Finding a Balance between the EPA and American Business
The following is a guest post from Scott P. If you are interested in guest posting at Geek Politics, check out the guidelines here.
Throughout history, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been tasked with the responsibility of enforcing federal environmental laws in order to protect the public health. Recently though, the EPA has overstepped their boundaries. The agency has abused their authority, pushing policies without congressional consent that could potentially destroy millions of jobs, stifle the American consumer, and put U.S. industry at a global disadvantage.
With the AgencyĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s recent E15 waiver surfacing, many consumers are facing the prospect their vehicle suffering from a damaged engine or a void warranty. Furthermore, EPAĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s push to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act was described by Sen. Lisa Murkowski as an Ă˘â‚¬Ĺ“economic train wreck.Ă˘â‚¬ÂťAnd as if that werenĂ˘â‚¬â„˘t enough, the EPAĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s strategy towards ozone standards could have a devastating effect on U.S. jobs; raising energy costs and diverting capital that could have been used to assist the flailing economy.
Perhaps the most irritating thing of all is that we, as tax-paying individuals, donĂ˘â‚¬â„˘t get to see the payoff. What we do see, however, is the rising costs of oil, gas, and groceries. Instead, the EPA should focus on smaller, more tangible issues such as the elimination of easily play pokies online free located environmental toxins. The regulation of asbestos, a well known toxin that results in cancerous mesothelioma symptoms, would be a terrific target for the EPA. With the mesothelioma life expectancy being no longer than fourteen months at most, you have to wonder why the EPA doesnĂ˘â‚¬â„˘t narrow their scope to the environmental issues we face as individuals of this nation.
Again, an overall concern for our planetĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s livelihood is important, however the current opportunity cost for the EPAĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s regulations tip the scale unfavorably for our nation. Slashing the EPAĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s budget is a necessity if we wish to create jobs, improve business development, and regulate our deficit. Obama did admittedly propose a 2012 budget cut of $1.6 billion dollars to the EPA, but the cut is only intended to reduce funding for statesĂ˘â‚¬â„˘ clean water and drinking projects. The global climate change initiate of the EPA will continue to stand as an economic juggernaut. If the EPA could divert its attention from the entire planet our individual nation, it could remain effective with much less funding, ultimately promoting a greater balance between environmental conservation and the prosperity of American industry.
Scott P. is a political activist with a passion for economics. He is a recent college graduate with a bachelorĂ˘â‚¬â„˘s in Writing. He one day aspires to be a professional journalist.