Regulate The Environmental Protection Agency If You’re Really ‘Green’


Earth Day was celebrated throughout the Nation earlier this week with the routine tree-planting ceremonies, litter-cleaning outings and school lesson plans based on environmental stewardship. And, of course, there was the requisite alarmist shrieking from those Americans who believe the Presidential Administration’s hyped up warnings that the United States is on the verge of becoming a 3.8 million square mile garbage dumb — because of the sequester, of course.

Aptly timed with regard to the White House’s policy of making even the smallest cuts related to sequester as visible as possible, the Environmental Protection Agency began implementing furloughs that will affect its nearly 17,000 employees on April 21. With Earth Day on the brain, supporters of the agency’s continual red tape throttling of American industry took to the Internet in droves early this week to lament that cutbacks mean impending environmental doom for the United States.

The EPA does perform some rudimentary functions in the name of environment protection that all Americans should appreciate. After all, we all require clean water; and no one wants to breathe smog-ridden air or suffer health problems in the name of industrial profits.

But to suggest that the EPA has no room to make budget cuts if Americans aren’t willing to live in an industrial cesspool of hazardous waste is to suggest that the EPA could not have saved some money and continued reasonable environmental protection endeavors by cutting these items from last year’s budget:

  • A $141,450 grant under the Clean Air Act to fund a Chinese study on pig manure.
  • A $1.2 million gift to the United Nations for the “promotion” of clean fuels throughout the world.
  • A $67,926 poster contest at Syracuse University that had fewer than 10 entries.
  • Twenty EPA conferences costing an average of $182,847 for a total conference bill of $3.7 million.

The EPA may be dealing with some budget woes; but there is plenty of evidence that throttling down some of its more burdening regulations, especially those that heavily penalize coal-powered energy producers in the name of promoting yet-to-succeed green energy initiatives, could embolden the economy as a whole, thus increasing government revenues down the road.

A study conducted last year by the National Economic Research Associates examined the impact of seven EPA regulations on coal-fueled power plants. Researchers found that those regulations will ultimately be responsible for up to 887,000 yearly job losses in that industry alone in coming years. The study also indicated that compliance costs for the electric sector was around $16.7 billion per year.

There is currently a legislative movement to require the EPA to report the projected financial burden of new environmental regulation.

The examples of government wasteful spending and the costs of regulatory actions could go on ad infinitum — but the bottom line for many conservatives is that the EPA should back off on its assaults against coal power and industry until environmentalists have a better plan. Government-subsidized green-energy disasters like Solyndra provide evidence that fossil fuels are here to stay for at least a while longer.

Environmentalists commonly argue that the United States must be at the forefront of environmental protection, a shining example of a clean industrial nation for the entire world to see. But, if overbearing regulation chases industry from the Nation and puts more Americans on the welfare rolls, does it make sense that countries that have just recently pulled themselves from the pits of poverty with the help of industry (burdened by far less regulation than their American counterparts) will follow suit? It seems more likely to many observers that international interests will jump at the opportunity to welcome more industry and lure manufacturers with the promise of regulation-lite operating environments.

Unless the EPA can figure out a way to keep wind and water from moving fluidly across geographic borders, many would argue that they ought to lighten up on American industry and do their best to slowly coax those lesser-of-evil polluters to the side of clean, green environmental manufacturing with profit motives.

Personal Liberty

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Mallett

    If the EPA could be more technically driven and less politically hpyed driven, then perhaps more common sense improvements could be phased in over time. Relevant, credible and accurate data must assimilated by trained, experienced scientists and business leaders and empowered by our political leaders to be effective. We all know that.

  • hungry4food
    • Right Brain Thinker

      No, the EPA is not involved in “funneling influence” there or anywhere else. This just looks like British Columbia and Vancouver saying “No, we don’t want yet another pipeline across our province and to our port just so the greedy rich of the fossil fuel industry can make money”. Kind of like the Keystone XL thing down here.

      • speedle24

        I suppose it’s better for the greedy rich of the green fuel industry to make money eh?

        • Right Brain Thinker

          No speedle, the greedy rich are concentrated in the fossil fuel business, because that’s where the fattest bottom lines are.. You won’t find many of them in “green” industries because they’re not all that profitable right now. And that’s all the greedy rich care about—-making money—-they say the hell with the environment, our health, or the health of the planet. And you are foolish enough to fight their battles for them—-why is that?

