Haven’t you figured out that the EPA is a danger to everyone living in the U.S.?

Societies run on energy and, I’m sorry to have to waste my time, but there is no green energy available to run this society. In addition, alternative energy companies are going out of business all over the place. Your instance on terrible regulations may result in many deaths. You, of course, will take no responsibility.


  1. 0 Votes

    Humans are at the top of the food chain with only disease and famine to regulate our populations. Since we have this coveted position in nature with a seemingly boundless potential for expansion. It is up to us to self regulate and delegate the intelligent use and conservation of resources so that these resources aren’t depleted or sullied when we need them again.

    • 0 Votes

      There’s two main problems with this answer: First, nature has more ways of controlling human population than disease and famine. There’s the obvious ones of war, aboration, murder, and accidents (we are, after all, children of nature); then the less obvious ones: tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and volcanos. And, finally, the ELE (extinction level events), large asteroids, super volcanos, and ice ages. Luckily we have not experienced any ELEs in recorded history (except possibly Noah’s flood).

      The second problem, of course, is the obvious mention that we need to take care of our environment. That’s a tenth level, “Dah.” One of the major misconceptions that exists within the elitist arm of the “green” movement is the assumption that they are the only ones that care about the environment. This is an extremely false assumption that makes it extremely difficult to achieve even a basic level of collaboration. It is the narrowmindness of these elitists that is the problem.

      There’s a dramatic difference between controlling pollution and setting in place over-the-top regulation based on unproven science (if you believe climate change science is proven you are hopelessly ignorant) which is what the EPA is guilty of. Even worse, these regulations threaten the socio-economic health of our society, while having almost no positive impact on global warming. This borders on the criminal and could be seen as a governmental terrorist attack on the citizens of the U.S.

      Climate change science is about as mature as the science of human physiology was at the beginning of the 20th Century. Look how much we’ve learned and how many times we were wrong. The Earth’s climate is at least as complex as the human body … Now tell me that climate change scientists really understand what’s going on,

  2. 0 Votes

    Our biggest problem, is that of education!

    If we put profit and jobs now, before the pollution of our enviroment, air and water we are creating an enviroment that will harm our children and grand children.

    If on the other hand we protect the enviroment now, then we can leave a better world for our children and grand children…….

    • 0 Votes

      See my response above and stop thinking your the only one cares about the environment. There MUST be a balance between regulation and a consideration of the socio-economic health of our society.

  3. 0 Votes

    Brad, I will agree with you to a certain extent; the EPA is not always a very intelligent regulating body and some of the rules it enforces do cause harm to Americans.  At the same time, you have to admit that your question was written to be inflammatory, regardless of whether you are serious or playing devil’s advocate to initiate an important discussion.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is such a thing as green energy and it is available in increasing amounts every year.  Any alternative energy that harnesses the power of the sun, wind, tides, water, etc. is greener than burning fossil fuel. These technologies are not perfect.  They are in development, as is the alternative fuel industry.  

    Your logical misinterpretation of alternative energy companies failing is not because the industry should not or can not exist, but rather that it is a developing field and as with any new field, companies can and will fail.  Just look at the boom of the dot com era.  Just because we don’t use Webcrawler, Lycos, or Netscape Navigator anymore doesn’t mean that the Internet isn’t useful, or should not be developed. The true innovators will find ways to make technology work and be profitable.

    I don’t think that I am the only one who cares about the environment, nor do I think the so-called “green movement,” whatever that may be are the only ones who care. Outdoorsmen of all sports, generally Republican and conservative, as many rural areas are, are generally more in touch with the environment than most Americans.  They may not like the EPA, but they certainly like losing the ability to hunt and fish because of polluted habitats even less.  

    There needs to be a thoughtful re-evaluation of the EPA and its functions, not a disbanding of the agency.  Unless Americans can come up with a better idea that the majority of the population can agree for environmental protection, I think it’s better to find the right people for the job, and get them in the EPA.

  4. 0 Votes

    What deaths are you talking about?

    • 0 Votes

      The worst case scenario would be where our supply of energy would be cut off completely resulting in insufficient fuel to supply diesel fuel for the trucks delivering food to the grocery stores of America. During a disaster it only takes a couple of hours to empty the grocery stores … some would suffer greatly.

      This isn’t a wild a scenario as you might thing. China is doing everything possible to take over the world’s fossil energy supply. Including, making deals with Canada, our major source of foreign oil. This is the risk that our energy policy is taking.

      Less of a problem, but still having the potential to cause deaths would be insufficient energy to warm or cool American homes. Cold is the biggest problem, many more deaths occur because of the cold than from the heat. Regardless, if the energy is not available, or becomes to expensive, there is a good chance that we will see many deaths.

