Pros And Cons Of The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

It seems as if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been avoiding encounters with people who are fighting for environmental justice. However, there may be an underlying reason why the EPA is not putting effort into these environmental problems. Over the years, the EPA has experienced budget cuts, this has resulted in the loss of jobs and programs. When money is not readily available, the amount of money that is available is usually conserved and only used when necessary. It does not look as if they are the reason why majority of the issues are not be taken care of. Based on my understanding of the article, it seems as if the EPA is working at the will of the government. The people working in the agency are responsible for doing their

Greenpeace started in 1969 when a group of Vancouver -area environmentalists gathered in establishing the “Don’t Make a Wave Committee” (Rex Weyler, 2004). “This committee was founded in response by the frustrated Sierra Club members, because the organization they felt an affinity with, refused to protest against nuclear weapons testing” (Lee, 1995: 8).

The U.S. submitted its INDC to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level by 2025. With this plan, the U.S. has several laws related to its environmental policies. Among them, these are main four Acts (Korea Institute of Energy Research [KIER], 2016a): The Energy Policy Act established in 1992 was to secure energy security and revised in 2005 to decrease the reliance on oil and coal energy; The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) legislated in 2007 due to the necessity for energy independence caused by the unstable Middle East and high oil prices, so President Bush announced the 'Twenty in Ten Initiative ' that aimed to reduce 20% of the gasoline consumption by 2017; The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was enacted in 2009 as one of the reflationary measures, and this included $8.5 billion investment for energy-related policies; The Clean Air Act (CAA), made in 1970, regulated the atmospheric pollution sources and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used CAA to restrict the greenhouse gas.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency or EPA was initially proposed in 1970 by then President Richard Nixon. The agency was created to build on other environmental regulations enacted by the federal government and to consolidate those efforts to be managed by one government agency. It was also a reaction to the public’s growing concern over pollution and other environmental issues. Chemical waste was commonly released into bodies of water creating unsafe drinking water and rivers catching fire. Industrial air pollution, such as acid rain and smog, was also affecting manufacturing cities with coal-powered plants. There was little serious regulation on pollution until major environment laws started being passed by Congress in the early sixties.

Solar power offers the creation of energy using a renewable, natural resource and has no long-term effect on the environment. Fracking helps to create energy from a nonrenewable, natural resource and has been shown to have the potential for irreversible damage to the environment. How energy is supplied to the US consumer remains a topic for debate. The impact on the environment as well as the health of the citizens of the U.S. should be considered by lawmakers regulating both industries. While energy independence has become a goal of the American government, the cost of attaining this goal should be weighed against the benefits with a high level of

The PR firms expound the virtues of natural gas and would have us to believe “the negative side-effects caused by fracking are insignificant” (Larson 2). They rattle off information on how natural gas is a clean burning source of energy and how it is now responsible for 30% of electricity production, as well as heating in half of the homes in U.S.; therefore lessening our dependency on foreign suppliers. All positives attributes, granted, but at the end of the day fracking is a business; big business whose primary focus is keeping their shareholders happy with increase revenue. Unfortunately in their quest to make the almighty dollar, they are putting human lives as well as the environment at risk with the use of chemicals that are toxic, some are known carcinogens. To add insult to injury, the government, who is supposed to protect the interests of all, as opposed to the interests of a few, granted the energy companies an exemption from the laws meant to provide protection to humans as well as two irreplaceable resources, water and air. Granting this exemption is a clear indication that public health and the preservation of local ecology were less of a priority than making a profit.