          • speedle24

            Actually, “greedy rich” is nothing but a socialist placard and group speak from degenerate groups like “occupy” (which I presume you are cozy with). So I’m not interested in your opinion of which group “deserves” that title. i’ll fight battles for anyone who opposes collectivists. Don’t be a moron. Check history. it tells you all you need to know about your ideology.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            No, “greedy rich” is a term used by those who know the truth of what drives the runaway capitalism that has done so much damage to the country recently, and you are just parroting again with what you say. Thanks for the daily laugh, also—-you giving anyone advice on “moronity” is a LMAO comment.

      • hungry4food

        This Canadian Supply cut by Not Putting in the Pipeline makes The Overall price rise in oil going to OPEC benefits the Jihad RBT and those within the EPA are also creating this OPEC price increase Benefit by not allowing More Oil production to Increase supply in the USA furthering the funding to Jihad .

        • Right Brain Thinker

          Quite a stretch of “causality” there, hungry. You exaggerate greatly in your conjecture as to the impact. All we can be sure of is that the folks in BC want to keep their environment clean.

          Since only 1/8 of our oil comes from the mideast, we are not “funding jihad” very much. And you forget that none of the Keystone XL “oil” is intended for the U.S.—it will all be exported, so it won’t increase our supply. We won’t see a supply increase here at all—in fact, the US has become an EXPORTER of oil—-why don’t you get you knickers knotted over that?

          • hungry4food

            RBT why do you want to stand on Expanding Supply to bring Oil down in price ??? we have LOADS of reserves we are not tapping in addition to the shale on Federal Lands and yet the EPA delays and delays those permits .

            The whole Point of how the Oil price increase funding Jihad has nothing to do with how much Oil we Import from the Mideast but rather the Overall Increase in supply and if that is happening in the world to Bring down the Price of Oil in the International market place and with things like what is happening in Canada and the USA by these Bolsheviks EPA and NGO SOBs is why prices are Expanding and Increasing the Funding to MIDEAST OPEC Radicals and their Jihad against the USA and other Western nations where they Hate the Infidels so quite Appeasing the Situation like Obama and his Ilk are all the time its why we are Losing the war on Terror

          • Right Brain Thinker

            WOW—-an impressive run all over the field chasing an imaginary ball. Ignoring the manipulation that the “greedy rich” do with oil prices, the fact is that we are past “peak oil”, and the increasing demand from the 2-1/2 billion in India and China and another 0ne or two billion+ in the developing world is going to continue to drive oil prices upward.

            You talk about “delays”? For good reason—we can’t turn the whole world into a “sacrifice zone” just because the fossil fuel interests want us to. Most shale oil is like tar sands “oil”—-not real “oil” and nasty, dirty, and difficult to extract. Neither one should be developed at all.

            AGW is going to force us to stop using all fossil fuels before long and turn to renewables, and right now we should be focusing on the cleanest fossil fuel—natural gas—and phasing out coal immediately and oil as soon as possible. Natural gas will do the least harm until we can switch to solar, wind, and geothermal.

            Your “funding jihad” argument is a straw man, and a rather ridiculous one at that. If the “jihadists” were getting significant funding from “oil money”, the towns and cities of the west would be under constant attack, and that’s NOT happening.

          • hungry4food

            OK KG if we are seeing our Resource supply being exhausted by these 3rd world countries with their demand causing us to Suffer our right to our ample access to our supply and instead be SQUEEZED to Oppression levels of economic despair then its time to Isolate and close down the borders then we would have plenty of everything for the US Citizens . Then if we have any extra we negotiate trade for that . Why Should We the people of the USA be held Hostage to a International market Scheme THAT’S RAN ITS COURSE AND IS NOW CAUSING AMERICANS MORE HARM THAN GOOD ???
            And it would end any possible funding of Jihad in the 3rd world too !!!!!

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Are speedle and hungry the same person? They both seem to have overdosed on the Kool Aid and they both parrot the same kind of mindless stuff. They must be brothers or at least cousins.

            (And I have no idea what this comment is talking about, so I can’t address whatever “substance” may be there).

          • hungry4food

            KG SAYS : (And I have no idea what this comment is talking about, so I can’t address whatever “substance” may be there).

