By Robert Bradley Jr.
“Kudos to CEI for its unwavering dedication to principled scholarship in its long, oft-ignored fight against junk science and creeping Statism in energy and environmental issues. Their time has finally come to be on offense–and at the pinnacle of political power that they want to diminish.”
A reform movement has begun to revamp the politicized, off-track U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a scholarly think/do tank, has just released Modernizing the EPA: A Blueprint for Congress (website here) to raise the debate for intellectuals, the public, and lawmakers.
CEI’s blueprint just begins a long-term project on EPA reform. Why? As the press release explains:
The EPA arguably has the largest regulatory effect on the lives of everyday Americans compared to other federal agencies. According to the Office of Management and Budget, more than half of all federal regulatory costs can be attributed to the EPA. The agency’s regulations often concern matters of vast political and economic significance that go way beyond what Congress ever wanted the agency to address.
Continuing:
“The EPA is supposed to protect the nation’s environment but instead uses this mission as a means to regulate major portions of the economy and affect how we live our lives,” CEI’s Director of the Center for Energy & Environment and Senior Fellow Daren Bakst said. “This can be seen by its recent rules to help kill off gas-powered cars and to shift electricity generation from reliable sources (coal and natural gas) to unreliable sources (wind and solar).”
The major recommendations follow (verbatim):
- Requiring the agency to consider all relevant factors when deciding whether to regulate;
- Acknowledging the current environment’s state;
- Prohibiting agency action outside of what was authorized or intended by Congress;
- Respecting the rule of law, private property rights, and due process;
- Only making regulatory decisions based on transparent science that is open to challenge;
- Reasonably evaluating and assessing risk; and
- Respecting the role of states in protecting the environment.
Marlo Lewis, one the study authors, urges an end to EPA mission creep and overreach, with a new focus “on environmental protection” instead of “act[ing] like a central planner for the entire economy.”
The new study, in CEI’s words,
provides significant background and context on the long list of specific legislative recommendations that have been included. “Our goal in developing the book is to provide a strong foundation for making changes to the EPA, including legislative changes to the underlying statutes that it administers,” said Bakst. “The recommendations are intended to be specific and concrete and able to be turned into legislative solutions.”
The call to action needs a movement of fellow groups and individuals who want pure air and water, not Malthusian, Deep Ecology diversions.
While all-encompassing reforms to the EPA may take some time to accomplish, CEI, through Modernizing the EPA, will advocate for such necessary and important agency reforms. In accomplishing this objective, CEI recognizes the importance of working with like-minded organizations and individuals. “We want to work with legislators, the public, think tanks, and quite simply anyone, to modernize this agency,” said Bakst. “The book is just the start of this important fight.”
Final Comment
As someone who has watched and admired CEI for many decades, it is gratifying to see the latest priority begin. Kudos to CEI for its unwavering dedication to principled scholarship in its long, oft-ignored fight against junk science and creeping Statism in energy and environmental issues. Their time has finally come to be on offense–and at the pinnacle of political power that they want to diminish.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“The EPA is supposed to protect the nation’s environment “
And it does… from human activity. Rewilding was all the rage until recently.
Yeah pay attention to serious environmental risks numpties-
Watch flames tear through car after it ‘exploded’ in motorway tunnel near Heathrow Airport sparking huge delays | The Sun
Exclusive: Terrifying moment ANOTHER Mercedes EV spontaneously EXPLODES | MGUY Australia
Disestablish EPA. Having it as a separate entity has a “special prosecutor” mindset, where the environment can never be “clean” enough, and all other considerations are irrelevant to The Cause.
That is not to say that some of what the EPA does is not needed, just that it should not be done by a separate entity. Interior, maybe?
Most of what Richard Nixon did had bad consequences, from the EPA to the Wars on Cancer or Drugs.
EPA operates under the “if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail” philosophy.
They have a concept enshrined in regulation of “best available technology,” or BAT. So you can have a permit allowing discharge of certain effluents with a treatment plant you have already built and they can come back at the next permit renewal and lower the limits because a technology at another plant has had lower discharges. It does not matter if the other plant uses different source materials and uses totally different equipment. And these treatments they establish discharge limits on are often experimental with few data points and are not in wide use across the country.
What a crock.
The person who popularized that comment was Massad Ayoob, a firearms trainer. One should look for other alternatives than shooting your immediate problem.
While opinions about Nixon vary, the EPA when it first started had a valid purpose.
It achieved that purpose and bureaucratic creep has been ongoing since.
“and creeping
StatismSatanism in energy and environmental issues”fixed it 🙂
“The major recommendations follow”
Most important of all is having the right people in charge.
No chance…. in the UK
Shutter the EPA. States can regulate as they like.
Centralized power attracts collectivists and psychopaths. They invariably impose a self-serving control. The EPA cannot fail to become corrupt.
And, in the US, bureaucratic regulation with the power of law is unconstitutional. Congress had no right under the Constitution to assign its legislative powers to fiat bureaucracies.
“ States can regulate as they like.”
Unlike the member states of the EU. Well, they can do it their way as long as they achieve the exact same result – handed down by EU Directive. Eg Natura 2000
The EPA already had its wings clipped by the major questions doctrine in WV v EPA. DOGE can clean it further out under Lee Zeldin. Next comes the enablement finding, via a process outlined here by Francis Menton’s guest post.
enablement finding (seems you gots patent on the brain) 🙂
Very nice. While all of this is taking place EPA grant making authority and funding must be withdrawn. Do this and EPA will see the benefit of a little humility.
The first official Arbor Day took place on April 10th, 1872. It is estimated that on this inaugural Arbor Day, Nebraskans celebrated by planting more than one million trees. The occasion fulfilled the dream of J. Sterling Morton, a newspaper editor and former governor of the Nebraska Territory. Morton, an ardent proponent of forestation, lobbied for a holiday to encourage the planting of trees. According to the National Arbor Day Foundation, counties and individuals that planted the most trees were awarded prizes.
When I was 8 years old [1950] the rural school I attended celebrated Arbor day and planted a Tree, along the lines of the original Arbor day. The whole event was about saving the Environment, flora and fauna. Once the Enroventamilist’s switched from protecting the earth to preventing the expansion of Nuclear power the world went to . . . . [beep]
“Only making regulatory decisions based on transparent science that is open to challenge”
This is a biggy. EPA has relied on the “Harvard Six Cities Study” (HSCS) to support all of their PM 2.5 regulation and has never allowed outside review of the data and study details. They even went to the Supreme Court where they got a favorable ruling based primarily on the argument that they couldn’t reveal participants personal information. No one on the other side ever asked for anything but properly “blinded” data,.
In any case the HSCS was used many times to project increased deaths of ~40,000/yr due to any PM2.5 source EPA chose to regulate. So the same cohort of vulnerable people would have died several times had EPA not instituted strict new regulations. To top it off, the HSCS apparently only concluded that there was an “association” with particulate pollution and health effects. If anyone competent ever gets the complete data it will no doubt be thoroughly shredded.
EPA has been conducting a massive pseudoscience scam for decades. It’s time to end it.
I was just looking on doge.com at their more recent activities. Looks like they cancelled or set a maximum purchase limit of $1 on 88% of their 1036 charge cards and the same with all 7000 of their travel cards. That should slow them down for a while!