If the agency allows pollution and bars challenges to its rulings, who or what is it protecting?
E.P.A. Plans to Curtail the Ability of Communities to Oppose Pollution Permits
The agency is preparing to weaken rules that, for a quarter-century, have given communities a voice in deciding how much industrial pollution may legally be released nearby.
One thought on “Environmental “Protection” Agency ???”
EPA = Expect Protection Agency NOT! Like the PA DEP or “Don’t Expect Protection” agency, the budget has been cut, staff cut, rules and laws gutted. According to Trump, “for each new rule proposed, you have to get rid of two old ones.” So which rules on the following chemicals and substances would you weaken or eliminate? arsenic, PCB, ethyl ether, benzene, xylene, asbestos, carbon monoxide, mercury, lead, toluene, etc? Everyday, new chemicals are invented and used in the market place in our food, our air, our streams and in products we buy. Why does the EPA accept the word of the profit addicted chemical and manufacturing companies as “safe” rather than test and evaluate them first? It is like the fox guarding the hen house. The “unregulated, invisible hand of the free market” has never policed itself nor protected us and our environment from toxic, hazardous, mutagenetic, carcinogenic and deadly chemicals. It never has and never will. It is like saying, before we add a laws and regulations on cybercrime, we need to get rid of a law such as theft, robbery, embezzlement, murder, manslaughter, assault or fraud, because there are too many laws and regulations before adding new ones Eliminating a law in order to adopt a new one is crazy and absurd. You can’t have government for nothing. You have to pay for the protection of the common good, not just “starve the beast” or “shrink the government.”
EPA = Expect Protection Agency NOT! Like the PA DEP or “Don’t Expect Protection” agency, the budget has been cut, staff cut, rules and laws gutted. According to Trump, “for each new rule proposed, you have to get rid of two old ones.” So which rules on the following chemicals and substances would you weaken or eliminate? arsenic, PCB, ethyl ether, benzene, xylene, asbestos, carbon monoxide, mercury, lead, toluene, etc? Everyday, new chemicals are invented and used in the market place in our food, our air, our streams and in products we buy. Why does the EPA accept the word of the profit addicted chemical and manufacturing companies as “safe” rather than test and evaluate them first? It is like the fox guarding the hen house. The “unregulated, invisible hand of the free market” has never policed itself nor protected us and our environment from toxic, hazardous, mutagenetic, carcinogenic and deadly chemicals. It never has and never will. It is like saying, before we add a laws and regulations on cybercrime, we need to get rid of a law such as theft, robbery, embezzlement, murder, manslaughter, assault or fraud, because there are too many laws and regulations before adding new ones Eliminating a law in order to adopt a new one is crazy and absurd. You can’t have government for nothing. You have to pay for the protection of the common good, not just “starve the beast” or “shrink the government.”