HB 2016-1049 - End the EPA (The New EPA) Act (DEBATING)

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Enduro

I will open this for 2 days to debate.

[Enduro]

I don't really want to end the EPA, I do want to involve regions more in the operations of this agency. Right now, I want to gauge opinion on how to do that. Any ideas?

(I'll post my ideas when I have a little more time, and I know I should've included them in the original bill, but I didn't. I had a good reason, I don't remember what it was)

[NeverAgain]

I mean it is a federal program that works with the Environmental Agencies of the state. I really do not see a problem with what it does, like help give federal assistance and attention when regions cannot handle it alone. Like the Flint situation which was a devastating tragedy for the (formerly Mideast) region, which I governed, couldn't handle the situation on our own and tapped President Griffin for assistance who heroically helped our region push back against lead in the water.

I would love the Private Sector to get more involved with Environmentalism and there are many companies and small businesses who do so by supporting clean and green energy, Like MOM's Organic Foods. But I strongly support conservation and the right to a prosperous environment.

The EPA does a good job of balancing sound environmental policy and the rights of the regions. I think it is fine the way it is and do not see a rationale for its abolition or forced disarmament of its powers. I cannot say I support this bill or any alternative really.

[Enduro]

I mean it is a federal program that works with the Environmental Agencies of the state. I really do not see a problem with what it does, like help give federal assistance and attention when regions cannot handle it alone. Like the Flint situation which was a devastating tragedy for the (formerly Mideast) region, which I governed, couldn't handle the situation on our own and tapped President Griffin for assistance who heroically helped our region push back against lead in the water.

I would love the Private Sector to get more involved with Environmentalism and there are many companies and small businesses who do so by supporting clean and green energy, Like MOM's Organic Foods. But I strongly support conservation and the right to a prosperous environment.

The EPA does a good job of balancing sound environmental policy and the rights of the regions. I think it is fine the way it is and do not see a rationale for its abolition or forced disarmament of its powers. I cannot say I support this bill or any alternative really.

Does the EPA have to seek regional approval for it's projects?

[NeverAgain]

I mean it is a federal program that works with the Environmental Agencies of the state. I really do not see a problem with what it does, like help give federal assistance and attention when regions cannot handle it alone. Like the Flint situation which was a devastating tragedy for the (formerly Mideast) region, which I governed, couldn't handle the situation on our own and tapped President Griffin for assistance who heroically helped our region push back against lead in the water.

I would love the Private Sector to get more involved with Environmentalism and there are many companies and small businesses who do so by supporting clean and green energy, Like MOM's Organic Foods. But I strongly support conservation and the right to a prosperous environment.

The EPA does a good job of balancing sound environmental policy and the rights of the regions. I think it is fine the way it is and do not see a rationale for its abolition or forced disarmament of its powers. I cannot say I support this bill or any alternative really.

Does the EPA have to seek regional approval for it's projects?

Should it? The EPA's goal is a clean environment for all states, the environment shouldn't depend on state bureaucrats and whatever political party is in office there.

[Enduro]

I mean it is a federal program that works with the Environmental Agencies of the state. I really do not see a problem with what it does, like help give federal assistance and attention when regions cannot handle it alone. Like the Flint situation which was a devastating tragedy for the (formerly Mideast) region, which I governed, couldn't handle the situation on our own and tapped President Griffin for assistance who heroically helped our region push back against lead in the water.

I would love the Private Sector to get more involved with Environmentalism and there are many companies and small businesses who do so by supporting clean and green energy, Like MOM's Organic Foods. But I strongly support conservation and the right to a prosperous environment.

The EPA does a good job of balancing sound environmental policy and the rights of the regions. I think it is fine the way it is and do not see a rationale for its abolition or forced disarmament of its powers. I cannot say I support this bill or any alternative really.

Does the EPA have to seek regional approval for it's projects?

Should it? The EPA's goal is a clean environment for all states, the environment shouldn't depend on state bureaucrats and whatever political party is in office there.

I don't think that the EPA should be able to operate without accountability from the region's it operates in.

[Anna Komnene]

Pretty much every state has a department of environmental protection, environmental quality, environmental conservation, or something similar to that.  They are responsible for taking care of issues at the state level and help make things run more smoothly than if there was just a federal EPA that doesn't know as much about state and regional issues. 

However, running things at the state level is hard.  A lot of states just don't have resources to do things.  States with lower income and revenue don't have the capacity to do a lot of the programs that you might find in states with higher income an revenue, so without assistance from the federal government, the state agencies could get stretched thin and overwhelmed.  Also, having federal departments helps because it means state, regional, and federal agencies can focus on different issues and accomplish more goals than if there was just one.  If we got rid of the federal EPA, the places that would get hit the hardest would be the poorest states.  That would be a shame.

[NeverAgain]

I mean it is a federal program that works with the Environmental Agencies of the state. I really do not see a problem with what it does, like help give federal assistance and attention when regions cannot handle it alone. Like the Flint situation which was a devastating tragedy for the (formerly Mideast) region, which I governed, couldn't handle the situation on our own and tapped President Griffin for assistance who heroically helped our region push back against lead in the water.

I would love the Private Sector to get more involved with Environmentalism and there are many companies and small businesses who do so by supporting clean and green energy, Like MOM's Organic Foods. But I strongly support conservation and the right to a prosperous environment.

The EPA does a good job of balancing sound environmental policy and the rights of the regions. I think it is fine the way it is and do not see a rationale for its abolition or forced disarmament of its powers. I cannot say I support this bill or any alternative really.