            Thats because YOU ARE A GLOBALIST FOOL KG !!!!!!

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Uh, hungry—-who are you talking to? I said that, not KG.

            And GLOBALIST FOOL needs to be defined before it can be discussed—-otherwise it’s just another piece of childish name calling and means nothing.

          • hungry4food

            Oh sorry RBT I get you 2 mixed up all the time , LOL LOL LOL
            If you are In favor of a Global dependency on Durable supply then you are a Globalist Fool in this day and age with International Central Bank intervention as the Only funding source for this trend .

          • Right Brain Thinker

            If you’d stop laughing hysterically with all that mindless LOL,LOL,LOL and instead try to make sense, I’d try to respond.

            This is just more parroting of terms, not an explanation or definition of anything. You are no up to FIVE terms that mean nothing. To wit:

            Global dependency

            Durable supply

            Globalist Fool

            International Central Bank intervention

            This trend

          • hungry4food

            RBT those are the key issues that are holding back the Real Growth in economic recovery so you are still a globalist fool that is just making a gain off the Federal Reserves QE Policy !!!!!!

          • Right Brain Thinker

            No, those are not “issues”, they’re just words you parrot from the list of “talking points” you’ve been given. You can’t even explain what they mean, “Right Wing Parrot Fool”. It’s Wall Street and the same crew who nearly sunk the ship in 2007-2008 that are making the gain off the QE, and they are globalists only in the sense that the greedy rich exist everywhere. What is holding back real growth is the Republican Party and the outdated beliefs of conservatives.

          • hungry4food

            oh man talk about talking points , You Sound like Obama talking there RBT LOL LOL .

            Obama is a Representative of the Marxist Environmentalist movement . They are all about consolidating every aspect of Individual economic freedom so they can control the rate of consumption and save their EARTH . This is Obvious in their Policies , so if you think Obama is the answer then you are a a Marxist fool too . Marxists never stop dividing society they even turn on each other in the Power struggle over Righteous Indignation you can see this in Obama’s Ego driven rally cries for more and more power to control everything and everyone .

          • Right Brain Thinker

            O’Bama? Don’t think I ever mentioned his name on this thread.

            I’ve been dealing with facts and issues.

            You are the one spouting ANTI-O’Bama horsepucky in between your demented LOL cackling. This is just more parroting and not even worth responding to—-more words without substance. If and when you ever decide to stop with the slogans and really say something, maybe we can talk.

          • hungry4food

            How can we have a logical Conversation about Individual Freedom and Supply side expansion Prosperity that benefits all when you are in the camp of Marxist believers who think Earth has reached its human carrying capacity and its you and the left wing’s job to Zero growth and save earth from the destructions of free market capitalism ????

            I have yet to hear you say that its not Capitalism that is the problem with wealth redistribution but the Lack of FTC enforcement over the decades of Market consolidation that along with a Failed free trade agreement has divided the Wealth and resources away from the majority of society and their ability to benefit and prosper from the production and distribution of these human vital Needs .

          • Right Brain Thinker

            I get it now——hungry and speedle ARE the same “person”, and it’s really WTS/JAY playing with me again.

            All of this comment is so far gone that it could only have been composed by someone who IS “playing”, and not by someone who is serious.

            It was fun for a while but it’s time to say “farewell” to hungry-speedle-JAY—-I’m done with you three.


    YES!! I’m glad someone is finally addressing this item. I frequently state that there is no reason why the USA should not be energy efficient with respect to oil supplies. (My parents ran a gas station back in the 60’s when gas was $.25/gallon) The EPA has shut many small businessmen down with respect to land development – even horse farms! Where is the President that stated “Remember, I inherited billions of dollars of debt when I took office.” And, how many “stupid and expensive” projects are we involved in that the average citizen knows nothing about (lIke the 3 aforementioned)? There is no way people in big cities are going to buy a battery-run car – the apartments in the cities do not even have an outdoor outlet to recharge said batteries! And if they did, the battery would be stolen overnight.

  • peter

    Let those wish to pollute get on with it. Let them pollute themselves to death wherever they are. When they have all died from pollution, the USA can start again with clean air and no far off inhabited lands to bother them. Gee – less people and so little to ‘ police ‘. How cool is that?

