Bill to Eliminate EPA Introduced in Congress


Earlier this month, Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) introduced H.R. 861, a bill to abolish the the EPA. Representative Gaetz’s bill is only one sentence long. It states, “The Environmental Protection Agency shall terminate on December 31, 2018.”

Threat to Private Property Rights

Despite whatever good intentions the EPA’s creators may have had when they established the “unconstitutional agency,” says an article posted yesterday by Christian Gomez, “it quickly deviated from its stated mission of protecting the nation’s environment to being a tool for radical environmentalists to impose anti-property rights regulations, which threaten the very heart and soul of both individual and economic freedom.”

See all of this great article:
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/25468-bill-to-eliminate-environmental-protection-agency-introduced-in-congress

Thanks to Craig Adkins for this link


19 thoughts on “Bill to Eliminate EPA Introduced in Congress

  1. The most valuable thing the EPA could do is to stop the felling of American forests to supply wood pellets to the UK in the lunatic green fantasy that burning wood shipped over the Atlantic to generate electricity is somehow environmentally friendly.

    It generates more CO2 than burning coal or the large reserves of natural gas the UK has but can’t produce because of further green lunacy. Why is it that green’s can’t support CO2 reductions when gas is involved ?

    Failing to stop the deforestation and recognising the EPA released severe river polluting tailings last year perhaps it isn’t worth the cost.

    • I look forward to reading the article and the bill… could be a most interesting argument.

      And Roscoe, while I agree with you that it is ridiculous to send wood pellets to the UK then claiming it’s saving energy… I am not inclined to agree with your comments about deforestation. The US does not have a deforestation problem from anything I’ve ever read, possibly the opposite. The thing is there are large parts of the US that are arid, mostly in the Southwest … and in those areas not many trees, or the ones they tend to grow are not native and use way too much water. It is a bit deceptive in some parts because we have some areas that are called “forests” which really aren’t… so seeing pictures of them might give one to think they are being deforested.

      For example, the Cleveland National Forest… which runs through parts of LA, Orange and San Diego Counties… is mostly chaparral, which is mostly bushes not trees. A few larger bushes plus live oak (which is very fire prone, they explode during fires because of the grease in them), but mostly bushes and shrubs. I lived for a time in a town that was surrounded on three sides by the Cleveland National “Forest” and in my part, very few trees native. However, in Southern CA they put in quite a few eucalyptus, because they grow so quickly.

      The desert parts of the Southwest and the Great Plains… are just that, naturally desert or grasslands not forest and not forest that has been deforested. But the northern states (including northern CA) and the east all are areas where trees are abundant, grow densely, and in many places grow very quickly. There have been studies about how the Northeastern US now has more tree cover than during colonial times… that is because fewer people farm in those areas than in the past. The forests in the eastern US tend to be so dense, except in very urban areas, that there is a problem with deer… including any of the suburban areas just around big cities in the east.

      Not sure where the trees for the pellets come from but it is most likely some place where we have a lot of trees. Where I live (southeastern VA) I know there is a wood industry because of how quickly and densely certain trees grow (especially Southern pine, which is mostly grown for “wood products” like the stuff that goes into disposable diapers.

      Of course that still doesn’t mean it makes sense to ship wood pellets to the UK, then claim it[s “sustainable”!

      • I decided to look up USA deforestation and read up a bit in case my information was out dated. One thing I found that was most interesting… a picure from NASA (also posted on that awful Huffington Post) showing what is supposedly a satellite image of the earth with the US showing… from two time periods claiming to show deforestation (the later dated 2012).

        What was most interesting was the eastern US shown all beige and supposedly deforested…. but that whole part of the US I know for a fact (living there and having driven the entire length of the east coast a few times around that time)… is total hooey! All Florida brown? Ha, give me a a break! How did they get the picture tho? Some claim the earlier picture was taken in summer and the later in winter when the leaves have fallen … but that’s not a good enough explaination, since much of the area in the Southeastern US does not get cold enough for leave to fall. Personally, I suspect a bit of photoshopping (or whatever that is called, where you can edit a picturew).

    • It would be better if remineralization of soils with powdered basalt and or carbonatite and reforestation were promoted nd done instead. It would create jobs and be a good long term investment in agriculture and forestry.

    • This kind of “solution” to the problem of energy production proves the education system in both countries is an utter failure, because it has not taught most people a basic understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is never a good solution to any problem, but the example cited above is not an isolated case.

    • The Greenies can’t support natural gas because it is cheap energy. Their real intent is to use CAGW to bring about a global government that operates with no borders or boundaries. They are bent on impoverishing mankind because they believe we are overpopulating the planet and using up its resources. You can read about their intent to bring this about in the UN Agenda 21 document and now the 2030 agenda. These people are dead serious about this and the Democrat progressives are on board.

  2. There is nothing in the constitution saying that the Federal government has a responsibility to establish an “Environmental Protection Agency.” Like many powers and responsibilities that have been assumed by the federal government, environmental protection belongs to the states under the tenth amendment.

  3. What about the EPA’s existing laws, will they still stand once the agency is abolished? That bill doesn’t say, can the laws still be enforced by any judiciary? Perhaps this is a legal trap where once the agency is gone it’s laws would have to be abolished one by one for instance.

    Carefull now.

    • What “laws” are you referring to? US laws are proposed by and passed by the House of Representatives, then passed by the Senate and signed into law by the President. The EPA, an agency, wrote rules and regulations as policies and procedures to define existing law, and over reached their authority and mandate.

      Once the agency is dissolved, all rules and regulations die with it unless individually extended by an act of Congress.

      • Only Federal laws.

        Not true for state or local laws … and some states (CA for example) choose to have their own state EPA.

    • Don’t confuse rules and regulations with laws. One problem we have with regulatory agencies is that they make up their rules as they go along and then enforce their rules as laws just as if they had been passed by congress and signed into law by the president. This is not constitutional and is totally unacceptable! They are unelected officials with immense power that is often applied unjustly.

  4. Rosco nice post;-)
    and yup break it up and then hire again with severely restricted limits for really serious chem issues, and to ensure remediation sites finally DO get cleaned up.
    with a mandate Carbon is NOT a pollutant!
    and2.5micron? particulates are basically natural dust..especially on farms:-)

  5. I believe this agency should be abolished and its functions be left to the individual states, all of whom have their own lawful environmental protection agencies which can be controlled by each state’s voters. Every federal agency should be reviewed for abolishment by Congress. But your legislators don’t have the stomach for it because both parties fear the progressives more than they fear the voters. This is the fault of we the people because we are lazy and shirk our responsibilities as citizens at every level of government, including seeing to the proper education of our children.

  6. There only needs to be one simple amendment to the EPA act of 1974. Make the so-called experts prove their claims of environmental harm. Right now, it only takes three “expert opinions” to cause the industry to prove that a project will not cause harm. The accusers don’t have to do anything. That amendment would make the EPA self extinguishing, and it would sound much more reasonable than abolishing the EPA all together.

Comments are closed.