The EPA should be abolished

I'd like to begin the final round by pointing out that Pro's strongest argument (DDT), was banned by a single man, half a century ago. I've never seen anybody blame President Obama for things that happened during the Vietnam conflict. It's a different era, a large amount of the people in the EPA were not even there when Silent Spring was written. "I find it quite amazing how you put the life of eagles over the life of human beings."I find it quite amazing that you're willing to disrupt the food chain and sentence an entire species to extinction, to extend the life of people who will die anyway. We should be planning for the future, it's either a small percentage of the human race or the Earth, and goddammit I'm saving the Earth first. We don't do anything but destroy her, and in return she can do nothing. If we don't protect the earth, there will be nobody to even remember that we screwed it up for them. Let's build a safe future for far off generations. "unconstitutional"Pro keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means. Article 1 Section 8, also known as the elastic clause, of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power to pass any laws necessary and proper for carrying out the enumerated list of powers. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)Pro has been trying to argue that the EPA should be abolished do to the fact that they have imposed regulations on CO2."The Constitution requires the president, and by extension, the entire executive branch, to “'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'” In this case, the law was the Clean Air Act, passed by Congress in 1970. EPA has a constitutional duty to faithfully implement that law unless it is changed." (http://ivn.us...)It is not a legitimate argument to abolish the EPA because they are doing what they are obligated to do. If Pro wants to see a change, Pro should target the constitution, not the agency that is designed to protect the government. "But mercury is a key component of compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs..."Pro seems to think that a superior technology to CFLs does not exist. Pro has failed to recognize my claims about the superiority of LEDs to incandescent bulbs. As I stated above, "ENERGY STAR LEDs use 25% of the energy as opposed to 10%, and last 25 times longer than tradition incandescent bulbs." Therefore it is clear that LEDs are more efficient and less wasteful than traditional bulbs. Pro seems to think that the only negative impact of CO2 on the environment is in the atmosphere. "On the pH scale, which runs from 0 to 14, solutions with low numbers are considered acidic and those with higher numbers are basic. Seven is neutral. Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1, a drop of 0.1 pH units, representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries. " "The oceans currently absorb about a third of human-created CO2 emissions, roughly 22 million tons a day. Projections based on these numbers show that by the end of this century, continued emissions could reduce ocean pH by another 0.5 units. Shell-forming animals including corals, oysters, shrimp, lobster, many planktonic organisms, and even some fish species could be gravely affected. "(http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com...)30%-40% of all CO2 released is absorbed into our oceans. Many water based animals rely on a slightly basic pH to survive. In case any readers don't realize how big of a difference a pH of 8.2 and 7.6 (the predicted pH by the end of the century) is, here's an example of pH. It is necessary for our bodies to maintain a blood pH of 7.41.(http://www.chemcraft.net...). If our blood pH were to increase by .6 (the amount our oceans will have decreased by the end of the century), we would be dead. Given how sensitive Humans are to changes in pH, how could anybody think that aquatic life won't be affected by it?I argue that the EPA is still necessary, regardless of how corrupt some may think it is. Many Americans are still ready and willing to destroy the environment to become rich. We need to cut down on CO2, global warming has nothing to do with it. We need to cut down on CO2 in order to save aquatic life, and in return we will save the rest of the life on earth. Take away the EPA, and I guarantee that carbon emissions will increase, and the oceans will acidify even faster. I urge anybody against the EPA to go and drink a mild acid. That's what future generations will be doing when they buy a bottle of water if this does not stop.Thanks for a great debate. I've learned a lot, and at the end of the day, win or lose, that's what matters.