. A Roman historian, Tacitius, stated, “The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.”
The first legislating department to examine is the Environmental Protection Agency. The Environmental Protection Agency was established under President Nixon (another reason to dislike President Nixon) and made a department under Bush 41. The Environmental Protection Agency has become a nightmare. It was started to implement the Clean Air Act but it has mushroomed into a monster. There have been improvements to our air quality, to our water quality and to other environmental areas. However, in the process of improving our environment the EPA has caused massive expenses and has made many mistakes.
Our original constitution was to protect our citizens from the government and this is an excellent example of how a government can oppress its people. A small group of radical, crazy, environmental activists have been able to influence enough of our legislators to pass laws and ignore our constitution as we become more like a democracy and less a republic.
The burden placed on our businesses is huge. In 1995, Carol Browner, then head of the EPA, announced that the EPA had streamlined its regulatory procedures to save businesses and state and local governments 23 million hours of unnecessary paperwork each year. That means that prior to that time there was 23 million hours of wasted time spent each year and there was no mention of how many hours of time was still required.
The Super Fund which was started in 1980 to clean up toxic waste sites is a good example. The EPA and Congress had started to assess the polluter for the clean up but in many cases no one knew who had polluted. The government came up with the concept of “joint and several liability” to try to get anyone to pay for the cleanup on land they were occupying even if they were not responsible for it. It seems crazy but that was their solution.
Naturally, that led to massive law suits as those who were innocent fought those charges in courts. At one time it was estimated that 60% of clean up costs were legal costs. Finally the EPA recognized that the system would not work and so a special tax was assessed on chemical and oil companies and that generated billions of dollars in tax revenue and huge costs to those companies. The clean ups were performed and in 1995 the tax was allowed to lapse with $3.8 billion left in the EPA to pay for the remaining sites. In 2002 there were still 33 toxic sites in 18 states that were still in the process of being cleaned and the EPA estimated that $450 million would clean them up.
At that point the administration had allocated $228 million for that purpose. The costs were much larger than they should have been (over $50 billion) but the cleanups have been or are in the process of being done.
Not all of the clean ups were necessary. In 1996 the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory said that maybe all the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on excavation, removal of tanks treatment of soil and etc was misguided and misspent effort. Cleanup efforts were examined in California and tank cleanup costs are estimated to be $2.5 billion and much of that was not necessary. The Alexis de Tocqueville institution reports that “EPA consistently assumes that future sites will include children, who will live there for 70 years, ingesting less than one teaspoon of local dirt every day, and rely exclusively on contaminated local ground water for bathing and drinking.” Insane?
The EPA has been a lawyers‟ dream. The toxic waste clean up was handled in a manner that generated many law suits but there have been many others due to the EPA‟s practices of issuing rules that are overly stringent and that have little scientific base. Congress passed the New Source Review Act which permitted older facilities to improve parts of plants without revising the whole facility to new standards.
The EPA did not agree and hauled TVA, Detroit Edison and Alabama Power into court to make them update their complete facilities as they tried to improve them. A district court overruled the EPA.
In 1987 the EPA fixed levels for six pollutants and was sued. The DC district court ruled that their action “was an unconstitutional allegation of legislative power” and that the EPA was not authorized to legislate. Air quality has been one of the EPA‟s major areas to regulate but EPA administer Carol Browner stated, “…existing emissions inventories and air quality modeling to date… simply do not provide a sufficient analytical foundations from which to draw accurate results.” That has not stopped the EPA from issuing rules and in some cases they have admitted that rules have been issued on “policy judgments” rather than facts.
In 1993 the EPA announced that second hand smoke (environmental tobacco smoke) causes 3000 deaths each year. (the EPA then assigns costs based on their estimate that a human life is worth $4.8 million) .
A US district judge stated that, “EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun”
and “ established procedure and scientific norms to validate the agency‟s public conclusion.” “EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer.” Of course by the time the decision was rendered in 1995 the EPA‟s position was well publicized and accepted.