  • Jeff

    The problem with the kind of “balance” you propose is that the people doing the balancing will ALWAYS come down on the side of industry rather than the environment. You are in favor of clean air and water – but only in the abstract. As soon as there’s a polluting power plant involved, you’ll have all the excuses in the world to not only keep it functioning but to “put off” measures to make it “cleaner” until times are better. “This is no time to be adding to the cost of burning coal.” Had we listened to that approach, Blacks in the South would still be waiting for a Voting Rights Act.

    • speedle24

      Jeff, I am afraid your thinking is a few decades behind the facts. Coal processing is now perfectly clean with modern technology, and certainly more efficient than the ridiculous wildlife destroying wind farm eyesores. Don’t be a chump and buy into the Algore scam designed to frighten the population into enriching Gore and his cronies with phony risky “green” schemes.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        speedle, need I remind you that saying delusional things “out loud” doesn’t make them either less delusional OR true? “Perfectly clean”—-LOL Coal processing has NEVER been in the slightest bit “clean” and now, with “modern technology”, it is only slightly “less dirty”. The mining, processing, and particularly burning of coal is the major man-made pollutant on the planet. What do yo even mean when you compare the “efficiency” of coal versus wind farms? That’s not even close enough to be called “apples and oranges”.

        And PLEASE knock off the BS about Al Gore and his cronies trying to rip us off with “green schemes”. All you do by bringing that up is show everyone that you are ignorant on this issue and just want to parrot the political BS put out by the greedy rich who own the coal business and the coal burning plants.

        • Jeff

          Speedle thinks saying “clean coal” makes it so. Here’s an article from Fox itself saying coal may soon be clean.

          Clean coal is a little like Brazil – it’s the country of the future and it always will be.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            The Faux News channel lives up to its name with this one. And Speedle will now be chanting endlessly that “We’re going to have clean coal powered cars soon”.

            I would advise anyone looking for a good investment to NOT buy stock in this one—-it’s a stunt and will soon disappear—-it only got this far because the coal interests have supported the “research” and some scientists are hungry for $$$.

        • speedle24

          Ignorant of the issue???? Are you actually suggesting that Al Gore is an honest benefactor? Sir, if you are still buying his BS then you are one of the last ones to leave the building. Even the democrats are now embarrassed by Gore.
          And yes, new technology is making coal very “clean”. It hasn’t been adopted because the white house moron won’t allow it. Have you actually ever seen a wind farm? You could not have and be unaware of the environmental damage these gigantic pink elephants produce (not to mention the cost of the damn things).

          • Right Brain Thinker

            I shouldn’t argue with a drunk—-speedle has obviously been into the Kool Aid again—-but some other fool might give credence to his mutterings so I will (briefly). Put down the kool Aid jug and listen carefully, speedle—–I will say it again..

            Al Gore is history and totally irrelevant to the AGW discussion. You and the other parrots keep mindlessly bringing him up because you have been told to do so by your masters. Why do you keep showing all of us that you are a tool and a WIFI?

            And you speak of CONSPIRACY and say O’Bama is behind it. LOL. Is there anything that fools like you won’t try to blame on him? There is NO technology that can make coal “very clean”, just a bit “cleaner”, and it is very expensive and not cost-effective. I have driven past wind farms in TX that stretched for tens of miles, and you are ignorant of the “environmental damage” they produce (almost none) and their cost/benefit ratio. You don’t WANT to know, because you’re a WIFI.

            Seek help, speedle—-go to WA (WIFI Anonymous) and stand up and say “My name is speedle, and I’m a willfully ignorant functional illiterate”.

          • speedle24

            Get a life RBT. You haven’t seen wind farms until you have been to Southern California in the Palm Springs area. The mess in Texas wouldn’t classify as a wind farm suburb relative to Palm Springs. Oh, and they don’t put out enough power to run a Prius for a week. The maintenance is horrible and expensive. Boone Pickens (who was gung ho and spent millions on this) gave it up saying that the whole thing was unworkable.

            And I will say one more time. Unlike Obama, you are ignorant of the “clean” potential of fossil fuels. Obama knows but doesn’t want clean coal, gas, etc. because he wants to change the industrial power base from the old fossil fuel white guys to his new “Progressive” industrial cronies at the expense of the taxpayer. Nuff said.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            speedle again shows his “willful ignorance” by talking about CLEAN fossil fuels and his lack of focus by rambling on about wind farms in CA. I love the utter stupidity behind “they don’t put out enough power to run a Prius for a week”. Like I said, one shouldn’t argue with a drunk.

