Obama’s EPA, Friend or Foe?

Tree Huggerby Leigh Bravo   3/14/14
Under the Obama Administration, the EPA has become quite controversial. Is this agency, under this Administration, truly a “friend” to the earth, or just another arm of the government being used to further a political agenda and intimidate it’s enemies?

Obama has instituted regulations on the coal industry that will result in the closure of over 200 power plants and the lost of countless American jobs. In Kentucky alone, more than 6000 miners have lost their jobs. For every mining job that is eliminated, there are at least 3 related jobs that are also lost. An Obama Administration official said that these regulations for new coal plants will increase electricity prices by as much as 80% for American consumers.

Can the fragile American economy afford such a disruption in jobs and another power grabbing attempt by the United States Government? Do these new regulations really have a heavier impact on the environment or the American people? Could these regulations be eased into law so the American people are not effected so quickly and negatively in an already horrible economy? Emails, forced to the surface by The Freedom of Information Act, found that The Sierra Club, a green group, was involved in questionable communications with the EPA to adopt regulations for the coal industry that would be impossible for power plants to meet. Can we afford the shut down of so many coal plants who currently generate over 40% of the nation’s electricity, contribute over $100 billion to the economy and support millions of jobs?

Obama’s EPA is also trying to stop the United States from signing off on the Keystone Pipeline. The Pipeline is a 1,664 mile project that would transport 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day, while creating up to 100,000 new jobs and contribute $3.4 billion to the US economy. Could approving this pipeline also have positive effects on the United States’ standing as a world power? Currently Russia has been using their control over Ukraine’s energy supply against them. Who, in this explosive war on power around the world, should we be scared of? The Middle East or the Canadians? If Middle Eastern oil no longer mattered to the U.S., how would it change or influence US foreign policy around the world?

Obama’s EPA’s newest enemy to the environment is the proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska that is estimated to yield 107 million ounces of gold, 80 billion pounds of copper and 5.6 billion pounds of molybdenum, which is used to make steel alloys. The Pebble Partnership has spent $107 million and five years monitoring the soil, water and air to ensure it can mine without hurting the environment. The EPA and it’s green supporters, are, as expected, against this venture. Meanwhile, Democrats are calling on the EPA to use the “Clean Water Act” to block ANY large development projects.

The question for Americans now is how could these 3 projects effect us? Does it help or hurt our future energy use, our economy, the job market or our standing as a Nation in the world? Future environmental benefits are questionable and basically unknown, but job loss and the negative effects on our economy and the job market is a reality now!

So, is Obama’s EPA a friend or a foe?
__________________________________________________
Leigh Bravo blogs at The Trumpet. • (1128 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Obama’s EPA, Friend or Foe?

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Answer: Foe

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The closing of coal burning power plants will have little effect on “so-called” global warming. China has been opening new coal plants at the rate of about one per week for some time now. Coal is China’s largest single indigenous natural resource. They are not going to give it up.

    The oil from the Keystone pipeline will likely go to China if it is not sent to the US so the “environmental” impact will be worse than if it came here.

    Without development of the mine, the US will continue to have to import more copper, gold and moly i.e. we will remain less self sufficient and more dependent on the rest of the world.

    The above three very different situations have two things in common, 1) they are supported by the radical environmental groups, read soft headed communists, with a mixture of crony capitalists mixed in who will profit from each shutdown and 2) they weaken the position of the US vis-a-vis the world.

    The effect of each will hurt the US economy which is a small price to pay when one is out to show Americans the error of their ways.

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    There really are environmental problems, so something like the EPA is needed to deal with them. Unfortunately, the current organization has been captured by eco-zealots (often called “watermelons” because they’re green on the outside and red on the inside), which was true long before the Fascist Messiah gained power. But he has worsened the situation by using the policing organs of the Behemoth as a personal vengeance force against those who oppose him politically.

    To start with, virtually the entire Executive Branch should be defunded, because most of it serves no useful purpose (to the country at large) as long as Big Brother Barry runs it. Organizationally, the regulatory policing function should be separated from the environmental advocacy — and bureaucratic rule-making (in the guise of “interpreting” laws) should have been halted long ago.

  4. Rosalys says:

    The EPA has only become a foe under Zero’s watch? I’m really having trouble recalling a time when the the EPA was a friend!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *