Quote

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has the ability to more stringently regulate dust. If the EPA determines more stringent standards are necessary, family farmers and ranchers, as well as rural economies, would be devastated.

When the EPA says that property owners, farmers, and livestock producers must stomach higher costs, longer delays, and bigger headaches, it's up to Congress to put up a roadblock.

Over and over, we hear politicians say they can't spend our tax dollars on environmental protection when the economy is so fragile.

We have very strong environmental laws in the United States and elsewhere around the world. The problem is that they're seldom enforced.

Why has it seemed that the only way to protect the environment is with heavy-handed government regulation?

I'm a latecomer to the environmental issue, which for years seemed to me like an excuse for more government regulation. But I can see that in rich societies, voters are paying less attention to economic issues and more to issues of the spirit, including the environment.

Strong limits on carbon pollution will save Americans money, create jobs, improve our health, and help defuse climate change.

Conserving energy and thus saving money, reducing consumption of unnecessary products and packaging and shifting to a clean-energy economy would likely hurt the bottom line of polluting industries, but would undoubtedly have positive effects for most of us.

There are more effective ways of tackling environmental problems including global warming, proliferation of plastics, urban sprawl, and the loss of biodiversity than by treaties, top-down regulations, and other approaches offered by big governments and their dependents.

Environmental protection doesn't happen in a vacuum. You can't separate the impact on the environment from the impact on our families and communities.