California is the third largest in fuel consumption on earth, behind the U.S. and all of China, and with this demand needing to be met and a diminishing supply of fossil fuels, comes the rise of a new revolution, natural gas. With the start of the industrial revolution came the beginning of the use of fossil fuels. Thus, making the United States overly dependent on a limited resource that was also harming our environment. Over the past few decade, nations around the world have realized that the finite amount of fossil fuels is coming to an end, and our need for alternative fuel and energy sources is growing. We have experimented with different types of resources, one of them being natural gas. Natural gas has been a

In the absence of federal legislation, states have the liberty to address climate change and formulate policies that mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Texas and California have similar deregulated energy markets and economic goals, yet have pursued different policies, providing a fitting opportunity for Texas to analyze, compare and consider California’s comprehensive law and regulations designed to mitigate GHG emissions. Key focus areas include electricity generation and use , transportation, and industry . Given the comprehensive focus of energy policies, this report specifically emphasizes electricity generation and use. ,

Improved air quality wasn’t a subject of national concern until the mid 1900s. After decades of coal burning, unregulated gas emissions from cars and the excessive burning of fossil fuels, people started noticing bad air quality as a hazard to their lives. Over several decades, after seeing the costly effects air pollution was having on the environment and people’s health, interest groups like the Friends of The Earth club and the influences of Theodore Roosevelt and Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring finally came together to persuade the government to enforce legislation that would reduce air pollution. Because of these efforts, the policies of the Clean Air Act of 1963 and the Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Act of 1965, that aimed to control air pollution and raise air quality standards, helped create the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on December 2, 1970. Since then, the EPA has passed more air quality improvement acts, and amendments to previous acts passed, to increase restrictions on air pollutants, with their main policy concern being the Clean Air Act. Improved air quality acts imposed by the EPA have been successful in cleaning the United States’ air quality by reducing ground-level ozone pollution and reducing emissions, allowing for a decrease in pollution related deaths/illnesses and a better standard of living. The EPA, through regulations and the Clean Air Act, has delivered it’s promise to improve air quality in the United States.

In the article “A Unified West Coast,” investigative reporter and author Arun Gupta presents the unification of California as a model to build towards a net-zero emission. To reach net-zero emission and prevent later environmental issues, Gupta explains politicians and leaders must grasp the power of the monopolistic energy companies. He says that once politicians begin resisting the use of fossil fuels and the harm that they bring, communities all over will continue to form and support the progress towards a cleaner world.

By the year 2020, the Amendments to the Clean Air Act passed in 1990 will have prevented 230,000 early deaths, and saved the country around 2 trillion dollars. This is compared to the costs of the amendments, which the EPA calculated to be approximately 65 billion dollars. The study does not just stop at the monetary benefits and costs, but it also even dives into the number of prevented emergency room visits, and lost work and school days. With all of this information, the EPA makes it very clear the countless benefits to the United States that the Clean Air Act Amendments are having and will have in the

The EPA works hand in hand with each state to organize and plan varies types of federal environmental programs. Each state is given the authority to oversee the federal programs as along as they encompass laws and guidelines that are at least as strict as the federal laws that are in place. The EPA has to have constant contact with state officials in order to develop health, agricultural and environmental protocols for any studies that may need improvement to meet the necessary requirements for decreasing toxics or pollution. Even though the state has control over certain aspects of the Clean Air Act they still have to comply with federal laws that are in place regarding any drinking water, storm water, waste water or solid

The EPA (Environmental protection agency) is considering an attempt to pass through a ban on modifying all performance parts that are installed/applied onto vehicles from their manufacturer.

In 1990 the Clean Air Act 1990 was created as recent advancements and awareness were aiding people in noticing what impacts greenhouse gasses were contributing to acid rain and noticed that sulfur from coal plants were contributing to this problem. The goal of the policy was to reduce the total national SO2 emissions to half of what they were during 1990. The Clean Air Act allowed companies to produce a certain amount of emission per year, and this number varied as it depended on the amount of energy that the company supplied to their customers.

The Clean Air Act (CAA) is a law that regulates air emissions from mobile and stationary sources. This law is comprehensive federal that authorize the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect people’s health and welfare and to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants (The United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA, 2015). The title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA) states the general requirements for states to submit Strategic Investment Programs to achieve and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the EPA 's actions regarding approval of those SIPs. On July 7, 2014, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a submittal from