When the Safe Drinking Water Act was implemented by the EPA they decreed that a safe chemical level was zero. The Court of Appeals in DC overruled them. The EPA is now considering complying with a United Nations edict that would eliminate the use of inhalers for asthma sufferers. Inhalers are primarily used by children but the EPA has announced they will eliminate inhalers to “help” children.
In 1997 the EPA issued a ruling requiring 23 states to lower their omissions by 85% and estimated the costs would be around $17 billion. Many of the states sued and questioned the accuracy of the percentage established as well as to whether each state was identical.
In 1999 the EPA issued new guidelines to “protect people and children with respiratory problems” and estimated the costs would be around $18 billion per year. George Mason University estimated the costs at $380 billion but it didn‟t matter when a US district court judge overthrew the ruling and slapped the EPA for its “arbitrary and capricious” behavior in their guidelines.
General Electric was ordered to clean up the Hudson River at an estimated cost of $490 million because GE had dumped PCB‟s in the river in the past. The Institute of Evaluating Health Risks “found no association between actual exposure to PCB‟s and death from cancer or any other disease.” The National Cancer Institute stated, ”the NCI has no evidence that eating fish from the Hudson River posed a human cancer risk.” The EPA refused to rescind its order. There was much publicity about this and there were 19 different organizations supporting the EPA in wanting the river dredged. Thirteen of those groups received financial contributions from the EPA to help them in their legal battle with General Electric.
As a side note a federal judge ordered the EPA to release its records concerning contributions. From 1993 to 2001 the EPA contributed over $2 billion to various organizations. The EPA erased hard drives and back –up emails were destroyed and so the EPA never complied with that order.
The EPA has an Environmental Education Division which is responsible for educating our youth in environmental matters and in a five year period spent $34.9 million in producing material to “brain-wash” our children. If you wonder why our children are so concerned over pollution and the environment it is because they are being taught that way. The EPA has incorrectly identified toxic substances. Second hand smoke was one and so was PCB‟s.
The EPA issued rules concerning dioxin and published a three volume report on dioxin emissions. They then selected 39 scientists to review the report. That panel of scientists then reported that, “…the agency had overstated the risks of dioxins and that its conclusions were not scientifically defensible and that it would not endorse its report.”
That has not stopped the EPA from issuing regulations concerning dioxin omissions. The streets in Times Beach, MO had been covered with dioxin and so the EPA ordered the whole community evacuated. After the expenditure of $ 32 million Times Beach became a ghost town. After that was done and the truth became known the EPA admitted the action had been unnecessary.
The EPA established a danger level for Radon but Science Magazine stated, ”the EPA has no solid evidence that exposures around 4 picocuries per liter of Radon cause any lung cancer, or indeed that any of the levels common in houses in American have killed anyone.” Acid rain was going to be a big problem until someone found that putting inexpensive lime into the “poisoned” lakes and rivers would cure the problem.
Uniroyal was forced to halt production of Alar because it contained damanozide. The EPA later changed its position when the World Health Organization approved its use. Formaldehyde suffered the same fate.
Then we have asbestos. On September 11 when the World Trade Center was destroyed the EPA was asked to estimate the danger of asbestos in the air at the site. EPA officials admitted that, “asbestos was harmful only if breathed at high levels and over sustained periods of time.” That wasn‟t the story we had heard previously. It was because of the EPA that schools throughout the nation had spent millions on removing asbestos and it was the reports from the EPA that had led to the law suits that caused 40
companies to file for bankruptcy because they had been involved with the manufacture or installation of asbestos.
The New American issue of July 23, 2007 states, “ In June of 2007 the EPA has announced its new rule for a reduction in federally acceptable ozone levels from 84 parts per billion to 70 or 75 parts per billion.
Hundreds of cities and towns will not be in compliance. Scientists, economists, and health professionals critical of the proposed regulations point out that the costs of complying will be enormous, but the promised benefits are highly dubious.
