Feed on

Think about how passionate "E"nvironmentalists are about recycling. We are inundated with information how about recycling is essential to save the world, about how we are buried in trash, about how dangerous garbage is. Sure. OK. But think about what this means for a moment.

One of the core missions of the US Environmental Protection Agency is to ensure environmental health and safety as it pertains to air and water in regard to our rubbish disposal. In fact, the EPA has as a core mission the following responsibilities:

  • It determines the siting of landfills
  • It mandates the foundations that landfills be built with (e.g. clay)
  • It mandates the lining to be used in landfills (e.g. plastic)
  • It does not permit toxic materials to be dumped into landfills

It has other responsibilities related to this. So, if you are telling me that it is a moral and environmental imperative to make sure that nothing gets into a landfill, isn't that an admission that when it comes to one of its easiest and core responsibilities, the EPA is utterly incapable of doing it? After all, if you want to claim that there is air and ground pollution because of landfills, and the EPA has the responsibility (since 1970) for ensuring this does not happen, do you want to say that 42 years and billions of dollars and thousands of bureaucrats are not enough to get it right? And do you now think that it is a terrific idea to give these unelected bureaucrats unchecked power to regulate other parts of our environment? 

As we say regularly here at the Unbroken Window: you can't have it both ways. 

2 Responses to “Do Environmentalists Wish to Abolish the EPA?”

  1. Dan says:

    Just heard that Lisa Jackson has been making official correspondence as “Richard Windsor” via a personal email account. These bureaucrats want their power to be both unchecked and uncheckable.

  2. wintercow20 says:

    In all fairness, I use the mysterious screen name of Wintercow20!

Leave a Reply