The EPA is arguably the most economically beneficial of government entities. If you like breathing, that is.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The Environmental Protection Agency is the prime target of a lot of right-wing conspiracy theories: some have suggested that the agency plans to regulate human respiration, while others worry that it's secretly plotting to infringe upon the right to bear arms. But as a new report from the White House Office of Management and Budget shows, the EPA actually has the best track record among the agencies when it comes to setting rules whose pluses outnumber the minuses. True, the EPA's rules do often come at higher costs than those of most agencies, but the benefits still far outweigh them:

It should be clear that the rules with the highest benefits and the highest costs, by far, come from the Environmental Protection Agency and in particular its Office of Air. More specifically, EPA rules account for 62 to 84 percent of the monetized benefits and 46 to 53 percent of the monetized costs. The rules that aim to improve air quality account for 95 to 97 percent of the benefits of EPA rules.

Of the 20 air rules that have come from the office in the last 10 years, the Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule stands out as the most beneficial—it saves $19 billion to $167 billion every year because the public isn't being exposed to harmful air pollution. This came at a cost of just $7.3 billion per year. Overall, the report documented 32 major federal rules from the EPA in the past decade, which saved the economy up to $550.7 billion, at a cost of somewhere between $23.3 billion and $28.5 billion.

So while Republican presidential candidates are talking about abolishing the agency (see: Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich), it's a helpful reminder that the agency actually exists for a reason and is arguably the most economically beneficial of government entities. If you like breathing, that is.

http://motherjones.c...+Blue+Marble%29

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to get everyone in the country a good old gas mask? They're avalaible at $15.00 a pop on Amazon. Do the math - a few billion dollars and the EPA is good to be shut down. You'll be breathing flitered air so it's all good.

[slim 1,525]

So a white house office said a government agency is beneficial.

Shocker!!!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Everyone can bash the EPA as much as they like....but please DO NOT tell me private industry could do a better job at protecting our environment. History shows that to be false.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Everyone can bash the EPA as much as they like....but please DO NOT tell me private industry could do a better job at protecting our environment. History shows that to be false.

You're violating one of the rules of P&R: NO FACTS, PLEASE!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

There is a prize for the most economical government agency?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The EPA has its uses, but it also oversteps its bounds more than any other agency.

It hasn't done ###### in a decade as it pretends to that actually 'helps' us breathe better.

What a joke.

Of course what do you expect from THIS white house.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sorry for bringing factual data into the discussion.

[slim 1,525]

Who sets the national standard?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Who sets the national standard?

the UN probably.

Of course if the UN had it their way, along with most left wing evironmental nuts, we'd all be driving Flinstones cars and living in homes made of mud.

[Zero Sum 305]

Sorry for bringing factual data into the discussion.

Please, no facts allowed in environmental regulation threads. They creates rants about government conspiracies.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Please, no facts allowed in environmental regulation threads. They creates rants about government conspiracies.

your definition of facts is astonishing.

-Where were the air samples taken?

-Were they taken from the exact area each time they were taken?

-What is the source of the chart/graph?

etc...

Had I posted this chart, you'd be demanding proof that I hadn't photoshopped it.

[Zero Sum 305]

your definition of facts is astonishing.

-Where were the air samples taken?

-Were they taken from the exact area each time they were taken?

-What is the source of the chart/graph?

etc...

Had I posted this chart, you'd be demanding proof that I hadn't photoshopped it.

It is but one of many. Feel free to be as skeptical as you like (a good thing presented any evidence). Being a denialist is something else (a bad thing provided repetitive examples of evidence).

Now is not the time to claim selective memory loss.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

your definition of facts is astonishing.

-Where were the air samples taken?

-Were they taken from the exact area each time they were taken?

-What is the source of the chart/graph?

etc...

Had I posted this chart, you'd be demanding proof that I hadn't photoshopped it.

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2007/report/trends_report_full.pdf

[Obama 2012 1,714]

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2007/report/trends_report_full.pdf

credibility is lost come page 36.