Are you for or against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency?

[Pax]

I really want to know what the right wingers and independents on this forum think about this issue.
It seems to me that even if you are against most Democrat ideas you would still be for the environment.

[giblets]

For, but I'm not a right winger.

[Felch]

I don't really feel like it affects me in any perceivable way. I think that some of the legislation they execute is badly thought out. For example, endangered species protection results in a perverse incentive for landowners to destroy habitats before they can be identified. But that's the fault of Congress, not the EPA. Things like air quality standards are good, since they're an example of a negative externality.

[Hauldren Collider]

I think the EPA's general mission to keep the lakes and rivers and air clean are noble goals, but they go ridiculously far and seriously over-regulate things that don't really affect public safety.

So I support the EPA but its activities need to be seriously scaled back. I also question the constitutionality of regulating rivers that don't cross into other states.

[Dinner]

Very much for though I'm not a right winger.

[SlowwHand]

In general terms, I'm for them.

[Tupac Shakur]

The EPA's function could be accomplished much more efficiently via pigovian taxation.

[KrazyHorse]

There is a need for environmental protection. I'm no expert on the operations of the EPA, but I have heard certain very good things about the way they accomplish their mission (e.g. traded sulfur dioxide emissions permits) as well as very bad things (e.g. endless studies, detailed command-and-control regulations) in different cases.

[Lorizael]

The EPA is nearly responsible for the destruction of New York City. I hope no one here is forgetting Walter Peck. The man has no dick.

[The Mad Monk]

Good idea, but they need to stop moving the goalposts. They're making the entire US chemical and energy industries paranoid.

"Waitaminnit. We have to do what now!?"

"Whaddaya mean they changed it again!?"

"Okay that's done too, now we can -- OH COME ON!!!"

[rah]

They're like PETA. I don't know many that are against cute puppies but they usually go overboard and end up looking like psychos.

[kentonio]

Great agency. Large industries such as the chemical and energy sectors have been horrible polluters in the past who have proved endlessly that they don't give a rats ass about poisoning rivers, lakes etc. It's a good thing that they're now being made paranoid.

[Guynemer]

The EPA is nearly responsible for the destruction of New York City. I hope no one here is forgetting Walter Peck. The man has no dick.

Dammit, you beat me to it.

[The Mad Monk]

Great agency. Large industries such as the chemical and energy sectors have been horrible polluters in the past who have proved endlessly that they don't give a rats ass about poisoning rivers, lakes etc. It's a good thing that they're now being made paranoid.

No it is not, because paranoid companies don't spend money on new projects and the jobs that come with them.

[kentonio]

No it is not, because paranoid companies don't spend money on new projects and the jobs that come with them.

So what? How long are you guys going to buy into this tired old belief that some industries should be allowed to basically do whatever they like because then they might provide jobs? This is a large part of what has caused the whole OWS stuff. Big businesses will start new projects and will hire people simply because they want to make money. They are not going to suddenly stop trying to make money because you require them to be responsible about it. They'll grumble, and they'll ***** and then they'll do as they are told and continue trying to make money anyway.