| With constant debate over the federal budget waging over the past few months, many programs and initiatives have been involved in the heated discussion. Perhaps none has sparked quite a debate like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has been the spotlight of attacks from the GOP throughout the late portion of 2010 and into 2011. Given the main points of debate for republicans and the track record of the EPA, their argument looks rather inconsequential and inaccurate.
Republican representatives have seemingly teamed up with industry leaders in the fight against the EPA. Both have been outspoken over the fact that they believe that the EPA is directly responsible for lower revenue and lower employment because of greenhouse gas emissions and the Clean Air Act. Unfortunately there is little to no basis for this type of argument. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson has been forthright on this subject recently by saying "The standards that we set to protect our health are so often and so inaccurately blamed for increasing prices and economic challenges that I want to make clear that that's not what is happening right now." Jackson went on to blame other issues for the rise in gas prices, deferring the talk away from the EPA, claiming "What appears to be the most important factor at work is our dependence on imported energy, this is what leaves us vulnerable to jumps in prices."
Regardless of whether the EPA is seen as the blame for high gas prices, the assault from republicans is likely to continue. Along with their battle on EPA regulations, they have continually pushed for cuts towards the EPA budget, with some success. Even though the recent budget resolution didn't account for the exact cuts the republicans desired, there was an increased levy to the EPA, which is a disturbing trend moving forward. Given that these cuts came after months of work against the EPA, future cuts are a definite possibility. Moving forward, these extreme cuts should be carefully examined, because with a reduction in major resources to the EPA, a rise in health problems could accrue as a result.
Every year the EPA takes part in a number of different programs that are concentrated on directly cutting down environmentally related health problems. For example, if the Clean Air Act were to be continually attacked by the GOP, its absence could be particularly threatening. Without any type of greenhouse gas regulation in the future, smog and pollution would surely go up with unlimited emission going on. As a result, cases of asthma and other respiratory issues will surely be increased. Another great example of the EPA's work on environmental y related health issues involves their dedication in asbestos removal and reducing cases of mesothelioma. Every year they push forward tons of asbestos removal programs in schools and older buildings all over America. Lower resources for the EPA could mean a lower fight on these asbestos problems and their high risk of danger, considering that mesothelioma life expectancy is extremely severe.
Looking towards the future, it's easy to see that republicans and business owners will surely continue their criticism and hate toward the EPA. They simply see too much money left in the balance and the EPA will continue to feel their wrath as a result. In this case, however the balances of improved gas prices are simply not enough to move forward with the possible health risks that could occur with a less powerful EPA. The agency simply does too much work that has a direct impact on health to be ignored. |