„At best it can be argued that the benefits of the new restrictions are unknown‟ says Dr Elizabeth Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health. „But the costs of the draconian proposal are quite clear. EPA estimates, for example, range between $6.5 billion and $8.5 billion each year….The president‟s Council of Economic Advisers estimates that full attainment costs of the proposed new standard would range from $12 billion to $60 billion. Another study concluded that the new standard would cost the city of Chicago alone from $2.5 billion to $7 billion annually‟. According to Dr. Whelan, „The new standards will cost so much that they could actually worsen public health by lowering living standards and reducing access to health care. Among the known risk factors for asthma are several factors associated with poverty: exposure to cockroaches and other indoor allergens, limited access to health care and prematurity‟.
Of course, we know the reaction we can expect from the EPA. They will expect each state or city to file law suits objecting to the rule and allow the courts to decide the issue. It will be another boon for the lawyers and expense for the country.
The latest edict is to issue restrictions on gas powered lawn mowers. The rule will require a 35%
reduction in emissions by 2011. That same edict will require reductions for speedboats and other recreational watercraft. While that will certainly increase the cost of those items is it really going to help reduce pollution?
The EPA has also vetoed a federal flood- control project to build a huge water pump intended to reduce flooding in the Mississippi Delta. It is hard to understand how a bunch of unelected bureaucrats has the authority to stop a program authorized by the Congress. It is probable that this veto will be challenged in the courts which will add to the costs.
In mid 2008 the EPA produced a 1000 page document to reduce the U.S. output of global warming gases. The reactions to that are not surprising. The Bush administration stated, “… it relied on untested legal theories and would impose crippling costs on the U.S. economy.” The administration attached a letter from the secretaries of transportation, agriculture, commerce and energy , asserting the EPA‟s work “does not recognize the enormous – and, we believe, insurmountable - burdens, difficulties and costs and likely limited benefits” of using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouses gases. The Bush administration has long opposed economy – wide regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, and argued that allowing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions would turn it into a massive planning and zoning board, with the power to block construction of schools, hospitals , apartment buildings and a range of other facilities whose emissions have previously not been subject to regulation. The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce stated,. “This is a classic example of EPA staff saying we can better manage the economy of the United States better that the president.”
EPA‟s regulations and reporting requirements have led to the expenditure of billions of dollars according to the National League of Cities. They stated, “EPA‟s regulations are written in Latin with Greek footnotes”
The EPA has stifled Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the EPA who questioned the outdated research on the health effects of greenhouse gases. Dr. Carlin produced a report complete with graphs using data from satellites which showed that the actual global temperature has FALLEN by 0.3 degrees C in the last three years. The EPA‟s answer to actual data is to tell him to “shut up.”
Al McGartland, his boss, forbad him from “any direct communication” outside of his office with regard to his analysis. Recently, they sought to yank a YouTube Video of created by EPA lawyers Allan Zabel and Laurie Williams that is critical of Cap-and-Trade.
When all of this is considered it seems that the EPA has about served its purpose and should be abolished. We have clean air and water and it would help our financial situation to remove 18,000
employees and not spend $10 billion. There would be an even greater savings by stopping them from writing more rules and regulations.
We now have an even greater reason for abolishing the EPA for since the election of Barrack Obama the EPA has “run amok.” It is logical to conclude that Obama understood the background and beliefs of Lisa Jackson who he appointed as head of the EPA and it is also logical to conclude that he approves of what she is doing.
On October 8, 2010 the Washington Times had an article about Lisa Jackson, the Obama appointee as head of the EPA. During the first 18 months of Bush‟s (43) first term the EPA issued 16 “significant”
regulations. The government defines regulations as “significant” if they have an impact on the economy of $100 million or interfere with other agencies‟ actions. During the last 18 months the EPA has issued 42 “significant” regulations.
The new rules seek to reduce ozone pollution from factories and cars; coal ash waste from power plants; storm-water runoff from construction sites; greenhouse gas emissions from cars and mercury emissions from industrial boilers. Here are some specific items.