      I trust this answers your question.

    • 0 Votes

      Even then, your ideas sound far fetched. Despite what stance the EPA has on oil and how we get it, policy makers and politicians in America know and understand that we run on oil. China runs on oil. The world runs on oil. There’s no denying that. But we’re not going to run out of oil just because the EPA disapproves of things like Arctic Drilling or the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to America. If it really comes down to it and we need it, the President can use the power of Executive Order to reverse an ruling by the EPA. Your statement that China’s takeover of the world supply leading to death in America is slightly outlandish. America’s been a huge purchaser of oil in the world and that’s never lead to deaths in other countries from lack of energy. The only thing I can think of that even comes close is France’s heat wave that caused about 15,000 deaths in 2003 and that was mostly because France lacks air conditioner systems in most buildings.

      What I think will cause death even faster is lack of food which can be caused by oil spills which I believe is far more likely than us running out of energy. The BP Oil Spill resulted in the closing of numerous fishing grounds and oyster beds (http://blog.friendseat.com/bp-oil-spill-effects-on-food-industry) in Louisiana. Louisiana provides about one third of the seafood consumed in America. I’m not saying that lack of seafood will kill Americans, but accidents like these have far-reaching effects on the food chain and food production in America.

      That all being said, I’m also in favor of scaling back the EPA. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that it will result in the deaths of people though.

    • 0 Votes

      You told feathe918 that “we can’t risk our future on what ‘might’ happen…” but your entire claim about running out of energy is all about what “might” happen, while oil spills “have” caused damage and “have” disrupted food production in the US.

  5. 0 Votes


    1) This is a pro-environment website.  If you have joined not to learn, but instead to incite heated arguments over the validity of climate change science with loaded, condescending comments, perhaps you should choose another site to join that will be more receptive to your attacks. 

    2) You call the “obvious need to take care of the environment” a “tenth level ‘Dah’,” yet you have yet to furnish any viable policy solutions that both protect the environment you claim to care about while still promoting the socio-economic health of our society.  You write condescendingly as though we are all ignorant (actually, “hopelessly ignorant” in your words), but you fail to present your criticism in any constructive way.  You offend with comments like, “Your instance (I’m assuming you mean ‘insistence’ here??) on terrible regulations may result in many deaths. You, of course, will take no responsibility.”  Ironically, after dismissing climate change science, you nail green enthusiasts for being narrowminded.  Yet then you go on to imply the EPA is orchestrating terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens?? 

    3) The EPA was established to protect our environment and nation’s natural resources.  If you are unhappy with its policies and initiatives, participate constuctively in our democracy by advocating for policy reform. 

    Unlike you (“I’m sorry to have to waste my time”), the members of GreenAnswers are ready and eager to spend their time engaging in professional debate and conversation on ways we can effectuate progressive reform.  If you do not wish to participate in a mature, unoffensive fashion, please don’t.

    • 0 Votes

      If it is true that you are interested in ” professional debate” why are you asking a debator from the opposing view to go elsewhere. I am only interested in honest debate. This attitude of, if you don’t agree with our basic concepts, please leave, is an excellent example of group think gone awry. Also, while I will admit that a couple of my comments were somewhat provocative, in the main I am presenting my arguments in a very reasoned manner. However, I don’t wish to minimize my contributions by stating them in language that disturbs.

      I am convinced that I have knowledge that will help members of this site see the entire picture; the professed objective of professional debate.

    • 0 Votes

      Let me respond to each of your concerns:

      1) I answered this in the next/previous post.
      2) The solution is to increase domestic production of fossil fuels until such time as alternative fuels have have proven to be able to support our energy needs. During this time we need to develop reasonable regulations that protect the environment withou jeapordizing the socio-economic future of America. And, unproven hypothesizes should have no greater impact on the decision-making process than they deserve. We can’t risk our future on what “might” happen, especially when the current models (the hockey stick graph) have proven so unreliable.

      I’m sorry, but to believe that climate science is a mature science is ignorant, although, hopefully, not hopelessly,

      Actually, suggest the possibility, if a terrorist had impacted our energy industry one tenth as much as the EPA has it would have made headlines around the world and our president would be promising the American people that the perpetrators would be brought to justice.

      The EPA has significantly over reached it’s mission. It was bad enough before this administration, it is now unacceptable. And, I am advocating policy reform by joining in on the debate at this site, where I am not “preaching to the choir.”

      Excuse any typos this is difficult on my iPhone and sometimes it decides what word I mean.

Please signup or login to answer this question.

Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!