Leaked Document: Deep EPA Climate Budget Cuts Looming

epa-logo[1]

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Fox News claim a leaked EPA draft budget proposal document promises deep cuts to the EPA budget, particularly climate related activities. But the Heartland Institute think the reported cuts don’t go far enough.

Environmental programs face deep cuts under budget proposal

Published March 03, 2017

WASHINGTON – The Trump administration would slash programs aimed at slowing climate change and improving water safety and air quality, while eliminating thousands of jobs, according to a draft of the Environmental Protection Agency budget proposal obtained by The Associated Press.

Under the tentative plan from the Office of Management and Budget, the agency’s funding would be reduced by roughly 25 percent and about 3,000 jobs would be cut, about 19 percent of the agency’s staff.

The draft proposal would cut the EPA’s annual budget from about $8.2 billion to $6.1 billion. Proposed cuts include reducing the climate protection budget by nearly 70 percent to $29 million, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative by 97 percent to $10 million and environmental justice programs by 79 percent to $1.5 million.

Also targeted for steep spending rollbacks are the agency’s monitoring and enforcement of compliance with environmental laws, as well as regional projects intended to benefit degraded areas such as the Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound and the Gulf of Mexico. A program dealing with San Francisco Bay that received $4.8 million last year would be eliminated, as would initiatives for reducing diesel emissions and beach water quality testing.

But the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, said the proposal didn’t go far enough.

“If Donald Trump and Scott Pruitt are serious about ending the national scandal that is EPA, they will accept nothing less than a 20 percent cut this year and make this year’s cut the first step in a five-year plan to replace the organization,” said Joseph Bast, the group’s president.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/03/environmental-programs-face-deep-cuts-under-budget-proposal.html

I don’t think there is any acceptable compromise on this issue. Any cut to the EPA budget will upset greens and Democrat supporters. No cut to the EPA budget will upset Trump supporters, many of whom are utterly fed up with excessive EPA interference in their lives. A lightweight cut to the EPA budget would upset everyone.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
204 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 4, 2017 2:34 pm

An 80% cut to the EPA would still leave them 20% to waste on political diversions.

gbm
March 4, 2017 4:06 pm

For instance, Russ Zimmer was named a PRP for a Superfund site at a battery cracking plant in Torrington, Wyoming. His contribution to the problem? He sold a bag of dog food in 1977 and a bag of seed in 1984, and took a third-party check as payment for the items. Since the checks had issued by the now-bankrupt company that had owned the battery cracking plant, Zimmer was sued as a PRP by another company caught in CERCLA’s liability scheme. Zimmer decided, on advice of counsel, that he should settle to avoid even more in legal costs. He agreed pay $3,500.19

from: http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/how-rescue-superfund-bringing-common-sense-the-process

EPA has been dysfunctional for a very long time.

jake
March 4, 2017 7:10 pm

I wonder who finances the subsidies for wind, solar and other (e.g. geothermal) power plants at the Fed and state governments. Eliminating those subsidies would save billions immediately and trillions soon thereafter. Similarly with the almost $10,000 in price and taxes for electric cars.

cary
March 4, 2017 7:24 pm

I was hoping for 50 percent cuts, sigh.

Johann Wundersamer
March 5, 2017 1:32 am

How did I get to finno/ugrish laapenrentaa –

Because Norge ‘Viborg’ in Finlandia is spoken

https://translate.google.de/m/translate#fi/de/viipuri

But what can a poor boy do

https://youtu.be/A_ypZLjVbFE

willhaas
March 5, 2017 1:36 am

The reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind including the EPA has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. The federal government has accumulated a huge debt and to remain solvent they must stop waisting the tax payers money. Spending money to fight climate change over which mankind has no control is a total waste of money. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.

Johann Wundersamer
March 5, 2017 1:56 am

searched for stones with nicky hopkins; lots of videos blocked in the EU.
https://youtu.be/fN6XRwnYzL4

Snarling Dolphin
March 5, 2017 7:00 am

I sure hope the former Mayor of Boulder’s job is on the list. Not that he wasn’t objective mind you. No, it’s just a funding thing you see. His name is Shaun McGrath. That’s capital S – h – a – u – n, capital M – c – capital G – r – a – t – h. Whaddya bet he lands on his political feet?

March 5, 2017 2:58 pm

It’s been an unfortunate month for the climate alarmists
Climate “Science” on Trial; A Series of Unfortunate Events
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/05/climate-science-on-trial-a-series-of-unfortunate-events/