The American Environmental Protection Agency: The Strengths and Weaknesses - Research Paper Example

 Introduction Prior to 1970, America was grappling with the problem of pollution. There were no defined laws or organizations that barred factories from emitting poisonous gases into the atmosphere or spewing their wastes into rivers and lakes. The laws and policies that existed were mostly community based and therefore, not effective. The American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created for that purpose (Bovard 2005). However, it has not been a smooth sailing for this agency. In its quest to clean up the environment, the organization has faced opposition from all quarters, especially from the corporate world. EPA has been criticized for its inability to carry out its mandate. Critics argue that the taxpayers’ money is channeled to this organization, but it has nothing to backup their claim that they are working (Rosenbaum 2010). However, there are those who are satisfied by the organization’s work. EPA gets most of its support from environmentalists and activists. The question that stems out of all this is, is EPA a liability to Americans or an asset? In a world where seven million people die annually from air pollution alone (according to WHO report) having an environmental agency would be the most plausible thing for any country. This research proves that EPA has done a commendable job since its inception and should not be abolished on the basis of a few errors that may have stained it in the recent past. The paper however presents both sides of the coin to prove its point (Bovard 2005). History of EPA in the US In the ‘60s, the American environment was heavily poisoned by pesticides and other chemicals from industries. The vibrant national parks and forests accompanied by of abundance crops gave a false impression that everything was fine. Just like the citizens, the government was also blind from real dangers that the polluted environment had on the people. It was only after Rachel Carson’s controversial and popular book, Silent Spring, that the environmental issue became serious. This book showcased the negative impact DDT and other pesticides had on the environment. It was later revealed that these chemical compounds were causing severe deaths to both plants and animals and were also a threat to human health (Bovard 2005). Though initially reluctant, President Richard Nixon decided to create an environmental agency that would formulate, monitor and enforce laws on environmental protection. January 1, 1970, the president signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which was to play a major role in environmental issues. However, Nixon believed that in order for the issues to be properly addressed another agency was to be formed exclusively for federal legislation. In the summer of the same year, he submitted to the congress Reorganization Plan Number Three, which called for one agency to govern the entire nation’s environmental policy. (Dowdey, 2010) At its conception, EPA was only mandated to oversee the Clean Air act enacted in 1970, to monitor air pollution from industries and vehicle emissions; the Clean Water act and the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control act which were both enacted in 1972. However, in the 90s the statutes increased to 12; they were setup to monitor environmental degradation caused by fungicides, insecticides and rodenticides, ocean dumping, hazards caused by asbestos and uranium based industries (Desai 2002). Currently, more than a hundred programs are either controlled directly by EPA or are affiliated with the agency. Some of EPA’s programs include: Energy Star This program assists people get the best homes and appliances that are free from pollution and do not produce green house gases. In 2006, there was reduction of green gas emission, a figure that is equal to gas emissions from more than 25 million cars. This was because American citizens purchased products that were recommended by the Energy Star. The United States Department of Energy works hand in hand with EPA in this program (Desai 2002). Acid Rain Program In 1990, the Clean Air act was amended by the congress. The lawmakers wanted to reduce the amount of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides that were being emitted into the atmosphere. EPA in response formed the Acid Rain Program to control these emissions (Devine 2004). Endangered Species Protection Program Endangered species and habitats are under the protection of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This act is administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The purpose of ESA is to protect and conserve all the plants, and animal species that are endangered together with their habitat. However, EPA through this program checks governmental agencies to ensure that they do not use poisonous pesticides (Dowdey, 2010). Food Quality Protection Act Enacted in 1996, this act monitors pesticide registration nationally. Under this act, EPA tests antimicrobials and pesticides to determine whether they are safe to use. Furthermore, after enactment it became the most comprehensive historical overhaul that maintained the food safety and the nation’s pesticide (Bovard 2005). Asbestos Program EPA provides necessary information and materials for identification and management of asbestos. When they become airborne, asbestos fibre pose serious health hazards among people (Desai 2002). Therefore, the asbestos program sole purpose is to protect people from the harmful effects caused by long term exposure of asbestos, thus the program maintains or monitors the amount of asbestos exposed. Key Facts about EPA The first administrator of the agency was thirty eight year old William D. Ruckelshaus. The assistant attorney general was appointed to lead the new agency by President Nixon. It was due to this reason that he was branded ‘Mr. Clean’ by the people. It is also worth noting that Rachel Carson’s book sparked the big debate about environmental degradation in America. Prior to this book, there were no serious mechanisms to control environmental pollution. Therefore, Mrs. Carson is credited for influencing President Nixon into establishing the Environmental Protection Agency. It is due to this reason that she is fondly referred to as the mother of modern day environmental activism (Devine 2004). Another fact is that the agency has ten regional offices that work hand in hand with the head office in Washington DC. 18000 people work for the agency; the headquarters in Washington alone has over 5000 workers. Next, President Bush declared 2003 to be the year of water as a good will gesture towards EPA. Ironically, he slashed the Office of Water budget by 20%. Lastly, EPA banned the use of DDT in 1972. This pesticide had been in use since the ‘40s. Approximately more than 670,000 tons of DDT had been used in the US alone from the ‘40s until the time it was banned (Rosenbaum 2010). Proponents Side 1: Pro-EPA Despite heavy criticism and