            PS It is nice that speedle recognizes that “old fossil fuel white guys” are the ones resisting the change and creating the problem, but their days are numbered.

          • speedle24

            Yeah that’s right RBT, forward with the revolution. But before you Che, fidel, Karl and the ilk get to raise your collectivist victory flag, you find out who is “resisting the change”, and it is not just “old white guys”.

            [comment has been edited]

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Ah, another name-calling instead of an intelligent rejoinder. Numb nuts—-how clever! And speedle is too drunk on the Kool Aid and parrot-speak to realize that HE is the one who brought up the “old fossil fuel white guys” and set them up as a target. LOL.

            speedle also reveals to us that HE is the one who has just looked up the meaning of “hyperbole”. We know that because he is now so proudly using it in a sentence. LMAO I was being polite when I used “hyperbole”—–what we have seen here from speedle and hungry borders on just plain “LYING for effect”.

            Keep it coming, speedle, you’re more fun than doing the crossword puzzle (and a lot “easier”)

          • speedle24

            Do you mean you can actually do a crossword RBT? Before we can have an “intelligent rejoinder” we have to have a comment worth same, and so far you are simply repeating the same epithets like drunk, Kool Aid, parrot-speak (wait, could that be “name calling?”).

            As much as you post on these blogs you must have plenty of time on your hands. Perhaps you should look for a job RBT because you aren’t gonna be able to cut it in the writing business.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Epithets? “drunk, Kool Aid drinker, and parrot” are NOT epithets or name-calling, speedle, they’re just VERY accurate “shorthand” ways to describe you and your behavior. They need to be repeated because you are either a slow learner or so far sunk into your world of mindless adherence to dogma that you will never comprehend how self-deluded you are.

            I don’t post all that much compared to many—-I read fast, think fast, and write fast, so it doesn’t cost me much time. And I don’t need a job because I have a lot of money in the bank and live comfortably in retirement on my SS, TWO government pensions, and the income from my investments. You say I “ain’t gonna” be able to “cut it” in the writing business? Let’s both go apply for “writing business jobs” and see which one of us gets hired. LMAO over that one—thanks.

          • speedle24

            You “read fast, think fast, and write fast”? Hmmmm…Maybe you should slow down there genius. You are constantly missing the point. Then again you are like a broken record so I suppose its not hard to repeat the same BS over and over. Maybe it would help to use the left brain on occasion.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Denial, denial, denial. It needs to be said yet again.

            “You are either a slow learner or so far sunk into your world of mindlessadherence to dogma that you will never comprehend how self-deluded you are”.

  • ChuckS123

    Governments are much less efficient thatn the private sector. Therefore big government is bad for the environment, because it uses a lot of resources to get small results and unneeded results. Some government is necessary, so we have to put up with some inefficiency, but the less the better. Our current government also tends to have way too many regulations, which make the private sector less efficient. Some places may need more, like the Texas fertilizer plant, but there’s much to much in a lot of other places.

    If the government was smaller, maybe we could keep better sight of what’;s left. I would guess that in the past there were a lot of people in the government who had previously worked in the private sector and gotten good work ethic. Now there may be a lot of people in the government who never worked in the private sector.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      If the government were SMALLER, we could keep BETTER track of things? That makes no sense. Maybe we need to become “more efficient” in some areas, but the government employees are NOT sitting on their duffs doing nothing but collecting paychecks. On what basis do you slander them and on what basis do you say we have “way too many regulations”? The LACK of proper regulation DID cause the TX explosion—-why wouldn’t we concentrate on putting good regulations in place rather than shrinking the government so that it can’t get the job done?

      • speedle24

        You don’t know what caused the West explosion RBT. There may be complicated circumstances, and yes, failure to monitor safety regs may be part of it. We will see. But with regard to regulations, we most certainly do have thousands of unnecessary and inane regs. That isn’t even questioned by the majority of bureaucrats. Putting “proper” regulations in place is the correct idea, but that also means shrinking the bureacracy as part of the process.

        • Right Brain Thinker

          We don’t know? We sure do! A fire. Nothing complicated at all except that the plant is so badly damaged that we may never figure out what caused the fire. The problem was that the fire set off an explosion in 270 tons of ammonium nitrate.

