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.

5 thoughts on “Henry Miller: Is it time to get rid of the EPA?”

  1. 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.

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

  3. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.