Cory Gardner fights against environmental protection

Cory Gardner, anti-environment

To the delight of American industrialists and their friends in the GOP, freshman U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner (CO-District 4) appears determined to erode as much of the regulatory authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as he is able.

The EPA was born during the term of Richard Nixon, based on a 1970 memorandum of the President’s Advisory Council on Executive Organization, “Federal Organization for Environmental Protection.” If the GOP was aware of the need for federal regulations on polluting industries in 1970, how much more are those regulations necessary in our resource-depleting and waste-generating consumerist culture of 2011?

The memorandum recognized that “The economic progress which we have come to expect, or even demand, has almost invariably been at some cost to the environment.” It states that “Some means must be found by which our economic and social aspirations are balanced against the finite capacity of the environment to absorb society’s wastes.”

Before Mr. Gardner goes too far in his personal tirade against the EPA, I suggest that he, and the GOP leadership, should learn what was recognized in 1970 regarding the “finite capacity of the environment to absorb society’s wastes.” His zeal against environmental regulations is not only misguided and misinformed, it is downright dangerous.

  1 comment for “Cory Gardner fights against environmental protection

  1. FRED BATES
    August 16, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    Tirade?! This is clearly a plan with a considered goal, and the actors who carry it forward may change from time to time, but the end result desired is still this: a free ride for corporations — that is, no taxes, no regulations, no unions, no class-action lawsuits, no financial restraints, and no crap from labor. With Reagan came a different brand of “conservative,” one wound up to preserve the greater wealth of the fewer. Once the latter gets the geld, they work even harder to keep it. For a reference point, one of the leaders of the “business plot” intended to overthrow FDR in 1935 had $60 million. He said he would happily sacrifice half of that, just to make sure there was NO threat to the rest. What’s $60 million in today’s dollars? Try $567,000,000, give or take. These brigands think because they’re rich they are also smart!

    By the way, looking fondly back to 1970 is indeed interesting. Recall that it was Nixon who went to China (after Henry Kissinger laid the groundwork). And he wasn’t rich, so he had to beg and scrape for campaign money. Hence, his soul was always for sale. Or for rent. Was Reagan independently wealthy? Carter? Ford? Gimme a break. GHW Bush had a few nickels, and so therefore did his kid. But Barack hasn’t got an extra pocket. This dough ALWAYS comes with strings (read above, re doing anything to keep one’s stash). Use of “the environment” is ingrained since Masada fell. It is considered a public good in financial circles. The Chinese have certainly learned the lesson. About the use, that is. Not the stewardship. But so little has been done there (one estimate has it that the PRC needs to spend 2% of its GDP just to stay even with its added pollution load, starting with the addition of 10,000 motor vehicles a month in Beijing alone)*, that American captains of industry are likely intensely jealous. Competing on a level playing field is their mantra. Right.

    *Hey, Ralph! Ain’t that government spending? We gotta stop that poop; ya know?

    Excuses, excuses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *