EPA Plans to Close Labs, Drop Scientists and Reduce Oversight...

[bridgit]

'WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency intends to close labs, cut its cadre of upper-level scientists and reduce regulatory oversight, according to an internal agency document.

In a memo dated June 8, a top agency official outlined "a set of proposed disinvestments, innovations, efficiencies and consolidations" for the upcoming 2008 fiscal budget.

"The decisions we make will be critical, difficult and will have long-term consequences," EPA Chief Financial Officer Lyons Gray wrote.

He said the EPA wanted to limit duplication and find "opportunities for consolidation and streamlining." EPA assistant administrators, regional administrators, the general counsel and inspector general received the memo.' http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0916-06.htm

[LARED]

1. This is not necessarily a bad thing

Speaking as someone that works in the chemical industry, the EPA is suffering from the law of diminishing return. They have regulated most everything under the sun (some vital some ridiculous) and are running out of areas to regulate. By and large the cost of non-compliance is high for the regulated so most behave well.

In short they cannot justify their cost any longer and need to trim back in areas.

[BootinUp]

2. But under the Bush admin it seems doubtful

the decision is based on sound logic.

[Ecumenist]

4. Heck, Jim4Wes,

bush probably pronounces the word Log-ick and thinks it's a contaminated tree branch. He don't know from logic. He has the IQ of the ambient room temperature of a room in the Antartic, during a cold snap, with the air conditioner and high power fans running, filled with canisters of frozen nitrogen and all the the windows and doors open.

[BootinUp]

5. lol. maybe it was an understatement. n/t

[LARED]

7. True

but as someonethat tries to deal with the EPA, it is logical to do something.

[bridgit]

3. i can't help but maintain the possibility that the bush admin...

is pursuing this activity for less than reasonable cause; they're record on corporatism supports globalization...perhaps a more relaxed EPA will make a better investment hook (along with a handful of tax incentives, a further diminishing return on labor union/labor law headaches & the like as well) for foreign business here on home soil :shrug:

[Buzz Clik]

8. From your perspecitive, I understand.

However, when we watch the steady unraveling of the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act,and the Clean Water Act, this is not a matter of simply increasing efficiency or worrying about diminishing returns. This is the pendulum swinging strongly from environmental protection to doing the bidding of campaign contributors.

Your comment was correct: "By and large the cost of non-compliance is high for the regulated so most behave well," but what is the threat to polluters when no one is watching?

[OneBlueSky]

6. another ready-made issue for the Democrats . . .

reinforcing the EPA . . .

but will they run with it? . . . past experience says no -- but we can hope . . .

[bridgit]

9. sad to think but likely, that after bush, everything will need to be...

reasserted as to the importance of just why we may have believed in them in the first place; the downside to surviving a president with no expectations but his own