Well, in my opinion the true motives of any politician are dubious, but in this case it seems to be to cut any money the EPA would use to inhibit greenhouse gasses. We are in massive debt and this could be a plan to lower the deficit. The representatives involved are trying to take away the EPA’s permission to monitor CO2 emissions, seeing this as harmful to American jobs.
The thing to realize with CO2 is that it is the cleanest by-product of a combustion based process. The only way to cut down on CO2 emissions if you are already fully efficient is to lower production or spend multitudes of money on inefficient carbon capturing technology. While I do not know how strict the EPA’s carbon controls are, it does seem more fair to work on changing the process rather than punish those who do not have other competitive options.
It’s all about priorities – because of our massive debt, the government needs to cut expenditures somewhere. (It doesn’t really matter if cutting the EPA’s budget will actually help with the debt or not, but it looks good if the government is cutting somewhere.) This move would appeal to the republican voter base who, very generally speaking, see environmental protection as a low priority and therefore a logical place to cut spending. There are other factor involved, too, like what mrraccoon said about the EPA’s regulations being harmful to jobs.
The Republicans are trying to cut the budget of 70 programs. Multiple EPA programs are on the list, as are healthcare programs, arts programs, research programs, and regulation programs. Guess what isn’t on the list? Cuts to the national defense budget. I think that Sfincher is right, that it’s all about priorities.
I think this is pretty simple. Republicans are trying to cut as much as they can, or that they feel comfortable with cutting. They feel that all the EPA is doing is putting more and more regulations on the businesses, and thereby limiting people’s choices. I adamantly disagree, but that is what I think they are thinking behind the cutting of EPAs budget.
This subject was touched on previously on greenanswers.com – it has a lot to do with the war over energy subsidies. Obama believes energy subsidies should be reserved for alternative energy sources other than oil, and most republicans believe that this is anti-capitalistic.
A modern Republican favors less government and less spending. When faced with significant economic adversity, some programs viewed as sub-optimal in terms of purpose and efficacy are at risk. The EPA was actually founded by President Nixon, and while Republicans may not prioritize environmental issues as much as Democrats generally do, it’s not an attempt to circumvent the system and allow corporations to run wild – it’s an attempt to alleviate a terrible debt crisis. Some Republicans feel the EPA is no longer the agency it was at its inception and an example of a bloated government; that’s inaccurate, but unfortunately it requires a lot of money and is an easy target.
Click here to cancel reply.
Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!
Don't have an account? Click Here to Signup
© Copyright GreenAnswers.com LLC