opposition, EPA’s quest for environmental protection has been successful. First of all, Lead levels in the atmosphere have decline by more than 95% in the last three decades. It is also worth noting that harmful gas emissions reduced by 95% since EPA started monitoring the environment in 1970 (McCarthy 2014). This is a great achievement considering the fact that the number of industries and vehicles have increased tremendously. Furthermore, EPA has been able to regulate water pollution in the US by preventing million pounds of toxics wastes from penetrating through the waterways every year. In 1972, only a third of waters were safe for swimming and fishing. Currently, more than two thirds are. Banning of hazardous pesticides like DDT had a positive impact on the environment. For example, the bald eagle which was on the brink of extinction recovered in numbers after DDT was banned. At the onset of the 21st century, EPA through the Superfund had reclaimed more than 1300 polluted sites that were inhabitable, but now they are (Dowdey, 2010). Proponents Side 2: Anti-EPA Since the days of Bush’s administration up to Obama’s government, EPA has been dotted by so many controversies. Apart from congressional investigations and lawsuits against EPA , there have also been resignations by various high profile workers like Van Jones and Al Armendariz who resigned in 2009 and 2012 respectively. Most critics claim that the agency is not able to carry out the job it was setup to do (McCarthy 2014). This agency has been at loggerheads with the Supreme Court over its duties. At one instance, environmental groups from Massachusetts and other counties took EPA to court for its lack of accountability when it came to establishing standards and regulating green house gas emissions from new vehicles. EPA responded by claiming that it had no power to control the emissions. However, the Supreme Court proved that the authority was already incorporated in the Clean Air Act and that it was their responsibility to do so (McCarthy 2014). EPA has also been on the spotlight for its lack of ability to follow up investigations and convictions. It is worth noting that the agency’s investigations dropped from 2002 to 2006 by more than 30%. The argument set forth by the senior personnel is that the organization had shifted to bigger cases with higher risks. In 2007, Christie Todd Whitman, the EPA administrator at the time was called before a Congressional meeting to respond to allegations that the agency’s response to the 911 attacks posed a serious threat among workers. Whitman had assured people that the air in Manhattan was safe after the attack and that they could resume their activities in the area. However, clinical reports reveal that most people who heed Whitman’s advice had respiratory problems (Dowdey 2010). There were reports indicating that honeybees were being affected by EPA’s flawed system of tracking pesticides. The Conditional Registration adopted by the agency allows pesticides to be on the market as the agency closely monitors its effects on the environment. Experts argue that this system allows harmful products into the market. And it is due to this system that honeybees have been declining at a rate of more than 20% each year. This is according to the US Department of Agriculture (Rosenbaum 2010). Personal Analysis It is evident that EPA has brought more good than harm to the people of America. It may have slowed down in recent years due to political interference, but such minor issues should not taint the vast achievements of the organization. It is a fact that most people who are busy opposing this organization are capitalists and large corporations that are causing destruction to the environment in the name of making profits. These individuals and corporations pose serious risks to the environment and if they are not closely monitored, then the world would be inhabitable for the future generations (McCarthy 2014). The world is grappling with serious issues like deforestation and global warming. This is mostly because most nations in the developing world do not have organizations like EPA, that monitor the wrongdoings that are causing havoc on this earth. Another argument brought forth is that restrictions on the corporations’ practices will have a negative impact on the economy of the country. However, this is a minor problem. The economy can be reclaimed in many ways, but the earth cannot be created nor reclaimed once it has been completely destroyed. EPA was successful in reclaiming most of the affected habitats since the pollution levels were not chronic (Devine 2004). There are places on earth where nuclear emissions have rendered them inhabitable. Chernobyl in Ukraine is inhabitable due to nuclear radiation in the area. Thirty people died, many were evacuated and millions suffered from illnesses related to that accident. The exclusion zone perimeter is around thirty kilometer. At this rate, most places on earth will be unsafe for occupation in the near future. Brandishing EPA as ineffective due to a few mistakes is hypocrisy by the critics and corporations that oppose it. Which organization or individual on earth does not make mistakes? The world is more likely to experience more problems with the absence of environmental agencies than when they are present (Rosenbaum 2010). Conclusion There are no major evidences to prove that EPA has done something that has led to many deaths of civilians, but there are millions of evidences showing how corporations are busy destroying habitats, killing animals and posing serious health threats to humans. The environmental agency may have staggered a bit in its actions, but this should not be an excuse or reason to dissolve it. Most environmentalists, individuals and experts believe that EPA is doing commendable work. These big corporations are only confusing people so as to push forward their agendas. The best way to deal with this issue is to make a few changes in the organization starting with the management and other high profile figures. Then all the statutes and laws should also be altered to alternate with the current issue affecting Americans. Using laws and statutes that were created more than a decade ago may not deal with the current problems and this may be where the problem stems from. Works Cited 1. Bovard, James. The Bush Betrayal. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, Sep. 17, 2005. Print. 2. Desai, Uday. Environmental Politics and Policy in Industrialized Countries. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2002. Print. 3. Devine, Bob. Bush Versus the Environment. Anchor Books, 2004. Print. 4. Dowdey, Sarah. How the EPA Works. n.d. Web. Apr. 6, 2014. Retrieved from: http://people.howstuffworks.com/epa1.htm 5. McCarthy, James & Copeland, Claudia. Too Much, Too Little, or On Track? Mar. 19, 2014. Web. Apr. 6, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41561.pdf 6. Rosenbaum, Walter A. Environmental Politics and Policy. California: SAGE Publications, AUG. 5, 2010. Print. Read More