuit reinterpret the law to exert federal primacy over a state institution, jurisdiction has changed.

What benefit to we receive from having an independent agency in charge of environmental protection, considering judicial review basically makes the EPA a puppet of the courts? Why are you opposed to having EPA oversight by elected officials?

They act according to statute passed by Congress. Congress can modify or repeal those statutes if they want. Your ire is misplaced.

[anvi]

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.

The sad thing is that many people in major Chinese cities don't care much about the pollution, even if they get sick eventually.  It's considered just the price of economic development.  I think the lesson might be to take anyone who believes in abolishing the EPA to a major Chinese city and see what they think after that.  I was in Shijiazhuang, the capital of Hebei province, last summer, and it made Beijing's pollution look mild--visibility on a clear sunny day was generally bad, and the air everywhere literally stunk. 

[AggregateDemand]

They act according to statute passed by Congress. Congress can modify or repeal those statutes if they want. Your ire is misplaced.

Then what's the point of the independent agency, rather than one that is under the control of Congress or the Executive Branch?

[Slander and/or Libel]

They act according to statute passed by Congress. Congress can modify or repeal those statutes if they want. Your ire is misplaced.

Then what's the point of the independent agency, rather than one that is under the control of Congress or the Executive Branch?

The EPA is under the Executive Branch. It's not organized under any of the Cabinet branches, which may be what you're thinking of. But it's definitely under the Executive Branch.

[AggregateDemand]

The EPA is under the Executive Branch. It's not organized under any of the Cabinet branches, which may be what you're thinking of. But it's definitely under the Executive Branch.

I'm not referencing the technicalities of the government hierarchy, but the system of checks and balances. APA makes judicial review more powerful than Executive appointment and Senate confirmation. Independent agencies are more beholden to the judiciary than they are to the executive branch, but in their essence, independent agencies are designed to be independent.

What do we gain by making the EPA an independent agency?

[Slander and/or Libel]

We gain a better ability to ensure that someone of your type would have a harder time gutting the agency.

[AggregateDemand]

We gain a better ability to ensure that someone of your type would have a harder time gutting the agency.

Nixon created the EPA; therefore, we already know the EPA is an independent agency to satisfy the paranoid delusions of the people who created it and support it.

I'm asking for a legitimate reason.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Doesn't a proposal for a departure from the status quo require the burden of explaining why things would be better off otherwise?

Just because EPA is an independent executive agency doesn't mean that it doesn't operate independently of the ability of Congress to do anything about it. Congress always has the ability to pass statutes reining in EPA's purview, if it so chooses.

[Orser67]

No, and the head of the EPA should be made a permanent member of the Cabinet, and the Agency renamed the Department of Environmental Protection.

[Mordecai]

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

Are you dumb?

Nope. I'm sorry if I offended your love of toxic sludge poisoning rivers and waterways, but it's a pretty clear-cut case of market failure. Let's just agree to disagree on the matter of companies polluting the environment. You think that it's a great thing and that it protects freedom, liberty and free markets, while I'm just a pinko, Murica-hating hippie who should go back to playing hacky-sack and smoking the pot.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Absolutely no way!