          The recommended way to deal with fires near ammonium nitrate is to soak the ammonium nitrate with large quantities of water BEFORE it explodes. There should have been a reg that required automatic sprinkler systems in the area where the ammonium nitrate was stored. There is no such reg, and 10 brave firefighters died because of that, some of them while trying to hook up a freakin’ hose so they could maybe squirt a tiny amount water on the fire. We have sprinklers in motels—-why can’t we put them in the factories that should have them also?

          I can’t understand how you have drunk so much Kool Aid that you would say “shrink the bureaucracy”, when it isn’t even big enough now to properly regulate fertilizer plants, never mind banks, Wall Street, and the collecting of taxes. Stop being a parrot and think for a change.

          And I’d like to see some evidence that the majority of bureaucrats think we have thousands of inane and unnecessary regs—-that just sounds like another “parrot opinion” to me.

          • speedle24

            Well, let’s see, we can start with Richard Fisher of the Dallas Federal Reserve who thinks there is too much power in the Fed and that QE is counterproductive. IT doesn’t take a lot of intelligence to understand that government bureaucracies naturally seek to survive past their usefulness simply because people want to keep their jobs and influence. The only way to control them is to reduce their power, not enable it. Useful idiots operate under the assumption that these bureaucracies are pure and only have the interests of the public at heart. Why is that so hard a concept for you RBT?

          • Right Brain Thinker

            It’s actually easy for me to see the lack of intelligence there, speedle, because I am NOT a parrot like you. Wake up.

            (And Fisher makes ONE, where’s the “majority”? And he said nothing about “regulations”—-why are you so confused?)

          • speedle24

            I’m not confused you ding bat. You are. I am not going to spend the time to make a list for you. I will say this. You seem to be confused about bureaucracies and regulation. fisher intimates that the Fed (which for practical purposes is a bureaucracy) has misused its regulatory power. Bernanke has personally misused his power as the reserve chairman to bail out Wall Street (picking the winners and losers). I don’t see much reason to discuss this concept with you though. More than likely you don’t understand that Conservatives are not Wall Street, but Main Street.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            Ding bat? DING BAT? LOL over that—-coming from the moron that gives advice about being a moron and actually gives how to be a moron lessons with every comment he makes.

            Guess what, speedle? When one foolishly runs his mouth about the “majority of bureaucrats”, one either takes back his BS or backs it up—ONE bureaucrat does NOT make a majority—-I’ll give you a break—forget the “list”—-just name a handful more (and give some citations so we can follow up—right now, I’ll say that you probably made Fisher and his comments up)

            And you are talking about Fisher and Bernanke and misuse of regulatory power now? Why are you changing the subject? You ARE still confused about both what YOU said and what I said in return. You have GOT to get the parrot messages out of your brain and THINK instead—-you’re not doing it here.

  • JamesAt17

    Have any of you ever heard the comment from George H. W. Bush. “If the American people knew what we just did they would string us up to the nearest lamp pole.” That was as close to the real comment as I could get. What he was talking about was the fact that behind closed doors he signed away much of the country, state parks, rivers and lakes and much more to those banksters that hold the U.S. debt as collateral. Now you can understand that that is the reason for what the EPA is doing around the entire country. They are working for those banksters that now own the land we are living on and they want us off their property and they wanted that done yesterday. Hence all of this constant talk about new government regulations on what you cannot do on the property you thought you owned.

  • Right Brain Thinker

    Let’s begin by examining Sam’s little bio and “mission statement”. It says in the box that “Staff writer Sam Rolley, after learning about the biases present in
    newsrooms, became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the media at the behest of their corporate masters and special interest groups”.

    Has Sam given up on these goals? If not, why does it appear that he has he done a 180? Why is he presenting such an “unsavory image” to us by propagandizing us with the lies, distortions, and misinformation in this “article”, which all appear to come from the “corporate masters” and the “special interest groups”?

    Sam beats around the bush as he warms to his task, taking smug little digs and using hyperbole to get the crowd going his way. Just a few:
    “requisite alarmist shrieking from those Americans who
    “hyped up warnings that the U.S is on the verge of becoming a garbage dump “because of the sequester, of course.
    “the agency’s continual red tape throttling of American industry
    “EPA does perform some rudimentary functions
    “breathe smog-ridden air in the name of industrial profits.
    “cutting these items from last year’s budget (a puny $5 million dollar straw man)
    “there is plenty of evidence
    “throttling down its more burdening regulations
    Lots if inflammatory words and innuendo there, Sam, but little substance.

