Guest Op-Ed: Looking Into The Proposed EPA Budget Cuts.
Looking Into The Proposed EPA budget cuts
By Nicholas Scott
A recent proposal to cut even further from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget is dividing lines and pitting a debate of health risks against increased employment and reduced gas prices. The proposed budget cut would eliminate around a third of the EPA’s 2010 budget. This would likely mean a cut down on some of the EPA’s major actions such as the Clean Air Act and examining water contamination regularly, amongst other issues. While those in favor of the cuts see business monetary gains and jobs as a result, members of the EPA see the cuts resulting in major health risks.
Some of the major reasons behind the backing of the budget cuts are flailing business, involving many factories and power plants. A large amount of big-time business leaders have been extremely outspoken on the fact that EPA regulations are costing them too much money. A major issue that many of these major business owners have with the EPA involves the plan to regulate gas emissions from plants, refineries, and factories.
By giving these companies more freedom with the emissions, there would likely be an increase in revenue, as well as more jobs being produced. Backers are even questioning whether or not these types of emissions are responsible for pollution in the first place. For example, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma was quoted as saying “Carbon is not pollution no matter what the EPA says." He also went on to clear up that the goal is not to pollute, saying that “Nobody here is saying let's not have clean water and clean air.” Certainly the end goal of the backers of the budget cuts is to increase revenue and jobs for these types of businesses.
While employment could certainly see a rise with the budget cut, the EPA’s view of the health risks involved shouldn’t be taken lightly either. The Environmental Protection Agency’s administrator Lisa Jackson sees a major problem with the cuts, saying "Big polluters would flout legal restrictions on dumping contaminants into the air, into rivers, and onto the ground."
With a third of the budget cut and reduced resources for the EPA, the control of air pollution and air quality would certainly be at risk. Air quality and pollution are certainly two of the major initiatives of the Environmental Protection Agency at this time. An increase in pollution and bad air quality would likely see an increase in health risks such as mesothelioma, asthma, respiratory problems and other possible major health risks. A severe end result could even be risking lives. For example, mesothelioma life expectancy is usually only a year after diagnosis.
These proposed budget cuts should be carefully studied and calculated with the end result protecting and helping the people of America. Given where each side is coming from, it’s certainly a give and take issue that has merits to each side. While an increase in employment and reduced gas prices are certainly appealing to Americans right now, the possible long term health risks are also not to be taken lightly.
By Nicholas Scott
A recent proposal to cut even further from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget is dividing lines and pitting a debate of health risks against increased employment and reduced gas prices. The proposed budget cut would eliminate around a third of the EPA’s 2010 budget. This would likely mean a cut down on some of the EPA’s major actions such as the Clean Air Act and examining water contamination regularly, amongst other issues. While those in favor of the cuts see business monetary gains and jobs as a result, members of the EPA see the cuts resulting in major health risks.
Some of the major reasons behind the backing of the budget cuts are flailing business, involving many factories and power plants. A large amount of big-time business leaders have been extremely outspoken on the fact that EPA regulations are costing them too much money. A major issue that many of these major business owners have with the EPA involves the plan to regulate gas emissions from plants, refineries, and factories.
By giving these companies more freedom with the emissions, there would likely be an increase in revenue, as well as more jobs being produced. Backers are even questioning whether or not these types of emissions are responsible for pollution in the first place. For example, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma was quoted as saying “Carbon is not pollution no matter what the EPA says." He also went on to clear up that the goal is not to pollute, saying that “Nobody here is saying let's not have clean water and clean air.” Certainly the end goal of the backers of the budget cuts is to increase revenue and jobs for these types of businesses.
While employment could certainly see a rise with the budget cut, the EPA’s view of the health risks involved shouldn’t be taken lightly either. The Environmental Protection Agency’s administrator Lisa Jackson sees a major problem with the cuts, saying "Big polluters would flout legal restrictions on dumping contaminants into the air, into rivers, and onto the ground."
With a third of the budget cut and reduced resources for the EPA, the control of air pollution and air quality would certainly be at risk. Air quality and pollution are certainly two of the major initiatives of the Environmental Protection Agency at this time. An increase in pollution and bad air quality would likely see an increase in health risks such as mesothelioma, asthma, respiratory problems and other possible major health risks. A severe end result could even be risking lives. For example, mesothelioma life expectancy is usually only a year after diagnosis.
These proposed budget cuts should be carefully studied and calculated with the end result protecting and helping the people of America. Given where each side is coming from, it’s certainly a give and take issue that has merits to each side. While an increase in employment and reduced gas prices are certainly appealing to Americans right now, the possible long term health risks are also not to be taken lightly.
Labels: General information
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 7:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home