Shut down the EPA?

[bedstuy]

Apparently, mainstream Republicans now support getting rid of the EPA.  Joni Ernst might actually get elected advocating that position in a competitive Senate race in Iowa.  That's bonkers, no?  How say you? 

[bedstuy]

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.

[bedstuy]

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.

OK, I agree with that in a sense.  I think you're talking about NEPA.  I agree we ought to streamline that whole process, especially when it comes to things like sustainable energy infrastructure.  But, NEPA is small potatoes compared to the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.   

Moreover, that's kind of a nothing criticism.  If you're saying this big government agency needs to be "reformed" that's meaningless without more.  It's easy to say, "the government takes too long!"  "This is too complicated!"  But, if you're talking about the technical specifications of a power plant, how on earth is it going to be simple?  The EPA is an agency that makes all these technical and scientific judgements, that's why it's complicated.

Here's what I don't hear from Republicans:  "We should allow more mercury in the air!"  "We should allow more poop in our rivers!"  If you're saying, I want a clean environment, but I don't want lots of rules about pollution, you're saying nothing.  And, if you're voting for politicians who are going to vote for higher mercury and cadmium levels and more poop in our rivers, guess what, you're not actually a proponent of a clean environment.  As if this whole debate is between Democrats who like red tape and Republicans who want this magically, effective EPA.  Today's Republicans carry water for big polluters like the Koch Brothers.  These issues about federalism and red tape are just a sideshow to distract people from the fact that government needs to make choices and regulate polluters.  If you're supporting Republicans, you're supporting a party that completely ignores the environment and acts as a puppet for the oil and gas industry. 

[bedstuy]

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.

[bedstuy]

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.

[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.

[bedstuy]

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.

[bedstuy]

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.

[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?

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[bedstuy]

Congress doesn't act anymore. And that's basically a legislative veto which is unconstitutional anyway.

The Executive proposing anything is unconstitutional if it requires a Congressional action in order for it to become law? That's an odd reading of INS v Chadha.   The fact that Congress might not act is something we have to be willing to put up with in a system of divided powers. 

You need to have legislation that goes through presentment.  So, whatever legislation we're talking about, it needs to give the EPA certain powers.  The legislation can't just force the EPA to refer regulatory questions back to Congress. 

So, you don't have a problem with the fact that we have an EPA.  You just want the legislation to be different in some amorphous way.  Is that correct?  The fact is that Congress passed legislation chiefly, the Clean Air act and Clean Water Act.  They can always change the authority that the EPA has.

[bedstuy]

You keep using the word clandestine to describe the EPA.  What the hell are you talking about? 

And, just in general, what decisions should be taken away from the EPA?  Do we want Congress to decide the technical requirements for pollution control systems on smoke-stacks?  Do we want Congress to approve SIPs?  Do we want to fight over whether mercury is a pollutant and give industry a chance to screw with the Clean Air Act every single year?  What specifically is the problem here?   

I mean, I understand the general idea of wanting more democratic input into the administrative process.  But, when we're talking about some industrial process used at a concrete factory, I don't see the point or the feasibility.  Congress can't be passing a law on every piece of minutia.  Congress is currently incapable of micro-managing the Federal government.  Maybe you think that means we ought to return to the Federal government of the 19th century.  Please just say that so nobody is confused about how crazy you are.

[bedstuy]

You keep using the word clandestine to describe the EPA.  What the hell are you talking about? 

And, just in general, what decisions should be taken away from the EPA?  Do we want Congress to decide the technical requirements for pollution control systems on smoke-stacks?  Do we want Congress to approve SIPs?  Do we want to fight over whether mercury is a pollutant and give industry a chance to screw with the Clean Air Act every single year?  What specifically is the problem here?   

I mean, I understand the general idea of wanting more democratic input into the administrative process.  But, when we're talking about some industrial process used at a concrete factory, I don't see the point or the feasibility.  Congress can't be passing a law on every piece of minutia.  Congress is currently incapable of micro-managing the Federal government.  Maybe you think that means we ought to return to the Federal government of the 19th century.  Please just say that so nobody is confused about how crazy you are.

You'd have a point if I said: Please explain to me how an independent agency is capable of mimicking Congress and the Executive Branch, if you uphold statutory removal and eliminate congressional bypass.

I'm asking about the benefits of moving the EPA towards the unelected Judicial branch and away from the purview of the Legislative and Executive branches.

The EPA is a part of the executive branch and they need to obey the law as interpreted by the judicial branch.   I don't get what you're trying to say.

[bedstuy]

The EPA is a part of the executive branch and they need to obey the law as interpreted by the judicial branch.   I don't get what you're trying to say.

Read this

http://cornelllawreview.org/files/2013/05/DatlaReveszfinal.pdf

I'm not going to read an academic article in hopes of understanding what you're talking about.