The Pros And Cons Of The EPA

“We cannot give up.” This quote was said by Liz Barratt-Brown, a climate activist who fought against the keystone XL pipeline. She stated it perfectly, the challenges of climate change must be addressed in one way or another. Yet people still push back, citing the economy and trade as counters to the ever increasing cry for environmental policy. In order to preserve the environment while balancing personal freedoms and the economy, the United States Federal Government should allow the EPA to regulate all activities harmful to the environment. The Federal government should also establish a tax on these pollutants set by the EPA, this tax should be used to compensate for the economic damage done by the tax.

Climate change is one of the most significant

They argue that more EPA power will lead to stricter regulations that help the environment. They say that more EPA power will also lead to economic growth because it will preserve the resources used in our economy. Some pro-side activists sued the EPA for not putting regulations on Massachusetts, in Massachusetts v. EPA, Massachusetts sued the EPA for a lack of regulation on carbon emissions under the duty of the clean air act, the court in a 5-4 decision agreed with Massachusetts (Massachusetts). This case set the standard that the EPA could regulate carbon emissions, the cause of climate change, this was a major win for the pro side. Later on, the court upheld this decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the court upheld the EPA’s power given in Massachusetts to regulate carbon emissions (Utility). Most pro-side activists are more

A pollution tax or penalty. This policy should be issued by congress because they set the tax code. This tax would incentivize businesses to switch to cleaner alternatives because it would save them money. In addition to that, it would save the United States Federal Government money because it would be a new stream of revenue. This policy should not be implemented in full force right away though. It should be announced 1 year out, then a small tax for another year, then a medium tax for another year before going to the full scale tax. Americans would approve because it can reduce their taxes if the government deems it is enough to cover some of the current taxes, even if it is not enough, the government will be able to build better infrastructure, better health insurance, better everything. “A tax on CO2 emissions—not a cap-and-trade system—offers the best prospect of meaningfully engaging China and the U.S., while avoiding the prospect of unhinged environmental