1 The EPA should implement an environmental tariff for products imported that are mfg.'d by facilities that do not meet the U.S. standards. The monies would then go to U.S. facilities to alleviate environmental concerns, and stop the "job loss" just my 2 cents 2 Economics and job retention need to be considered in all proposed regulations. 3 of course environmental regulations in the US and other developed nations make businesses less competitive if looked at in isolation, but very few of us would want to live in the type of toxic wasteland that would result if the rampant pollution that was common previously was allowed to continue... even escalated due to modern production rates? What good is a good paying job if you get cancer and die at 40 like people will begin doing in China? What good is a good paying job if you can't spend part of your paycheck to go trout fishing on the weekend because the river is polluted and on fire??? People on the right that want to eliminate environmental regulation are ignorant and haven't learned from history. 4 the epa's effect is miniscule compared to global marketplace, EPA is essential, industry will not regulate itself 5 Probably saved jobs The enforced cleanup of formerly disgusting mills has avoided many from being closed by litigation or vigilante citizens (as has happened overseas, particularly Brazil and Indonesia. 6 Yes and no. Yes, mills have shut that might have been able to economically survive if they had not had to make significant, un-necessary capital and continuing everyday expenditures on emission control systems. Not every mill needs Best Available Technology to reach acceptable discharge levels. No, if you consider the additional staff of environmental engineers. But then, most mills just shifted the process technical positions over to doing environmental work so there probably wasn't an increase...just a shift. 7 In UK the EA (EPA equivalent) now so beauracratic they have lost sight of the science. 8 I believe the irresponsible actions of P&P in the 60's and 70's are the root cause of the severe (and overly exact) scrutiny of today. I believe the loss of jobs is much more related to the lack of innovation and overreliance of paper as a communication medium in an electronic age. 9 Most of the new overseas mills have environmental control systems of comparable cost and sophistication to ours. The loss of jobs come from: (1) US labor is uncompetitive (overpriced); (2) Other gov't regulations (on safety, administrative issues <such as hiring+firing>)make us uncompetitive. 10 Since spending is an issue I would cut the budget for the EPA 25% and that would scale back the agenda a bit. Scientific based decisions next. 11 I say "yes" tentatively. Every time EPA issues an expensive rule or requirement, they try to quantify the cost to industry. I believe they underestimate. Industry studies the rule and what it will take to comply. They publicize the cost and I believe it is an over estimate. The truth lies somewhere in between. Nevertheless, it seems the EPA focuses on minutia, not the big picture. And too many industries are exempted. For example, how can the quality of river water be improved by forcing industries to reduce emissions to rivers when there is little to no regulation of farm run-off?
Have a comment? Send your email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Unless you tell us otherwise, we will assume we can use your name if we publish your letter.
Remember, if you please, to let your suppliers know you read Nip Impressions!