EPA witch hunts on taxpayer dime

President Obama has made it pretty clear to his environmental extremist friends that during his second term, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will pursue a more aggressive, wider-reaching agenda than it has to date. That’s a very troubling prospect. Not only has EPA Director Lisa P. Jackson’s agency been wildly and needlessly intrusive into the private sector during the past four years, but its agenda increasingly has been based less and less on science and data and more and more on conjecture and hyperbole. Thus, Mrs. Jackson’s EPA has become almost indistinguishable — in a policy sense — from the environmental groups to which it panders. Science suffers as a result.

Patrick Moore, one of Greenpeace’s founding fathers, has been an unabashed critic of today’s environmental extremists and their abandonment of science. Environmental journalist Fred Pearce, no friend to industry by any means, recently posed the question: “Why are Environmentalists Taking Anti-Science Positions?” in a scathing column published at Yale Environment 360. Environmental groups have thus clearly embarked on a path that leads further away from reality with every step. They are free to make this choice, of course, and they surely will continue to make themselves increasingly irrelevant as a result of that choice. But why on earth would an organization like the EPA follow those groups down such a dangerous road? The answer can only involve politics or ignorance — or some combination thereof. The answer, however, surely doesn’t involve science as those of us trained in the sciences understand the term.

Central to the EPA’s anti-science approach is the virtual abandonment of sound risk assessments when considering potential environmental contaminants. Before the Obama administration, the EPA was consistent when evaluating risk. To oversimplify a complex process, pre-Obama EPA’s risk assessment involved prioritization and quantification: Identify those things that could present a substantial risk to a large population or part of the environment and then come up with cost-effective ways to reduce that risk. In other words, there was a presumption that some risks aren’t worth worrying about because they are just too tiny, and attempting to further reduce those risks would be a poor use of economic resources. Scientists associated with the EPA, the regulatory world and environmental groups spent a great deal of time and money coming up with frameworks and methodologies designed to separate those risks worth addressing from phantom risks.

Read more at The Washington Times. By Rich Trzupek.

Photo credit: Rainforest Action Network (Creative Commons)

Comments

  1. I ask my grand daughter what green was. She answered to recycle the stuff. I ask her why?
    she said because they say we have to do this. Yes we need to recyle things .But they tell us
    we have to buy new because they have made cheap products that can not be fixed. that makes more
    junk to be trown away. when you have to pay 2000 or more dollars for washer and dryer you
    should get the use of it for a life time. refigerators used to last a long time could be repaired
    and still be used. eployed more people with jobs. now because of the EPA and unions and big government it is a crime almost to breath. If not stopped they will suck the ocgen out for the air and save it for just the people in EPA. they need to be stopped and put away so theycan not do any more harm. along with all the scocialst communest people control freaks. GOD BLESS YOU ALL

  2. Congress… democrats and republicans, you are allowing your legislative powers to be stripped from you at a rapid rate. There should be NO EPA mandates or third party suits that allow the EPA to not only make the assumption that said suits are valid ,but to fund the third party's pursueing said suit. These actions by pass congressional oversight and have cost the tax payer and all businesses a fortune…All of it ill conceived ,much of it fraudulent in nature, and with the EPA's analysis many times biased to the extreme. Congress if you fail to react in a bi-partisan manner to recognize and protect your country from an agenda that will surely destroy our great nation… Then your "party first" tunnel vision will not only cripple our nation ,but you Mr. / Mrs Senator and or Representative may soon find that indeed you no longer wield any power,as you have allowed it all to be usurped by the executive branch and it's tendrils. " If you don't use it you lose it "

Speak Your Mind

Connect with Facebook

*