Another Obama Fustercluck

[oldr_n_wsr]

the EPA, that has absolutely no reason to create more work for itself

Not to be a cynic but I think the EPA wants to create more work for itself. More work = more funding = larger fifedom.

[Jarlaxle]

Spot on.

[rubato]

Without the EPA (and the Calif. regulations which generally lead it) our cities would have air just as sweet and filled with profit$$ as Beijing and Shanghai
today.









China today is the wet dream of freebooting capitalism.

Without the EPA the energy and motor vehicle industries would be cheerfully 'externalizing costs' just as freely as this.

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

I am not saying the EPA doesn't serve a purpose, all I am saying is that, as a gov agency, they look to increase their funding and gain more power. Seems to be the way of Washington these days. Repubs and dems alike. They all want more of mine and yours money. You might like (or at least agree with) more taxes, I don't. Whether the money is cut from the EPA or the NEOTA or both, it's less out of my pocket and that I like. But growing all these gov agencies year after year has to stop.
Sequester only slowed the spending. There is still more in this years budget (even with sequester) than last years. Most households are dealing with less money being taken in this year than last. Let the gov do the same.

[rubato]

The false attribution of motive is not a coherent argument to begin with and is bizarrely inappropriate in this case.. The EPA professional staff and leadership have no direct incentive for personal gain comparable to the executives, board and stockholders of Exxon, BP, Monsanto, Dupont &c.

People act in their self-interest, that is true, but you have done a poor job of understanding which the interests are of the relevant parties in this case.

yrs,
rubato

[Guinevere]

Do either of you actually know anything factual about the EPA? Ever met anyone who works for the agency? I'm betting the answer to both is *no.*

I'm a former EPA Headquarters employees, and I have many friends who still work there. A bunch of harder working more idealistic people you've never met (there is a large contingent of returned Peace Corps volunteers who work at EPA). Never ever in the years I worked there or the years I've been hanging out with EPA employees have I ever heard anyone say "I want a larger fiefdom." Its's Dave-level uneducated nonsense, and factually incorrect since EPA's regulatory authority is prescribed by the laws they are authorized to implement, and do not go beyond that.

As rubato points out, the real parties in interest are the regulated community, Monsanto, Dupont, Exxon, and every other for-profit corporation that is subject to the environmental laws of this country, which would much rather make mo' money than make their products or dispose of their waste in a safe, healthy manner.

[dgs49]

I have no doubt that the people who work for the EPA are hard-working and dedicated. My point above had nothing to do with the EPA. It was simply that in ratcheting down the pollutants in exhaust, it will require additional processing, probably more equipment at the refineries, and thus create some jobs.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Field level and "top" level workers are entirely different. I have no doubt that those in the field love their job and take great pride in saving the environment from potential threats. Heck, I take the environment seriously. I won't throw a cigarette butt out of my window let alone a plastic bag or styrofoam cup nor even a gum wrapper. The only thing I leave in a forest is footprints and perhaps the entrails of a kill which serves to feed other animals. And my hunting license money goes to manage the area and it's animals.

But in DC, the "up aboves" of the EPA, who probably have never had a breath of fresh forest air are there for their power IMO but I am open minded to opposite views.

[Scooter]

the EPA, that has absolutely no reason to create more work for itself

Not to be a cynic but I think the EPA wants to create more work for itself. More work = more funding = larger fifedom.

The "work" would be the time and effort to draft new versions of existing regulations and the utter frustration of seeing them through the approval process. And there isn't going to be any money for pushing around more paper, not in this environment, and probably never again.

[oldr_n_wsr]

The "work" would be the time and effort to draft new versions of existing regulations and the utter frustration of seeing them through the approval process.

But that is much of their job/goal. They are used to it by now and know the ins and outs better than most. And half/most of the regulations they originated.

[Scooter]

Yes, that is their job, and since they "know the ins and outs better than most", their estimate of what the cost of tightening the standards will be is probably far closer to the truth than that of industry, who has a vested interest in not having to adhere to a tighter standard and therefore has every reason to exaggerate what it will cost. Why would the EPA want to purposely understate the cost of implementing a tighter standard? So that they can make themselves look like idiots if the true cost really is nine times their estimate?

So no, they are not going to create work for themselves in order to implement a new standard that will only serve to make them look like idiots. Which is why I have more faith in their estimate than in industry's.

[Crackpot]

I trust neither. One end is all theory the other is reflexively resistant to any cost increase. I always love the lines of you coud implement X technology in a vehicle for $8 a vehicle. sur if you just wanted to throw it loose in the trunk. but you want to hook it up the the system you have to troubleshoot it with the othersystems use quality enough comopnents to ensure greater than 99% effectiveness packeage it in the vehicle which may mean even more cosly parts. (I remember a case where in order to meet our packaging requirements we had to change a capsitor that cost $.20 apice with two that cost $2.10 apiece. For a grand total of $4.00 more per vehicle.) and all the development engineering and man hours associated.