Since 2004, Toll Bros. has worked on a plan to revitalize Brooklyn‟s Gowanus Canal and has a sensible plan for cleaning the 1.8 mile long channel and then transforming the area with 450 housing units and 2000 square feet of retail space. In January of 2010 the EPA declared the canal a Superfund site which means the EPA will now be responsible for the cleanup and will “go after the polluters” and with the usual law suits that process will take around 12 years or more. Toll Bros. has announced that they are dropping their plan to develop the area and cleanup the canal.
The San Joaquin Valley of California has long been known as the most productive agricultural area of the U.S. That was until three years ago when the EPA‟s regulations designed to protect the three-inch Delta smelt were enforced. Tens of billions of gallons of water from mountains east and north of Sacramento have been channeled away from farmers into the ocean leaving hundreds of thousands of acres of arable land fallow or scorched. Mendota – in the middle of the valley – now has an unemployment rate of 40% leaving more than 10,000 unemployed and hundreds of farms destroyed.
How could a three inch fish be more important than those people? The EPA must be staffed by a bunch of nuts. This action was reviewed by the Jackson EPA and after considering the terrible results on the farms and people in the valley they decided that the fish were more important than the people. Insane?
Atrazine is the nation‟s second most common herbicide. The weed killer is used in the production of 60% of corn, 75% of sorghum and 90% of sugarcane. In 2006 the EPA completed a 12 year review involving 6,000 studies and 80,000 public comments. The agency concluded the risks “posed no harm that would result to the general U.S. population…” In October of 2009 the EPA announced it would begin a re-evaluation of atrazine. Tort lawyer Stephen Tillery has filed a class action lawsuit against atrazine manufacturers and the EPA is helping .
On April 2, 2010 the EPA tightened water quality standards that could severely limit future coal mining operations throughout Appalachia, while mining industry officials said the change was unfair and endangers jobs. The new guidance issued under the Clean Water Act could put at risk many of the 27,000 people employed at surface coal mines. A previously approved water permit has been vetoed by the EPA and that is the first time in its 40 year history that the agency has vetoed a permit after it was issued.
The EPA has announced it plans to block a proposal by Arch Coal Inc. to dig the largest mountain top coal mine in Central Appalaicha, the first time in 37 years the agency has moved to veto such a project.
Arch Coal already had a permit to dig. On 10/1/2009 the EPA said it had held up 79 permits to extract coal and the industry stated that thousands of jobs are now threatened. The agency cited the Clean Water Act as the reason. About 180 permits await approval. “If they are not intending to damage the coal industry, then they have made an enormous miscalculation,” said Luke Popovich an NMA spokesman.
Why would he think they are not intending to damage the coal industry? All of their actions seem to indicate that they are going to damage that industry.
Ian Murray, VP of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, reports on April 12, 2010 that the EPA has decided it has the power to: “License California and other states to adopt nonfederal fuel economy standards within their border; to act as co-equal partner with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in setting fuel-economy standards for the auto industry; to establish climate and energy policy for the nation and “tailor” the Clean Air Act as desired.”
On January 8, 2010 the EPA proposed tougher standards for reducing smog and business groups said the change would inflict new costs on employers and consumers. Power plants, refineries, gas stations and other businesses would be compelled to take steps to reduce emissions of chemicals that help form smog. The EPA estimates the cost could range between $19 billion and $90 billion annually . The EPA would set acceptable ozone levels between 0.06 and 0.07 per million, stricter than the current 0.075
ppm.
It was reported on August 10, 2009 that he EPA‟s Office of Research Development is pushing hard to redefine the level at which arsenic would be considered toxic. The “toxicity slope” for inorganic arsenic would be increased 20 times. To meet that standard would put enormous pressure on municipalities to spend additional billions of dollars.
