Here are some polling results that suggest the majority of Americans want the EPA to do more, not less. Not good news for Newt Gingrich who proposes abolishing the agency.
4 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
At the risk of being a contrarian, David, I believe that I could compose a survey about the EPA that would show 80% of Americans believe the EPA has gone too far. Obviously, it is all about how the question is framed. For instance, “Would you agree that the EPA should scale back redundant reporting requirements which would have no impact on air quality and would significantly ease compliance costs for family businesses?”
The company that did the survey states the goal of their service, in this case for an environmental defense group, is “to be the world’s leading provider of data-driven solutions, used by organisations of all sizes to achieve success.”
Separately, the survey group’s core social policy includes “endeavouring to provide all clients with environmentally positive solutions”.
Seems reasonable that they had an outcome of the survey in mind when they made those 1000 calls. After reading the questions I’m pretty sure of it.
That’s funny, Contrarian. You’d probably hook me on your survey, too. Apparently your family business had some business with the EPA.
I expected to see similarly “special” questions from the original survey, but it didn’t seem so leading to me. Of course it didn’t get into the specifics like you suggested; they kept it general to gauge attitudes about the EPA. Even the one I’ll quote below failed to draw a majority:
“According to the Associated Press, in calling for the elimination of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich also said that it should be replaced by an agency that would place equal consideration for corporate interests as it does for protecting American families against air and water pollution.
Would you support or oppose a proposal to replace the EPA with such an agency?”
Ah, upon reading Green’s comment and after fairly frequent responses by contrarian that would seem to favor business, I think I’m finally onto this guy.
But I digress. Re: environmental protection debate
http://www.remappingdebate.org/print?content=node%2F373
““Job-killing regulation” has become not only a mantra of today’s Republicans, but also the marketing pitch for a host of plans to have Congress exercise preemptive powers over federal rule-making and enforcement efforts.
It turns out, however, that it is easier to generate provocative rhetoric on this topic than to provide historical evidence for the proposition that regulations do, in fact, kill jobs. Through repeated inquiry, Remapping Debate established that, at least in Washington, vociferous opponents of regulation are often unable or unwilling to offer any such evidence, even in the area of regulation — environmental protection — that is the ground zero of current Republican fury.”
Also from this article:
Show us the evidence
Remapping Debate invited several prominent opponents of regulation, in and out of government, to provide evidence of EPA regulations that “killed” jobs. Each of the following was apparently unable or unwilling to do so:
* Margo Thorning, chief economist of the American Council for Capital Formation and the author of a 2010 study that predicted a loss of 2.4 million jobs if the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill were enacted and implemented.
* Rosario Palmieri, vice president for infrastructure, legal and regulatory policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, which commissioned the ACCF study and which, on its website, declares the EPA’s proposals a threat to “manufacturers, businesses and jobs throughout America.”
* Nicole V. Crain and William M. Crain, co-authors of a widely cited study — done for the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy — putting the total annual cost of all regulation at $1.7 trillion — a figure far higher than most such assessments.
* Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the new chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform committee, who has announced an inquiry into the “impact of government hyperregulation on job creation.”
* Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY), the prime House sponsor of the REINS Act, which, by requiring congressional approval of every major rule ” before it could be enforced on the American people and businesses,” aims to “rein in the costly overreach of federal agencies that stifles job creation and hinders economic growth.”
* Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), whose Free Industry Act would amend the Clean Air Act to declare that nothing in that law “shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming.”
Obama sounds like he’s caving incrementally on this very important issue, and because of his seeming repeated capitulations, I continue to incrementally cave on Obama.
Sybil, If you are “on to me” I hope the realization was as satisfying as the fascination. I’ll look you up again when I make it back to Morenci sometime. Who knew David would rat me out?