EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Coolcaesar/flickr/cc)
Feb 10, 2017
A House Republican this week introduced legislation to eviscerate the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act of 2017, declared Rep. Sam Johnson (Texas), is a "commonsense bill does right by the hardworking Americans." According to a press statement from Johnson, the legislation "would terminate or eliminate federal funding for 13 wasteful EPA programs, would close all EPA field offices, and require the EPA to lease or sell all underutilized properties."
Among the programs it would kill are environmental justice programs and all EPA grant programs. It would strip funding for the greenhouse gas reporting program, regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, regulating greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants; and climate research at the EPA's Office of Research and Development.
The Hillwrites that it "is modeled after a report from the Heritage Foundation," a conservative think tank. It also regurgitates a failed bill Johnson introduced in 2015, which Bloomberg BNAdescribed at the time as "the anti-EPA bill to end all anti-EPA bills."
The Center for Responsive Politics, using data from the Federal Election Commission, reveals that Johnson has received $586,600 from the oil and gas industries from 1991-2016.
His, however, is far from the only recent threat to the agency.
Last week, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) introduced legislation to kill the EPA entirely. Beyond that, Trump's pick to head the EPA, Scott Pruitt, has been described as a "fossil fuel industry puppet" and climate change denialist who fought EPA regulations.
And Myron Ebell, the former head of Trump's transition team at the EPA, said to the Associated Press two weeks ago that the administration may pursue slashing the agency's workforce by half--or perhaps more. Further, AP writes: "Ebell suggested it was reasonable to expect the president to seek a cut of about $1 billion from the EPA's roughly $8 billion annual budget."
While Rep. Johnson argued that gutting the EPA was in the public's interest, BillMoyers.com reporter John Light explores how doing so is anything but, as it threatens public health and people's lives.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A House Republican this week introduced legislation to eviscerate the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act of 2017, declared Rep. Sam Johnson (Texas), is a "commonsense bill does right by the hardworking Americans." According to a press statement from Johnson, the legislation "would terminate or eliminate federal funding for 13 wasteful EPA programs, would close all EPA field offices, and require the EPA to lease or sell all underutilized properties."
Among the programs it would kill are environmental justice programs and all EPA grant programs. It would strip funding for the greenhouse gas reporting program, regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, regulating greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants; and climate research at the EPA's Office of Research and Development.
The Hillwrites that it "is modeled after a report from the Heritage Foundation," a conservative think tank. It also regurgitates a failed bill Johnson introduced in 2015, which Bloomberg BNAdescribed at the time as "the anti-EPA bill to end all anti-EPA bills."
The Center for Responsive Politics, using data from the Federal Election Commission, reveals that Johnson has received $586,600 from the oil and gas industries from 1991-2016.
His, however, is far from the only recent threat to the agency.
Last week, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) introduced legislation to kill the EPA entirely. Beyond that, Trump's pick to head the EPA, Scott Pruitt, has been described as a "fossil fuel industry puppet" and climate change denialist who fought EPA regulations.
And Myron Ebell, the former head of Trump's transition team at the EPA, said to the Associated Press two weeks ago that the administration may pursue slashing the agency's workforce by half--or perhaps more. Further, AP writes: "Ebell suggested it was reasonable to expect the president to seek a cut of about $1 billion from the EPA's roughly $8 billion annual budget."
While Rep. Johnson argued that gutting the EPA was in the public's interest, BillMoyers.com reporter John Light explores how doing so is anything but, as it threatens public health and people's lives.
A House Republican this week introduced legislation to eviscerate the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act of 2017, declared Rep. Sam Johnson (Texas), is a "commonsense bill does right by the hardworking Americans." According to a press statement from Johnson, the legislation "would terminate or eliminate federal funding for 13 wasteful EPA programs, would close all EPA field offices, and require the EPA to lease or sell all underutilized properties."
Among the programs it would kill are environmental justice programs and all EPA grant programs. It would strip funding for the greenhouse gas reporting program, regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, regulating greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants; and climate research at the EPA's Office of Research and Development.
The Hillwrites that it "is modeled after a report from the Heritage Foundation," a conservative think tank. It also regurgitates a failed bill Johnson introduced in 2015, which Bloomberg BNAdescribed at the time as "the anti-EPA bill to end all anti-EPA bills."
The Center for Responsive Politics, using data from the Federal Election Commission, reveals that Johnson has received $586,600 from the oil and gas industries from 1991-2016.
His, however, is far from the only recent threat to the agency.
Last week, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) introduced legislation to kill the EPA entirely. Beyond that, Trump's pick to head the EPA, Scott Pruitt, has been described as a "fossil fuel industry puppet" and climate change denialist who fought EPA regulations.
And Myron Ebell, the former head of Trump's transition team at the EPA, said to the Associated Press two weeks ago that the administration may pursue slashing the agency's workforce by half--or perhaps more. Further, AP writes: "Ebell suggested it was reasonable to expect the president to seek a cut of about $1 billion from the EPA's roughly $8 billion annual budget."
While Rep. Johnson argued that gutting the EPA was in the public's interest, BillMoyers.com reporter John Light explores how doing so is anything but, as it threatens public health and people's lives.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.