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
On my visit to Cleveland clinic, I had in mind that Cleveland was all about drugs and medicines, like other normal procedures that am used to my day to day visit to hospital whenever am sick or escorting someone there. At Cleveland, it was beyond...Reflective-Essay-on-Cleveland-Clinic …
Read ArticleState economies have raised exceptional concern among economists. The article, ‘Alberta economy slips further on lower oil prices’, published in InFocus, is among the publications that offer an analysis of the economic conditions of given sta...Article-Analysis:-‘Alberta-economy-slips-further-on-lower-oil-prices’ …
Read ArticleAbstract The food that people eat determines who they are, and this is a popular and common saying. Food and class activities are two events that are intricately link, and in recent years, people have often tried to link lunch hour to food pat...Food-Experiment- …
Read Article