Does the EPA have to seek regional approval for it's projects?

Should it? The EPA's goal is a clean environment for all states, the environment shouldn't depend on state bureaucrats and whatever political party is in office there.

I don't think that the EPA should be able to operate without accountability from the region's it operates in.

Of course not, that's why each region has their own environmental agency. As Siren said they desire the resources that the Feds have. I am not arguing anything other than the status quo.

[Enduro]

Ok, fine, but let's not just throw this bill away. We can do something else regarding the environment, or energy.

[Classic Conservative]

I strongly support this bill, End the EPA!

[NeverAgain]

I strongly support this bill, End the EPA!

You're a lone wolf here now, as the sponsor of the bill doesn't even agree with the writings anymore .

Feel free to amend this how you like. Any bill attempting to thwart the environment and attack clean and green energy will not be friendly in my eyes though.

[Enduro]

Here's an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm thinking that the money we spend could be lowered, any other problems with this?

[Classic Conservative]

Why should the federal government be involved in researching energy sources. It seems like my money is being wasted on trivial and idiotic projects.

[NeverAgain]

Why should the federal government be involved in researching energy sources. It seems like my money is being wasted on trivial and idiotic projects.

lol. If sustaining our energy independence and our environment is "idiotic" to you, then you are welcome to move to countries where they solely rely on other nations for their energy.

Also, Enduro. I think that's a good start, I will present an amendment to specify which energy resources and make sure the financing is sufficient for new energy research.

[Clyde1998]

I'd be happy to do the research for this; should it be in the act that it's the GM's duty to do so.

[NeverAgain]

I'd be happy to do the research for this; should it be in the act that it's the GM's duty to do so.

 OMG, that'd be AWESOME! Thanks Clyde <3<3

[Goldwater]

Why should the federal government be involved in researching energy sources. It seems like my money is being wasted on trivial and idiotic projects.

The thing is, government is already involved in the energy industry, so why not divert some of those resources towards renewable energy sources?

[Mike Thick]

As a conservative, I see federal investments in renewable energy as an extension of Government's role as protector of citizens' rights from infringement by others, in this case through pollution and it's ramifications. Further steps in the direction we're headed now are necessary to secure our country and planet's environmental future.

While I would have to do more research, at first glance the funding seems reasonable, and as such I support this bill in full.

[Leinad]

Why should the federal government be involved in researching energy sources. It seems like my money is being wasted on trivial and idiotic projects.

The thing is, government is already involved in the energy industry, so why not divert some of those resources towards renewable energy sources?

It's not diverting though, it's adding on expenses. I'd like to see this amended to make it expenditure-neutral, if we can--cut some subsidy or expenses into the energy industry equal (or greater) to the amount we're investing into research here.

[Goldwater]

Why should the federal government be involved in researching energy sources. It seems like my money is being wasted on trivial and idiotic projects.

The thing is, government is already involved in the energy industry, so why not divert some of those resources towards renewable energy sources?

It's not diverting though, it's adding on expenses. I'd like to see this amended to make it expenditure-neutral, if we can--cut some subsidy or expenses into the energy industry equal (or greater) to the amount we're investing into research here.

Fair enough, I would be all for that.

[Potus]

"Research" sounds like something that can be generally agreed upon, but it's a subsidy. The government has a role in financing the unprofitable, theoretical work that leads to larger private, profitable research ventures. Front-end delivery of renewable energy does not meet that standard. It's a subsidy for active, profit-seeking companies.

That means we need to examine the merits of the renewable energy industry as it exists today. I'm better versed in the real life development implications of this question. In order to build and maintain a solar farm, you employ a few hundred people for a few months for construction purposes and then higher a handful of ridiculously skilled, well-trained engineers after the fact. The energy is only competitively priced when heavily, heavily subsidized. The energy provided is not reliable enough without tremendous investment, and oh boy do I mean tremendous, in battery technology that is still partially science fiction.

On the contrary, Longview Power Plant in West Virginia is an example of what effective, efficient, clean coal power looks like. It can meet the old Clean Power Plan regs for carbon emissions. It's independently profitable, requires no subsidy. Put thousands of people to work to build it, and continues to employ about 600 people directly. Pays out over $70 million in wages. It's a marvel of engineering that powers over 700,000 homes with cheap, reliable electricity.

Stop throwing money on the endless "renewable energy" bonfire until we actually know how to scale these resources up in a way that makes sense.

[Blair]

The new biology block at my university cost £10 million- that's literally one building. £50 million will do absolutely nothing

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

"stop trying to research how to do x better until we know how to do x better" is certainly an, um, interesting argument.

[Potus]

"stop trying to research how to do x better until we know how to do x better" is certainly an, um, interesting argument.

"Here's $50 million" has been a failure. Cutting checks to the renewable industry hasn't actually done much to advance the causes and impact the changes in the world you want to impact. Climate change hasn't been impeded by changes in our country. But people are suffering "big league" because of your misguided "Kill Fossil Fuels" and "Burn Money on the Green Bonfire" agendas.

Moonshots are a better way to cheaply do what you're talking about. "$50 Million in tax-free money for the first company to run economically viable carbon capture technology on a large scale," is a viable amendment that is worth while.

[NeverAgain]

This doesn't seem to fit ANYWHERE near the current bill.

I would ask for the sponsor to either withdrawal, or someone to make a motion to table.