Anti-EPA zealotry

As I've noted before, the Oklahoman is nothing but a big propaganda machine for the far-right. Yesterday, we took a break from critiquing the letters it runs to actually going point-by-point through a childish editorial which decries the Sierra Club and its cries to have better enforcement of EPA regulations on coal-fired power plants.

Predictably, now we have a letter doing the same thing. In it, Derald Suffridge of Duncan laments

'Officials should continue fight against EPA decision' (Our Views, July 23), regarding the Environmental Protection Agency forcing regulations upon electric utilities, resulting in a 15 percent increase in electricity costs, is a reminder that such decisions should be reserved for lawmakers. Giving this much power to the EPA, the Sierra Club and other groups allowed to intervene in this case was a mistake.

Where do we begin? Mr Suffridge is referring to this editorial which, as the title implies, encourages a major power company to fight the EPA. Like most Oklahoman editorials, it has its share of sophomoric insults and flawed logic. It laments that forcing OG&E to improve its equipment to do stuff like not  pollute the water will raise energy prices, adding that "one analysis has placed the projected increase in electricity rates for OG&E at 15 percent." A real newspaper at this point would actually link to the analysis so that interested readers could consult it. But since the analysis is probably put forward by OG&E's public relations office, it probably isn't worth it.

ANYHOW...

Mr Suffridge, lamenting the prospect of higher energy bills (I guess he doesn't care about clean air or water?), wants to reserve the powers to regulate power plants to elected officials. It's an interesting argument, but we might want to ask: how do these regulations come to pass anyhow? After all, the EPA isn't some private organization devoted to protecting the environment. (Oddly, Mr Suffridge's linking the EPA and the Sierra Club makes me think that they're just two different versions of the same thing.)

Indeed, the EPA was formed by President Nixon to be "as an independent regulatory agency responsible for the implementation of federal laws designed to protect the environment," and after going through "hearings in the Senate and House of Representatives" it was formed at the end of 1970. (Remember when Republicans weren't just total nut job shills for plutocrats and evangelical Christians?)

So the EPA was grrrehwaitaminute. What did that just say? I think it said "an independent regulatory agency responsible for the implementation of federal laws designed to protect the environment." What the hell??? So the EPA is supposed to enforce the laws set up by lawmakers? Christ on his cross.

When looking at clean water issues, we read that "Congress requires EPA to regulate contaminants which may be health risks and which may be present in public drinking water supplies." Gosh. It sounds like lawmakers made a decision here, and they said something like "let's have an independent agency with PhDs in various fields of science and with lots of lab equipment and access to the latest research on harmful chemicals figure out what's best." And isn't that the point? After all, lawmakers come from all walks of life. Do we really want a former real estate developer making decisions about my drinking water? This is particularly true since so many members of Congress are tied to donations from major industry groups.

But back to the point at hand: Mr Suffridge is an idiot. The EPA was approved by Congress and is designed to enforce the laws that Congress already made. Any real newspaper would have thought for a few minutes (it took me about that long to collect the above) and decided that a letter suggesting that lawmakers do things instead of the EPA is utterly stupid, given that lawmakers approved the EPA to enforce its own laws! But the Oklahoman isn't a real newspaper. Its editors are lazy and stupid and, worst of all, shills for plutocrats. So they'll run these utterly stupid letters-- letters that happily go hand in hand with their own editorials-- to further their plutocratic agenda.

Two final notes: 1) Why throw the Sierra Club in there? The Sierra Club has no real power. They can, of course, sue people if they think there is injustice, but that's not illegal. Trying to curtail their rights gets in the way of things like the First Amendment-- a real newspaper that wasn't intent on smearing someone would have left that out; and 2) At least it was a short and well-written letter!