2007-07-23 10:04:12 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Other - Environment
Nope. That poor agency has been taken out at the knees. Budget cuts and presidential censorship has plagued the EPA since its creation.
2007-07-23 10:09:03 · answer #1 · answered by Gwenilynd 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The answer is no, but this is a yes and no answer. Several points:
1. USA environmental laws are the toughest in the world and enforcement and inspections are some of the best. Therefore, a large part of the world needs to improve before you criticize EPA.
2. No matter what you hope, economics is a big component of what EPA is allowed to do. If EPA implemented everything people wanted right now, over 90% of the remaining US industry would go off shore. The best way to protect the environment is to keep industry in the USA and American workers employed.
3. EPA is also limited by the people of the USA. A simple example is sewage. Pollution could almost be eliminated from this source. Problem, the cost for people would go from $100 per family for water per month to $1000 per month (numbers are only for example). People have shown for many years, they are not willing to pay for such cleanup levels.
Yes, EPA can do more. But you have to think about who will do it, who will pay for it, the economics and the impact on the economy, and lastly not everyone will agree what needs to be done.
2007-07-23 23:23:22 · answer #2 · answered by Peter Boiter Woods 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends. The EPA was able to pass legislation in the 70s that started the US on a good clean up of hazardous wastes and ensuring improved air and water. RCRA, SARA, CERCLA, CWA, CAA, TSCA, etc. It does better than some countries, but not as well as most EU countries. The recent administration has hindered the EPA. Hopefully a change will make it better.
Yes the EPA can do better, but it is doing a decent job.
2007-07-23 18:54:42 · answer #3 · answered by kenny J 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It doesn´t matter if the EPA has been dismantled during the last decade.
As soon as a new government is elected in the US, foreign environmental consulting companies (mostly Europeans) will go to the US and contract the required studies.
This will keep the cost of environmental protection low and the size of the state low (as Rep like it) and protect in an efficient manner the environment (as Dem like it).
The EPA does mostly programs and most of them can be subcontracted. No need to rebuild quickly a huge EPA.
The EU does not have such a huge mega-agency and is doing fine.
2007-07-23 17:21:55 · answer #4 · answered by NLBNLB 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not even close. For goodness sakes, the Supreme Court had to tell them to either start regulating CO2 emissions or give a good reason why they weren't. That's just ridiculous - the EPA should be taking the initiative on environmental issues like this, not dragging their feet and being forced into action by the Supreme Court!
2007-07-23 17:19:47 · answer #5 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One thing our great government could do would be to curtail unnecessary flights by political leaders around and around the globe. How much does it cost every time Bush goes to Texas or Kinnebunkport et. al.? Isn't there already enough media coverage to be able to cut back on personal visits?
2007-07-23 18:00:07 · answer #6 · answered by marie m 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
in
Australia Queensland they are the most useless mob is morons out they are part of the reason we have a problem
2007-07-25 04:49:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not likely. When was the LAST time you heard of ANY Government Agency- doing "enough" of ANYTHING- for ANYONE??! -I rest my case. :)
2007-07-23 18:57:05 · answer #8 · answered by Joseph, II 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They are doing more than enough, probably too much.
2007-07-23 19:08:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
nope. they should be pushing for better mpg ratings
2007-07-23 20:31:37 · answer #10 · answered by palladin727 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