President Trump vowed during his campaign to “get rid of” the Environmental Protection Agency, and House Republicans just drafted a bill to eliminate the agency entirely. EPA critics say the agency harms businesses and hobbles industries with excessive regulation. But supporters argue our air, water, land and wildlife have no way to defend themselves against human excess, and the agency is essential to protect our environment from corporate polluters and climate change. What do you think?
PERSPECTIVES
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The Cuyahoga River fire. Love Canal toxic waste disaster. Lead contamination, coal ash spills, asbestos pollution — these are sadly common disasters in America. American companies have proven they cannot be trusted to police themselves, and since they refuse to put the environment ahead of profits, we absolutely we need a regulatory agency to enforce environmental protections for humans and wildlife alike.
But conservatives say the EPA interferes with economic growth, and hampers businesses with unnecessary regulations:
The EPA acts in thousands of obscure cases to stifle or chill economic growth. Because “the environment” can be taken to include nearly everything, the EPA has arrogated to itself the right to control vast areas of American life.
And remember this mess? When the EPA “mistakenly” released 3 million gallons of toxic waste water from an abandoned mine into Colorado’s Animas River in 2015? Even if you care about the environment, don’t disasters like this prove we can’t rely on the government to protect it?
But the EPA’s defenders say you can’t just point to one failure on the part of the agency and say it should be abolished. The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act were all passed in the 1970s and the EPA’s enforcement of these laws has reduced diseases like cancer and asthma, made drinking water safe again, brought rivers and lakes back to life, and saved numerous species from extinction.
Here are five ways our world has changed for the better since the EPA was established in 1970 https://t.co/lyCSNWYiD0
— National Geographic (@NatGeo) January 27, 2017
Many voters believe any government agency that can be eliminated should be eliminated. They think 16,000 employees for regulatory agency is excessive and wasteful.
@DailyCaller @RealDonaldTrump Time to #EndTheEPA. Any Government Organization that has 16,000 employees is a waste of tax-payers money.
— US Citizen News (@US_Citizen_News) January 30, 2017
Yes, the cost of regulation is high, but data shows the benefits of EPA rules far exceed the costs. The EPA actually creates jobs by requiring pollution clean-up and prevention efforts, and saves us billions by preventing pollution’s devastating health effects.
A 2015 study showed the benefits of EPA air pollution rules exceed the costs by between $113 billion and $741 billion annually. (The link to the study by White House’s Office of Management and Budget has since been removed by the Trump Administration.)
AND it saves citizens and the government very little money in the overall budget. (EPA freeze). https://t.co/Ec3dnQ18H9
— langley dewitt (@langleydew) January 25, 2017
The Tylt is focused on debates and conversations around news, current events and pop culture. We provide our community with the opportunity to share their opinions and vote on topics that matter most to them. We actively engage the community and present meaningful data on the debates and conversations as they progress. The Tylt is a place where your opinion counts, literally. The Tylt is an Advance Digital, Inc. property. Join us on Twitter @TheTylt or on Facebook, we’d love to hear what you have to say.
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