    Sam then gets down to business and shows us what “corporate masters” and “special interest groups” he is shilling for here, and starts to pile it on

    Sam says that backing off on EPA regulations “that heavily penalize coal-powered energy producers in the name of promoting yet-to-succeed green energy initiatives, could embolden the economy as a whole, thus increasing government revenues down the road”. Pure BS, Sam, since the regulations are designed NOT to “penalize” but to make the coal burners STOP POLLUTING and socializing their private gains because they want to save money by not cleaning up their act. Promoting green energy initiatives is a separate issue that has NOTHING to do with why dirty coal needs regulating. And Sam has the gall to try to make a tie-in to “emboldening the economy and increasing government revenue”—-has he not read the figures on what the country and economy LOSE because of the costs due to pollution from coal burning?

    Sam can’t even get his facts straight—the study conducted last year by the National Economic Research Associates said the regs would cost 180,000-215,000 jobs, not 887,000. NERA was paid to do this study by Guess Who?—-ACCCE, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. ACCCE is a front group that shills for the coal interests and “clean coal electricity” is laughable anyway—-there is no such thing, and what the EPA regs are designed to do is make “cleanER coal electricity”—-the ACCCE is concerned only with the bottom line of the coal industry.

    Sam says “There is currently a legislative movement to require the EPA to
    report the projected financial burden of new environmental regulation”. And? Not a bad idea, although it is more of a roadblocking move by special interests.

    Sam says, “The examples of government wasteful spending and the costs of
    regulatory actions could go on ad infinitum’ Really? Forever? More hyperbole (and wasteful spending and costs of regulatory actions are not really related either).

    Sam says, “The bottom line for many conservatives is that the EPA should back off on its assaults against coal power and industry until environmentalists have a better plan”. This IS the best plan for the country, Sam. Clean up the coal plants, enforce the Clean Air and Water Acts, and ultimately phase out coal generation of electricity in favor of other fuels—-we’re doing it and the greedy rich that want to keep privatizing profit and socializing cost because they own the coal burning plants and mines are screaming bloody murder. Government-subsidized green-energy disasters like Solyndra provide NO evidence that fossil fuels are here to stay for at least a while longer, only that some green energy initiatives will fail, just like many early car and airplane companies didn’t make it.

    Sam is confident that he has “fooled” everyone so far, so he rolls out some mildly flaming rhetoric to “seal the deal”, ignoring the fact that we’re not stupid.

    Environmentalists argue that the United States must be at the forefront of environmental protection here in the U.S. because it’s OUR environment that we are screwing up and OUR health we’re destroying. The fact that we are the world’s biggest polluters per capita may have somthing to do with it also. We are rigjht now a BAD example to the world.

    More hyperbole and rhetoric with “But, if overbearing regulation chases industry from the Nation and puts more Americans on the welfare rolls”. Actually, since energy prices are dropping because of cheap natural gas, companies are coming BACK, not being “driven away”. Many coal plants are being shut down because they’re uneconomical—-people will not buy their more expensive electricity.

    Is Sam even aware of the environmental issues that India and China face with coal burning? If anyone is “attracted” to those countries, it will be because of cheap labor, and that labor may be not very efficient because of poor health. Those countries will “follow suit” on cleaning up their environments because it is in their best interest to do so.

    And Sam finishes with an unoriginal “talking point” from the coal interest shill’s toolbox. “Unless the EPA can figure out a way to keep wind and water from
    moving fluidly across geographic borders…”, and makes the “lighten up and “slow down” plea, with a dollop of “profit motives” on top to satisfy the capitalists.

    Sam forgets that the reason we are concerned about coal particularly is that it’s the dirtiest fuel and that “geographic borders” no longer matter—-AGW has spread to the entire planet—the atmosphere and oceans are continuous and WILL move and carry pollution everywhere—-the only thing we can control is what kind of crap we put into them.

    Enough said. Sam, I’m sorry to see that you apparently need a pay check so badly that you have forgotten your “dedication to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the media at the behest of their corporate masters and special interest groups”. This article is far below average for you.