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
It is another year when all writers whether working as part of an organization or individually from the state of Seattle get a chance to showcase their talents through their written work. Each year all writers in Seattle meet at the Seattle Writi...MyPaperHub:-2018-Essay-Writing-Service-of-The-Year! …
Read ArticleThe AMT Was initially enacted to prevent high-income taxpayers from taking advantage of tax shelters to legally avoid paying income taxes. Is this still true? What has happened to the AMT? Does it still affect only high-income taxpayers? Do you t...Alternative-Minimum-Tax-(AMT) …
Read ArticleWill Making College Free Improve America? It is common knowledge that college education is indeed one of the basic requirements for candidates to get assimilated into the job market especially for well-paying white collar jobs. Most people wou...Will-Making-College-Free-Improve-America? …
Read Article