The EPA should be abolished

I sincerely apologize for forgetting to read your entire last paragraph on round 2, that was my mistake for accusing you of not mentioning the incandescent light bulb ban. But there is something important you must consider. Is the ban on incandescent lightbulbs really jusitifed? Is it really any of the EPA's business what power sources people can use? If people want to use brighter bulbs that last less and cause more carbon emissions, that is their business. The problem with the EPA is that they have gone too far into American's business by telling them which sources of energy they can use and which ones they cannot. In fact, it is unconstitutional to have a powerful federal agency that dictates energy policy for the entire nation. The constitution has never authorized that kind of power to the federal government. The EPA is a direct agency from the federal government from Richard Nixon. So that is the main reason the EPA should be banned. I find it quite amazing how you put the life of eagles over the life of human beings, the sources I posted the last round contained the science behind it and how DDT was proven to save many human lives from malaria. The ban on DDT may have saved a lot of eagles, but it killed millions of African children. "The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This means that if the government infringes on your rights, you are entitled to mount a timely and meaningful defense of those rights in court. It"s one of the cornerstones of our entire legal system, with roots dating back at least as far as the Magna Carta, which declared, "No free man...shall be stripped of his rights or possessions...except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prefers a less venerable form of justice, as the Supreme Court will hear next month during oral arguments in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. At issue is the EPA"s enforcement of the Clean Water Act through so-called administrative compliance orders, which are government commands that allow the agency to control the use of private property without the annoyance of having to subject its actions to judicial review." http://reason.com... You cannot argue that the EPA has a long history of infringing on private property rights. Agencies like that do not belong in America, this is not the Soviet Union. The regualations from the EPA is also a direct fringe on the 10th amendment. http://www.tenthamendment.net... About your claim that incadescent lightbulbs harm the environment, that is actually not true at all. The claim that CO2 is a pollutant is a big hoax. "CO2 is a great airborne fertilizer which, as its concentrations rise, causes additional plant growth and causes plants to need less water. Without CO2 there would be no life (food) on Earth. The 120 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has caused an average increase in worldwide plant growth of over 12 percent and of 18 percent for trees." http://www.plantsneedco2.org... Corporations saw the ban as a way to improve their bottom lines. Philips Electronics, one of the leading supporters of the ban, had already planned to phase out incandescent production by 2016, so prohibiting others from producing the cheaper bulbs prevented competition. General Electric (GE) took the occasion of the ban to close its last remaining U.S. incandescent-bulb factory, costing 200 jobs; production of permissible bulbs is now taking place in China. Environmentalists, meanwhile, touted the law"s alleged greenness. Incandescent bulbs, they said, waste energy, so switching to more energy-efficient bulbs will cut down on power use and thus the emission of dreaded "greenhouse gases" and mercury by power plants. But mercury is a key component of compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs, the most popular alternative to incandescent bulbs; and unless CFLs are handled and disposed of properly, they can release mercury into the environment. Broken CFLs require a complex clean-up process, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Even when this process is followed, mercury can remain in the air and on the floor, where further agitation can drive it back into the air. Spent CFLs should not be tossed in the trash but recycled. However, not everyone is aware of that, and some who are aware of it simply don"t want to go to the extra effort of storing and transporting the bulbs. Thus, many CFLs end up in landfills, where their toxic contents can escape. CFLs may pose other health hazards as well, including increased risk of cancer and migraines and aggravation of light-sensitive skin conditions. http://www.thenewamerican.com... One of the biggest of the Big Lies perpetrated by the EPA on the American people is the claim that far stricter regulations must be imposed on coal-fired power plants. "Countless scientists from around the world "" even many who have worked with the UN"s climate machine "" have pointed out that global-warming theories and computer models underpinning the entire EPA effort have been so thoroughly discredited that they are impossible to take seriously. As just one example among many, global warming has essentially stopped for more than 15 years even as CO2 in the atmosphere continued to increase, defying every prediction made by the UN and its politically selected "climate scientists." http://www.thenewamerican.com... You say that the EPA should not be abolished because they do things with "good intentions." That may be true, but you fail to realize how their good intentions have costed much harm to the economy. This 'sustainable energy' the government tries to impose is not sustainable at all. The pain inflicted on the poorest Americas will not reduce global emissions. According to Manhattan Institute senior fellow Robert Bryce, "the EPA"s new rules will have a negligible [effect] when it comes to soaring global carbon dioxide emissions and surging global demand for coal." Global CO2 emissions rose by 723 million tons in 2011, the latest data available. The Obama Administration"s goal would cut U.S. emissions by approximately that much over the course of 16 years. The movement towards solar power, one of the Obama Administration's preferred alternatives, is not as green as it seems. New research from Northwestern University finds solar panels manufactured in non-OECD countries (the vast majority of solar panels) require high levels of coal use. The carbon footprint of these solar panels is double that of those manufactured in Europe. Moving solar panel production to OECD countries would only further increase the price of energy, again leading to disproportionately negative effects on the poor. The pain inflicted on the poorest Americas will not reduce global emissions. According to Manhattan Institute senior fellow Robert Bryce, "the EPA"s new rules will have a negligible [effect] when it comes to soaring global carbon dioxide emissions and surging global demand for coal." Global CO2 emissions rose by 723 million tons in 2011, the latest data available. The Obama Administration"s goal would cut U.S. emissions by approximately that much over the course of 16 years. People in poor countries want the immense benefits that come with abundant, affordable electricity. Hydrocarbons, which produce 87 percent of the world's total energy needs, are the answer. The United States cannot unilaterally stop the rise of CO2 emissions and, even if it could, should it? Doing so would sentence those in developing countries to continued poverty. http://economics21.org... America"s manufacturing base will be particularly harmed by the EPA"s climate regulations. Manufacturing accounts for over 330,000 of the jobs lost. This occurs for a number of reasons. As more coal generation is taken offline, the marketplace must find a way to make up for that lost supply. The Heritage Energy Model builds in the most cost-effective means of replacing the lost coal through a combination of consumers decreasing energy use as an adjustment to higher prices and increased power generation from other sources. Manufacturing is an energy-intensive industry, and the impact of the higher energy prices on manufacturing averages to more than 770 jobs losses per congressional district. However, not all regions are affected the same, as districts in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois are especially hit hard. In fact, 19 out of the top 20 worse off congressional districts from the Administration"s war on coal are located in the Midwest region. In those districts, the manufacturing industry, on average, will slash more than 1,600 jobs by 2023. The table at the end of the paper shows the estimates of the decrease of manufacturing employment per congressional district by 2023. http://www.heritage.org... Therefore I conclude that the EPA ought to be abolished. It is unconstitutional and has been a direct infringing on the bill of rights. Since its creation in 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency has done more harm than good. EPA regulations cost more than 5 percent of our annual gross domestic product - the equivalent of the costs of defense and homeland security combined. Since EPA regulations have expanded, unemployment in America has increased by 33 percent. http://www.washingtontimes.com...