Saturday, April 10, 2010

Time to Cut Back on EPA?

Oh, yes, Nixon left a legacy, alright.

EPA has built upon its greenhouse gas ‘finding’ (that GHGs contribute to global warming and thus constitute a hazard to public health) using an interlocked, four-pronged strategy:
  • Encourage California and other states to adopt nonstandard fuel-economy requirements.
  • Expropriate the authority of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in setting fuel-economy standards for the auto industry.
  • Take the lead on setting U.S. climate and energy policy.
  • Administratively amending the Clean Air Act (”tailoring” is the term of art) to make the Act workable for CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases it was never meant to regulate.
But this isn't 1965 anymore--except in the alleged 'minds' of the Left-0-Wackies. The air is actually cleaner, as are the waters, by and large.

It's probably time to prune EPA severely, while allowing enough of it to remain so that it can monitor and co-ordinate the activities of various State-level (and similarly focused) agencies.

Fold the remnant into Interior.

HT: RedState


neomom said...


Put a smaller EPA into Interior, put USDA into HHS and eliminate Energy, Agriculture, DHS, and Education completely. That should save us a few hundred billion per year - and that's just in regulatory savings.

Jacob said...

Neomom, I always see people mention Energy when they list departments to be abolished to save money, but I'm always at a loss as to what is so horrific about DOE.

If you were to cut Energy, where would you put all the nuclear regulatory stuff?

neomom said...

Interior - and I work in the nuke energy industry.

Al said...

The DOE was formed on 4 Aug 1977, nuclear regulation was around a long time before that.

The Nuclear Regulation Commission is an independent commission.

As an aside, the UK eliminated their DOE in 1994 & either dicontinued some functions or putting them under other bodies or departments. So, it can be done.