Attack on the EPA...

Back in
February (2011) congressional Republicans vowed to curb the authority and the
budget of the Environmental Protection Agency. And since that point they have
been attacking the agency to a degree not seen since President Richard Nixon
created it 40 years ago.

The EPA's effort to tackle the latest and perhaps most challenging
environmental problem - global warming - has made it a central target of the
new Republican leadership's antiregulatory agenda. In fact it appears that the
‘Political Hot-Potato’ …Global Warming is the issue. Having failed last year to
enact new legislation to curb global warming, the Obama administration is left
to use existing law - the Clean Air Act - to start reducing the pollution
causing the planet's temperature to rise. The Republicans however are not
committed to the concept of Global Warming…denying that it is even an issue,
and they have declared as a party that such actions would only raise
electricity prices and penalize industries that otherwise could be creating
jobs.

"Congress intends to reassert itself in the
statutory and regulatory process at EPA, and specifically the Clean Air
Act," said Rep. Ed Whitfield (R., Ky.), chairman of the subcommittee on
energy and power. He is a sponsor of a draft bill that would block the EPA from
using the law to control heat-trapping pollution.

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson told the panel
that the legislation "would eliminate portions of the landmark law that
all American children and adults rely on to protect them from harmful air
pollution."

During more than two hours of testimony, Jackson
said the law and overwhelming scientific evidence on global warming compelled
the EPA to act.

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R.,
Mich.), the author of the draft bill, denied that it would limit the federal
government's ability to monitor and reduce health-damaging pollution.

A follow on attack on the EPA came from Newt Gingrich, the former House
speaker and a possible 2012 GOP presidential candidate. He called for
abolishing the EPA and replacing it with an organization more friendly to
business. The problem is that at the heart of business is the desire to make
profits…which I agree it should be…and regulations that require business to pay
for the pollution that they are generating reduces those profits.

Who should shoulder the cost of air and water cleanup? For instance if
business uses water in their production process…taking in clean water and
discharging dirty post production water…should the community have to suffer the
pollution, or even clean it up without the ability to recover their expenses
from the businesses at fault? The same question goes to air quality. If an
industry, like power generation which predominantly exists on coal fired
systems, pollutes the air in excess of current standards set by the EPA under
the past approval of our Government should the community suffer the pollution,
including the impact it may have on global warming…let’s call it climate change
(both hot and cold, storm and drought) …or pay to clean up the pollution
created by the responsible industry? When put in that light most would say no.

The EPA has a purpose, and the USA…has a responsibility to reduce
pollution in a meaningful way for the sake of all of our citizens, not only for
industries…especially those responsible for the pollution of our air, water,
and soil…who should be held accountable for the expense of meeting our
environmental standards during production or cleaning up the pollution that
they generate in their ‘for profit’ enterprise.