The U.S. Can't Afford To Deal With Its Trash...

...so we'll let our kids deal with it, if they aren't living in a real-life version of Waterworld.

You may have heard about the EPA and its resistance to regulating CO2 emissions. There's currently a case being heard by the Supreme Court about it. Nothing major. Do you know what the EPA mission is? Don't worry, I've got it right here:

EPA's purpose is to ensure that:

• All Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work.
• National efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information.
• Federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively.
• Environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy.
• All parts of society--communities, individuals, business, state and local governments, tribal governments--have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks.
• Environmental protection contributes to making our communities and ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically productive.
• The United States plays a leadership role in working with other nations to protect the global environment.

A couple of the EPA's stated goals worth highlighting are:

PREVENTING POLLUTION AND REDUCING RISK IN COMMUNITIES, HOMES, WORKPLACES AND ECOSYSTEMS:
Pollution prevention and risk management strategies aimed at cost-effectively eliminating, reducing, or minimizing emissions and contamination will result in cleaner and safer environments in which all Americans can reside, work, and enjoy life. EPA will safeguard ecosystems and promote the health of natural communities that are integral to the quality of life in this nation.

REDUCTION OF GLOBAL AND CROSS-BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS:
The United States will lead other nations in successful, multilateral efforts to reduce significant risks to human health and ecosystems from climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, and other hazards of international concern.

You can read more about the EPA here.

OK. This being said, why is there so much resistance to 'minimizing emissions and contamination'? The fact that of all the developed nations in the world only we and Australia failed to ratify the Kyoto Treaty, does this speak to the EPA's commitment in leading "...other nations in successful, multilateral efforts to reduce significant risks to human health and ecosystems from climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, and other hazards of international concern..."? Hmm. I'm confused.

The D.C. Circuit Court ruled in favor the EPA stating that the agency '...lacks the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions...' It sounds like there's two options here: 1) make the EPA change their BS mission statement and goals, or 2) make it a more robust organization so it can step up to the plate to effectively combat the War on Emissions (I figure we can call it a war - I learned it from Dubya.)

It could be that we could actually create some jobs that would allow people to actually do something that was ethically rewarding: making the world a better place by making it a cleaner and healthier place. Is that more important than stimulating conflict and leveraging profits on the old military-industrial complex model that Eisenhower warned us about? Does this make me a tree-hugging hippie pacifist bed-wetting liberal Commie pinko? Labels...whatever. Say it to my face and I'll bust your grill, though. I've got Charleton Heston and big guns on speed dial. Michael Moore will film it all. Blockbuster won't carry the DVD, but Netflix will.