Talk:United States Environmental Protection Agency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject United States Government Agencies, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Agencies and Departments of the United States Government. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
A story relating to the article United States Environmental Protection Agency (or a previous version of it) was included in the news section of the Energy Portal. Please consider updating the portal news with any major developments on this topic.

I removed "as long as it does not interfere with economic interests" from the description of the EPA's mission in the first sentence of the article. No explanation was given by the contributor of this recent addition. In fact, the EPA's mission statement, found on the agency's own "About EPA" webpage, does not contain this qualifier. In addition, neither "economic" nor any other form of the word can be found anywhere on the "About EPA" webpage. See http://www.epa.gov/epahome/aboutepa.htm --ChicagoJason 19:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To do:

  1. Describe the criteria the EPA uses for banning pollutants.
  2. Give examples of pollutants banned by these criteria.
  3. Is carbon dioxide a "pollutant"?
Carbon dioxide is not directly regulated by the USEPA, as it is considered benign by the US goverment. However, they do indirectly regulate carbon dioxide emissions through the enforcement of energy efficiency standards, including their voluntary energy star certification program. All their efficiency standards and absolutely everything they are doing in regards to CO2 is in the US Climate Action Report at their webpage. It is worth noting that the California state goverment does plan to regulate CO2 through CARB, although the federal goverment unsuccessfully challenged their authority to do so. --Lack Thereof 03:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at United States Environmental Protection Agency? At least several states have their own EPA's and I'm sure other nations also have their own. --mav 05:10, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree with mav - the page should read United States Environmental Protection Agency.

I also agree, there is for instance Queensland EPA to which this would apply. I'm going to move it. Lankiveil 12:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Controversy section needed!

There should be a controversy section to this wiki page. I mean a green agency whose head is installed by Dubya is as efficient in protecting Mother Earth as the FCC would be under the directorate of Goebbels.

  • What about the recent controversy regarding allowing testing of pollutants on mentally handicapped children and orphans? It should at least be addressed briefly if it's still an issue. Rōnin 10:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I added a lengthy remark accusing the EPA of following a political and anti-scientific agenda. But perhaps you wanted more about right-wing bias than about left-wing bias? --Wing Nut 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new article: Timeline

hey EPA editors -- I created a new article quite a while ago, and since then haven't had a chance to follow up: Timeline of major US environmental and occupational health regulation. Please take a look and add/subtract/modify at your pleasure. I would ask that you please read the talk page first for a description of why I chose that name, and what I intended for the article. thanks! bikeable (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DDT Section

A friend of mine at the EPA, when shown the article, called it dishonest and a misrepresentation. I have reworked that section so as to not be inflammatory, and so that it represents DDT's ban as being about ecosystems, not human health. Talk page if you have questions. --\/\/slack (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balance of coverage

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (July 2007)

The current version of the article does not do a good job explaining the diversity of programs the EPA has, instead discussing only a select few and leaving the reader to guess that the "related legislation" section means they also have other areas of responsibility. -- Beland 18:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization Plan No. 3

DBrnstn asked in an edit summary, What was the law passed that established the EPA? Should be listed, and perhaps hyperlinked. I created a stub for Reorganization Plan No. 3 and linked it from this article. Feel free to expand on it. bikeable (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural references

THe Simpsons Movie centres on the EPA. Whether or not other cultural references to the EPA can be found, one good question emerges: should the article have a Cultural references section? IMHO it should, but I'm not doing anything until we get a bit of consensus. 85.92.173.186 06:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree Wartime2 23:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. The reference to EPA was not particularly meaningful. At most it deserves a sentence, but this article shouldn't become full of random "cultural references". bikeable (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a reference, especially because the DVD includes a message from EPA saying that they are not in fact incompetent. 68.183.182.60 (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] He like to eat leaves in EPA in US.

He like to eat leaves in EPA in US.

This line is is the article. Vandalism? 81.105.245.251 04:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


Review of air quality standards POV check. Policymakers that have minimal scientific knowledge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.110.231 (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redo Air Standards Review Sections

Reference 8 requires a subscription and the summary text is misleading at best. 68.93.134.68 (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Related legislation" can be reduced

The newly-created environmental policy of the United States has some significant overlap with this article, and most of the "Related legislation" section could be deleted or greatly reduced. johnpseudo 23:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Company influence of EPA?

EPA fires scientist after request by company. [1] Brian Pearson (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Brian Pearson

[edit] Aircraft Drinking Water Rule

This item was deleted from the Water legislation section. A rule is not legislation; it's a regulation issued by EPA. This article does not have a list of EPA regulations, nor do I recommend creating one here (EPA has issued thousands of rules). This drinking water-related proposed rule could be added to the Safe Drinking Water Act article, or a new article could be created. I preserve the deleted text here for such possible uses.

2008 - Aircraft Drinking Water Rule, proposed on March 28, 2008 /ref/ http://cleantechlawandbusiness.com/cleanbeta/index.php/47/airplane-water/ CleanBeta /ref/

Moreau1 (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)