Henry Miller: Is it time to get rid of the EPA?

“I found EPA to be relentlessly anti-science, anti-technology and anti-industry. The only thing it seemed to be for was the Europeans’ innovation-busting “precautionary principle,” the view that until a product or activity has been definitively proven safe, it should be banned or at least smothered with regulation.”

Read more at the Daily Caller.

About these ads

5 Responses to Henry Miller: Is it time to get rid of the EPA?

  1. I keep wondering what products we now enjoy would have been BANNED if the EPA was in existence since the founding of this country.
    - the buggy
    - the car
    - the use of electricity for any purpose
    - anesthesia
    please, anyone else like to add to the list. Each one of these has some inherent hazard.

  2. The organization has clearly outlived its effective usefulness. It has become saturated with ideologues beyond any possible reform and should be closed.

  3. The concept of trade-off of benefits vs. risks is foreign to the EPA – and always has been. It’s only because they have run out of obvious low-hanging fruit and have, consequently, been forced to continually find new hobgoblins and to ratchet down what is “safe” in order to justify their existence that the general public has begun to notice. Congress could reign it in, but is afraid of the MSM.

  4. Big Ozone will never let us shut down the EPA.

  5. But thanks to EPA, bed bugs and malaria are no longer on the endangered species list.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s