Never let a good crisis (like the Gulf oil disaster) go to waste. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is lobbying to reinstate the Superfund tax which was placed into effect in 1980. The tax was applied to oil, gas, chemical companies or any company with revenues over $2 million when the EPA was unable to identify those who had polluted sites in the past. Today, 70% of all areas the EPA has designated as contaminated are already being cleaned up but the EPA would just like to have more money available and has thought that $19 billion over 10 years would be a good number.
With the conclusion that the Congress could not pass Cap and Trade, Lisa Jackson, EPA administrator, has ruled that greenhouse gases are dangerous pollutants and that under the clean- air laws the EPA is authorized to regulate them. In 2007 five liberals on the Supreme Court ordered the EPA to determine if carbon dioxide qualified as a “pollutant.”
On April 24, 2009 the EPA ruled that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant. Ms. Jackson did not refer to any studies or examinations that had taken place nor to any scientists that had identified carbon dioxide as a pollutant. This is “cap and trade” without the trade but the EPA will probably incorporate that too. Ms. Jackson has previously announced a “tailoring rule” to the Clean Air Act that any new rules would apply to those sources that emit more than 25,000 tons a year like coal fired plants and heavy manufacturing. She has announced that originally her agency will only target cars and trucks. Of course , the environmentalists will soon sue to have all carbon dioxide emitters regulated and who knows where this will stop. However, the House Energy and Commerce and the Senate Environment and Public Works committees have released draft legislation (Feb. 2,2011) that would take away the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
On 9/17/2010 the state of Texas sued the EPA in a federal appeals court in Washington, DC claiming that four new regulations imposed by the EPA are based on thoroughly discredited findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N.) and are factually flawed. One of the suits claims that the “tailoring rule” applied by the EPA is not legal.
On October 4, 2010 Human Events reported that the EPA was considering lowering ozone standards again to levels that are at or below what occurs naturally in the air. It is estimated that there would be around 600 counties that could be in “non-attainment.” Unions for Jobs and the Environment, an organization of 12 national and international unions thinks the ozone revision “would lead to significant job losses across the country… due to the significant increase in the number of counties classified as
“nonattainment.” EPA‟s new cement kiln regulation could shut down 18 plants threatening 1,800 direct jobs and 9,000 indirect jobs and could send 28 million tons of U.S. cement production offshore, mainly to China.
Senator James Inhofe has issued a new report, ”EPA‟s Anti-industrial Policy: Threatening Jobs and America‟s Manufacturing Base.” The report covers new regulations concerning industrial boilers, greenhouse gas emitters and ozone levels issued in June of 2010 has been examined by industry and the Congress. The EPA has admitted that tough new greenhouse gas regulations will “ slow construction nationwide for years” while only reducing global temperatures by 0.0015 of a degree Celsius. A GOP
minority report issued on September 30, 2010 stated that these regulations will put over 800,000 jobs at risk with little environmental benefit. Here is the statement from Senator Inhofe As Prepared for Delivery
By Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)
“Today, I am releasing a Minority staff report from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, where I serve as Ranking Member. The report examines the impacts on jobs and the economy from four significant EPA rules, including EPA's greenhouse gas proposals. This report outlines how these rules threaten the economic viability of America's manufacturing base and hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs. It focuses on the following:
the pending Boiler MACT regulations; the revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone; the new Cement MACT regulations; and EPA's endangerment finding and tailoring rule. And these 4
rules are by no means all that the EPA has planned. In the coming months, EPA is expected to propose (and, in some cases, finalize), among many others: standards for cooling water intake structures at power plants; national ambient air quality standards for dust and particulate matter; maximum achievable control technology standards for coal-fired power plants; new source performance standards for coal-fired power plants and refineries; and rules governing disposal of coal combustion waste.
“So what does all this mean? The American Forest and Paper Association estimates that: "about two dozen new regulations being considered by the Administration under the Clean Air Act, if all are promulgated, potentially could impose on the order of $17 billion in new capital costs on papermakers and wood products manufacturers in the next five to eight years alone."
