Can the EPA live up to its name? |
American industry continues to clamor for profits in the face of massive damage being done to our environment by their profiteering. Who will pay the cost?
George Bush actually attached conditions to the landmark Supreme Court ruling that the Environment Protection Agency is legally allowed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. His conditions are two:
1) That no regulation should slow the economy.
2) That we should not enact measures that will be offset by increasing emissions from China, India and other developing nations.
The first condition, may seem like a barrier, but it is actually a blessing in disguise. To address this, the EPA must begin to quantify the cost of inaction in human terms with health care dollars and in environmental terms with severe weather damage. In nearly every case, these costs will far exceed the cost of inaction with respect to raising our environmental standards. The difficulty will be the court cases that will challenge the studies that the EPA relies upon to make its regulation. Our legislative branch must encourage the judicial branch to reject such law suits and leave these arguments to the scientists.
The second condition is a preposterous statement: we are to let the actions of China, India and other developing nations dictate our environmental policy. This is wrong. We are America. We do not let third world countries tell us how to run our country. Congress must take Mr. Bush to action and pass legislation making adherence to EPA standards a requirement for our foreign trade partners to maintain their favored trade status. These countries need our trade dollars. Let's force them to invest some of those dollars in cleaner technologies.
Furthermore, the EPA must enact sweeping regulations that take into account environmental impacts at every step of the production chain.
For example, Biodiesel reduces emissions at the point of consumption; however, it greatly increases emissions at the point of production. This is because biofuels are NOT being sourced from sustainable sources. Due to the clearing and farming of palm oil for Biodiesel production in Asia for export to Europe, the production of Biodiesel releases 10 times the CO2 into our atmosphere than the production of conventional diesel fuel. While converting a few cars to run on old food oil is a great thing, planning to run an entire economy on palm oil and corn oil is a very bad idea indeed. In addition, we are using fields that would normally grow food to fuel our cars, yet millions do not have enough to eat. It is also an unethical idea. To learn more about this issue check out biofuelwatch.
For too long industry has been stripping the Earth and the atmosphere in the name of profit, disregarding the price that society will ultimately have to pay for these actions.
The EPA would be remiss not to regulate EVERY substance that affects our Environment. The EPA must live up to it's name. Protect the environment.
Protection must encompass each step of production in our economy. Because our economy is global, the EPA must be empowered to use the tools of global trade, such as import duties and favored trade status, to encourage and influence our trade partners to meet the same standards we set for ourselves.
The EPA needs to tools to force the consumer of the environment, either through the direct cost of complicity or the indirect cost of taxes and fines, to pay for the environmental resources that they have consumed to the detriment of us all.
Uncorrupted by the politics of business, the EPA would serve the noble purpose of preserving our biosphere for the enjoyment and health of this and all future generations.
Let us encourage our EPA civil servants to remember that they are serving us all in this noble cause. Please write your state and federal representatives and encourage them to empower the EPA.
George Bush actually attached conditions to the landmark Supreme Court ruling that the Environment Protection Agency is legally allowed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. His conditions are two:
1) That no regulation should slow the economy.
2) That we should not enact measures that will be offset by increasing emissions from China, India and other developing nations.
The first condition, may seem like a barrier, but it is actually a blessing in disguise. To address this, the EPA must begin to quantify the cost of inaction in human terms with health care dollars and in environmental terms with severe weather damage. In nearly every case, these costs will far exceed the cost of inaction with respect to raising our environmental standards. The difficulty will be the court cases that will challenge the studies that the EPA relies upon to make its regulation. Our legislative branch must encourage the judicial branch to reject such law suits and leave these arguments to the scientists.
The second condition is a preposterous statement: we are to let the actions of China, India and other developing nations dictate our environmental policy. This is wrong. We are America. We do not let third world countries tell us how to run our country. Congress must take Mr. Bush to action and pass legislation making adherence to EPA standards a requirement for our foreign trade partners to maintain their favored trade status. These countries need our trade dollars. Let's force them to invest some of those dollars in cleaner technologies.
Furthermore, the EPA must enact sweeping regulations that take into account environmental impacts at every step of the production chain.
For example, Biodiesel reduces emissions at the point of consumption; however, it greatly increases emissions at the point of production. This is because biofuels are NOT being sourced from sustainable sources. Due to the clearing and farming of palm oil for Biodiesel production in Asia for export to Europe, the production of Biodiesel releases 10 times the CO2 into our atmosphere than the production of conventional diesel fuel. While converting a few cars to run on old food oil is a great thing, planning to run an entire economy on palm oil and corn oil is a very bad idea indeed. In addition, we are using fields that would normally grow food to fuel our cars, yet millions do not have enough to eat. It is also an unethical idea. To learn more about this issue check out biofuelwatch.
For too long industry has been stripping the Earth and the atmosphere in the name of profit, disregarding the price that society will ultimately have to pay for these actions.
The EPA would be remiss not to regulate EVERY substance that affects our Environment. The EPA must live up to it's name. Protect the environment.
Protection must encompass each step of production in our economy. Because our economy is global, the EPA must be empowered to use the tools of global trade, such as import duties and favored trade status, to encourage and influence our trade partners to meet the same standards we set for ourselves.
The EPA needs to tools to force the consumer of the environment, either through the direct cost of complicity or the indirect cost of taxes and fines, to pay for the environmental resources that they have consumed to the detriment of us all.
Uncorrupted by the politics of business, the EPA would serve the noble purpose of preserving our biosphere for the enjoyment and health of this and all future generations.
Let us encourage our EPA civil servants to remember that they are serving us all in this noble cause. Please write your state and federal representatives and encourage them to empower the EPA.
posted by Figure it out at
5:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home