EPA regulation: issue or non-issue?

With the upcoming 2012 election, a lot of questions pertaining to the economy and foreign policies are being thrown at the republican candidates. There are many news articles and editorials covering different views and beliefs of these and other “hot button” issues. However, very few of these reports and editorials focus on the possible change in environmental regulation after the upcoming election. In an editorial posted by the L.A. Times, titled A GOP assault on environmental regulation, the author argues that environmental regulation is heading for change. The author claims that Congress, which is currently run by republicans, is the “most anti-environmental it has been in history.” He proves this point by bringing up the fact that the GOP is in united opposition of environmental regulation. Currently, the democratically controlled senate and President Obama are ready to strike down any of the more extreme ideas presented by the “anti-environmental” Congress. The author points out that the house has approved HR 2401 and HR 2681.

HR 2401 forces the Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, to examine the impact of its regulations on the economy. It puts the issue of cost above the economic benefit from improving public health, and scientific evidence of hurtful health effects of emissions on humans. HR2401 indefinitely blocks the EPA’s effort to remove or reduce deadly pollution from mercury and soot among others. HR 2681 stops the EPA’s efforts to crack down on the emissions created by cement kilns. Cement kilns are a major source of the pollution of mercury which has serious health effects especially in pregnant women and children. The author also mentions, HR 2250, which is expected to be approved by the House. HR 2250 blocks the EPA from putting industrial boilers up to tougher standards. Industrial boilers are a large source of the mercury, arsenic, and lead pollutions.  

Although the author shows some democratic values and loyalties by the way he refers to republicans in a negative tone, he never is radically democratic or over the top with his arguments. This makes the article easier to read and relate to. His values and beliefs would be popular among the environmentally conscious and people who are leaning, even slightly, towards the democratic side of the spectrum. While the author’s name is not displayed, his descriptions and evaluations accurately compare to other sources. The author also uses logic and promotes a sense of environmental responsibility to connect with the readers.

I agree with many of the author’s statements and can understand the point of view that this author presents. I share his concern with preserving the environment and keeping pollution at minimal levels. I do not believe that the EPA should be on the GOP’s list of issues to address. Protection of the environment, which is our home, is vital and getting rid of or altering it could be detrimental. There are many other issues today that actually need to be addressed such as bank bailouts and taxation.