The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was
initiated in the year 1970 under the reign of the then President Richard Nixon.
At the time, the agency had only 4,000 employees and was allocated a budget of
$1 billion to make the American environment and air clean again. Fast-forward
47 years later, the agency prides itself with over 15,000 employees and is now
mandated to deal with a wide array of environmental activities including
nuclear wastes and even mercury spills in high school science laboratories.
EPA’s budget currently stands at $ 8 billion. Paradoxically, some members of
the Congress want EPA to be eliminated. A bill to terminate this controversial
Agency by the end of 2018 was proposed earlier this year by Rep. Matt Gaetz
(Somers). This paper will focus on the pros and cons of EPA’s policy which
restricts construction of power plants in a bid to curb the emission of CO2.
EPA was established in an era when there was
high concern over environmental pollution. Ever since its inception, EPA has
been the only agency that consolidates all federal research, the setting of
standards, monitoring, and enforcement of set standards to protect the
environment. Besides heavy criticism, EPA has worked hard to ensure Americans
have a cleaner and healthier environment. From increasing recycling to cleaning
up toxic wastes; from protecting the ozone layer to regulating emissions, all
the agency has accomplished has resulted in purer water, better land and
cleaner air ("EPA History: Agency
Accomplishments | US EPA"). All these achievements could be said
to be the merits of EPA’s policies.
However, EPA faces stiff opposition due to some
of its regulations. One of these regulations is the policy that limits
construction of power plants to reduce the emission of CO2. The law is a
hindrance to utility companies since they cannot be able to build new power
plants. For this reason, Americans have ended up having less electricity.
Residents of California have fallen victims with their utility rates
skyrocketing from 500% to 600% within a year. Another drawback is that the
policy limits economic growth and peoples use of their property and resources.
Small business owners are crying foul since they cannot afford to pay for the
costs associated with compliance which results in closure and unemployment.
Furthermore, EPA’s overregulation is a great barrier to entry into markets and
is a great expense to businesses trying to stay competitive
(Lehr). Americans are looking forward to Trump’s government to revamp the EPA
policy.
Additional articles
Nativism is the policy of shielding the interests of native inhabitants or recognized inhabitants against those of immigrants. In common, a nativism is a form of ethnocentrism that considers preceding residence in a nation or region to constitute ...New-Nativism …
Read ArticleParenting is not a simple task, as I’ve come to learn over the years. Whereas most of us parents focus on the physical and emotional elements of development in our children, we tend to forget that we also have to develop and promote their intell...Parenting-Factors …
Read ArticleThe Taliban is an Islamic and political movement in Afghanistan and also parts of Pakistan that have been waging an insurgency or jihad within Afghanistan. The Taliban held the power of the country from 1996 to 2001 and is famous for its strict im...The-Taliban's-impact-on-Pakistan's-and-Afghanistan's-government,-military,-religion,-and-people …
Read Article