“And this is just for one industry. Many others will be similarly affected.
“Unfortunately, the Obama EPA favors bureaucracy and heavy-handed intervention more than jobs and growth. In many cases, the Clean Air Act is no longer about clean air; instead, it has become a blunt instrument for EPA to punish American's manufacturers and small businesses. If America wants to compete economically with China, India, and other developing economies, this cannot continue.
“Boiler MACT
“The first rule covered in the report is the Boiler MACT. The Boiler MACT (MACT stands for maximum achievable control technology) would impose stringent emission limits and monitoring requirements for eleven subcategories of boilers and process heaters. This proposed rule covers industrial boilers used in manufacturing, processing, mining, refining, as well as commercial boilers used in malls, laundries, apartments, restaurants, and hotels.
The Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA), which represents companies with 750,000
employees, said that they are "enormously concerned that the high costs" of the Boiler MACT "will leave companies no recourse but to shut down the entire facility, not just the boiler."
“This is what the econometrics firm IHS-Global Insight found in its analysis of EPA's proposal. IHS-Global Insight concluded that the proposal could put up to 798,250 jobs at risk. Moreover, they said every $1 billion spent on upgrade and compliance costs will put 16,000 jobs at risk and reduce US GDP
by as much as $1.2 billion.
“EPA's pending Boiler MACT regulations also threaten my home state of Oklahoma. Covanta Energy, which in 2008 reopened the Walter B. Hall Resource Recovery Facility, a waste-to-energy plant that can process up to 1,125 tons of municipal solid waste per day and generate 240,000 pounds of steam per hour, would be forced to install costly controls. From what I understand, the Boiler MACT proposal threatens its economic viability.
“These concerns are shared by 40 of my colleagues, including 18 Democrats, who wrote to Lisa Jackson on the Boiler MACT regulation yesterday. Quote-
"As our nation struggles to recover from the current recession, we are deeply concerned that the pending Clean Air Act boiler MACT regulations could impose onerous burdens on U.S. manufacturers, leading to the loss of potentially thousands of high-paying jobs this sector provides. As the national unemployment rate hovers around 10 percent, and federal, state, and municipal finances continue to be in dire straits, our country should not jeopardize thousands of manufacturing jobs."
“Ozone
“On January 6, 2010, for the second time in less than two years, EPA proposed to tighten the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone. Specifically, EPA is proposing to strengthen the 8-hour "primary" ozone standard.
“EPA estimates that setting the primary standard within its proposed range will cost $19 to $90 billion.
“This proposal comes on the heels of the revised 2008 ozone standard, which was lowered significantly.
The CAA only requires a NAAQS revision "at least" every five years, so EPA is not required to revise the status quo. Meanwhile, states are in the midst of planning to meet the 2008 ozone standard, while some communities are not yet in compliance with the 1997 standard.
“EPA recently announced that it is delaying the announcement of the new ozone standards until "late October." My guess is that they will be delayed until after the election. It's not hard to see why.
Whatever level EPA ultimately picks, it will dramatically increase the number of so-called "nonattainment" areas nationwide.
“Based on 2008 air quality data, we could see as many as 608 new non-attainment areas, with many of them highly concentrated in manufacturing regions and states relying on coal for electricity.
“So what does Non-attainment mean? Well, for local communities, it can mean the following: loss of industry and economic development, including plant closures; loss of federal highway and transit funding; increased EPA regulation and control over permitting decisions; increased costs for industrial facilities to implement more stringent controls; and increased fuel and energy costs
“In my State of Oklahoma, at least fifteen counties--Adair, Caddo, Canadian, Cherokee, Cleveland, Creek, Dewey, Kay, Mayes, McClain, Oklahoma, Ottawa, Pittsburg, Sequoyah, and Tulsa--would face new restrictions on economic growth and development, depending on what EPA decides.
“We all support cleaner air, but here's where the Obama EPA and I disagree: it shouldn't come at the expense of people's jobs or