The EPA should be abolished

I'd like to begin this round by asking my opponent to clarify his sources. Pro has made multiple claims in round 3, and then left a group of sources at the bottom. I'm not going to waste my time going through each source to determine which argument each source supports. I concede that I may have been wrong about the change in the population of Robins, but you also failed to note that many predatory bird species were terribly affected by DDT. "the bald eagle hit a low point in 1963, when a nesting survey in the lower 48 states found only 417 pairs." Why is it that during the times of DDT, Eagle numbers fell to a record low. Now, as a result of the ban, there are over 6,000 nesting pairs in the 48 mainland states. The reason for this was that the Eagles were consuming DDT affected fish and DDT affected birds. They gained a very high concentration of the pesticide. How the DDT affected the eagle population is still being debated, but it's very clear that it was the main cause.(http://news.nationalgeographic.com...)"Ignoring his own agency"s ruling and advice, EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus single-handedly outlawed almost all use of DDT."Pro's burden of proof is to show that the EPA must, without a doubt be abolished. However, he contradicts himself in this statement by claiming that the head of the EPA, who by the way is appointed by the President and not the EPA, banned DDT single-handedly. According to Pro, the EPA as an agency was against the banning of DDT, but one man went against its interests. Pro's entire argument up to this point was that the EPA should be abolished for banning a substance that was necessary. Here Pro states that it was NOT the EPA that created the ban, but one man who was not appointed by the EPA, but by the President of the United States."I see you refused to talk about the ban on incandescent lightbulbs..."However briefly, I did in fact mention them when I said "Obviously the ban on incandescent bulbs is justified if we have this technology at our fingertips.". I'd like to know where Pro got the idea that incandescent bulbs are in any way better than newer bulbs. According to http://energy.gov... , incandescent bulbs waste 90% of their energy as lost heat. That is energy we could be using to light our homes. ENERGY STAR LEDs use 25% of the energy as opposed to 10%, and last 25 times longer than tradition incandescent bulbs. Finally as stated in the article "lighting accounts for about 14% of all building electricity use (about 10% of home electricity). With the EISA standards, U.S. households could save nearly $6 billion dollars in 2015 alone." LEDs also reduce the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere. My next statement will be in response to the entirety of Pro's final paragraph. Pro should have included that we are already 15% of the way to that point, and given that it's between 2005 and 2030, that is barely more than 1% decrease per year. Secondly, "the Natural Resources Defense Council figures the rule will create more than 250,000 jobs (someone will have to install the solar panels and windmills) and will lead to lower energy bills over time." Also in the article, "the EPA reportedly estimates that investments needed to meet the emission limits will cost about $8 billion a year, but would save 6,600 lives and more than $50 billion a year in health care costs tied to air pollution."I don't understand how Pro can claim the EPA is evil by quoting an article that explains that their measures will save 6,600 lives. (http://www.forbes.com...) [This is the same forbes article that Pro cited earlier in the round].In summary, I argue that the EPA should not be abolished because everything they have done has been done with good intentions, and Pro's main argument regarding DDT is null and void because it was the works of one man, not the agency.