PDA

View Full Version : EPA Budget and Direction



Bayou Magic
02-14-2011, 07:28 PM
This link http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/ (click on the 2012 budget to get the pdf) is to the 2012 budget proposed by the administration published by the EPA. It is quite lengthy, but provides clear insight as to the direction and priorities of this administration. I'll withhold my comments for now... Tell me what you think.

The following is but a small portion of the linked document.

"Improving Air Quality and Supporting Action on Greenhouse Gas Pollution
EPA will continue to protect American families’ health by enforcing the Clean Air Act’s updated air pollution standards that rein in big polluters by cutting back on mercury, carbon dioxide, arsenic and other life-threatening pollution in the air we breathe. EPA will take measured, common-sense steps to address greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution and improve air quality. Taking these reasonable steps to update standards now will allow the Agency to better protect people’s health, drive technology innovation for a stronger economy, and protect the environment cost-effectively. In fact, creating more sustainable materials and products is an opportunity for American innovators, investors, and entrepreneurs.
EPA is requesting $5.1 million in additional resources for Air Toxics and $6.2 million in upgrades to the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL). Additional resources for air toxics will be used to improve EPA’s air toxic monitoring capabilities and to improve dissemination of information between and among the various EPA offices, the state, local and tribal governments, and the public. Additional resources for the NVFEL will begin to address the anticipated more than four-fold increase in the number of vehicle and engine certificates EPA issues and the much more challenging oversight requirements for both the vehicle/engine compliance program and fuels programs due to the diversity of sophisticated technologies.

EPA’s FY 2012 budget requests $46 million for efforts aimed to reduce GHG pollution and address the Climate and Clean Energy Challenge. This includes the $25 million described below for state grants focused on developing the technical capacity for addressing GHG pollution in their Clean Air Act permitting activities and an additional $5 million for related EPA efforts. $6 million in additional funding is included for the implementation of new emission standards that will reduce GHG pollution from passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium duty passenger vehicles. These funds also will support EPA’s assessment and potential development, in response to legal obligations, of standards for other mobile sources. Also included is $7 million for the assessment and potential development of New Source Performance Standards for several categories of major stationary sources through means that are flexible and manageable for business. Finally, this amount includes $2.5 million for priority measurement, reporting and verification activities related to implementing the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule, to ensure the collection of high quality data."

fp

Marvin S
02-15-2011, 12:23 PM
IMO - another way of wasting money to keep a constituency in paychecks. I think most who live from the land are better stewards than any bureaucrat. I went to every meeting of our local county when they did their Critical Areas Ordinance, the only testimony considered worthy was those who favored more unnecessary oversight. I helped ensure a candidate who as a member of the County Council would only place weight on staff input did not go any further up the political ladder.

My son is in the food industry, educated in the field, only one doing what he does in this state. What he has to put up with daily with his operation makes it small wonder that most food comes from "Factory Farms".

I think most citizens want a clean healthy environment, but if that stands in the way of a bureaucrat collecting another paycheck, the bureaucrat will look the other way :o.