Democrats and the green party have been trying to get a carbon tax for ages. However you seem to believe that a carbon tax on its own is good enough. Generally speaking, this is an irrelevant conversation because a carbon tax will never get passed because all republicans have to do is start a smear campaign about how the democrats are trying to raise taxes.

Anyway, carbon isn't the only pollution, and you need a legal entity that's going to handle that (not to mention the EPA has dozens of other community and educational roles, which is vitally important considering America's poor reputation with scientific literacy, which means less engineers and less scientists, which means a slower economy).

Back to the carbon tax, businesses are going to decide whether or not to pollute and pay the tax based on whichever option is more economical. Considering the costs to prevent pollution, they're more likely just to pay the tax, just like businesses are more likely to pay the Obamacare business mandate tax than to pay for their healthcare. And if businesses are polluting then that means more human health and environmental problems, which once again means a slower economy.

A carbon tax, provided that the price is right, is good enough for carbon emissions.

As for other issues involving the environment? The market is the best system we have to hand for dealing with it,   and the IPCC agrees.

>mfw new epa regulations are basically going to end thousands of coal mining jobs and ruin the economy

There comes a time when there's a line between protecting the environment and destroying jobs and industries, thus putting an even bigger burden on society when the job market is still shit

The IPCC definitely does not agree with letting governments sit back and do nothing. You clearly have no knowledge of the IPCC and the amount of lobbying they do to countries to change the way they do things. You still seem to not understand that what might be economical for one business or one country isn't economical for the rest of the world, and that's exactly why you can't just sit of things and let it all play out pretending that it's all going to be okay.

Did you even read what I said? Carbon taxation isn't the government sitting on its ass, neither is iron fertilisation or nuclear subsidies. Nor did I claim the IPCC was okay with that. I merely made the claim that they support markets in the combating of climate change, detailed in chapter ten of this report: http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/report/final-drafts/

Why do factories pollute when it hurts all the people around it, lowers their property values and increases their medical bills. They pollute because they don't have to pay the expense of dealing with the pollution. Unless the government tells the factory that they can't dump toxic waste in the river and spill out particulate matter into the air, the local economy is going to be massively weaker, all so that one factory doesn't have to pay to control their pollution.

Which is you why tax the fucking pollution, so, y'know, they have to pay for it.

The EPA is what enforces environmental regulations. They're the ones who look at the bottom of rivers for pipes to make sure there aren't any factories dumping into it. They're the ones who make sure that new buildings and bridges comply to a standard that isn't going to damage the area around it. Without the EPA, it wouldn't matter if there's a carbon tax because you wouldn't have anyone to tell the IRS which factories and which corporations are polluting carbon into the atmosphere.

The EPA would be fine as an advisory/academic institution (although such a role could be fulfilled by the likes of other organisations, like Universities or independent research centres), but the problem is the huge role it has. The EPA is big enough to fall to corruption and lobbying, like any government organisation of its size; like the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is simply wasteful and unnecessary.

The EPA should be, in effect, an intelligence agency with no executive power.

In terms of innovation, yes, the market is a good tool to use. If you don't mean government inaction then that should be fine.
I'm starting to feel like you're just ignoring my arguments at this point and just spitting back libertarian dogma trash about how corrupt the government is. I'm not even saying this just to say it, but because I genuinely believe you are too unaware about the responsibilities and roles of the EPA to say that it isn't necessary. Where did you hear that the Safe Drinking Water Act is wasteful and unnecessary? I can guarantee it wasn't your original thought because clearly you don't even know what it does. So what is it? Forbes, Fox, some other conservative blog that only tells you one side of the story?

Let me be perfectly clear: the EPA, conceptually, is an example of decent governance, the problem lies in its executive powers. The EPA, as part of its retinue, allows businesses to pollute a certain amount in a certain area which is a flagrant disregard of property rights. Under proper tort laws, any aggressive polluters would be liable to expenses and, possibly, getting sued by victims. Oh, and there's that infamous case of Milwaukee vs Chicago.

Also, I don't see what the originality of a thought has to do with its validity since you have to get all of your information from somewhere. It's exceptionally funny coming from a self-proclaimed technocrat too. And no, I don't read Forbes or Fox.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/federal-government-scrap-much-derided-1-6-billion-reservoir-cap-article-1.949327
http://www.slocoastjournal.com/docs/archives/2010/Nov/pages/news2.html

It's really not difficult to imagine that the EPA would come under the shadow of corruption from lobby groups which benefit from public works. If you think government corruption is a fantasy of "libertarian dogma trash", you're literally a fucking idiot. Not to mention you're overstating my opinions since I quite clearly stated support for policies which could harbour a wide range of governmental responsibilities.

If the EPA had no, or little, executive capacity, would it be agreeable? Yeah, probably, but I'm not closed off to the idea of different institutions fulfilling the role to a satisfactory degree.

EDIT:- Just realised I didn't make it clear I'm referring to the 2006 modification of the SDWA, A.K.A. LT2.

Where the hell did you hear that from? The EPA will work with polluters, which can take time, if they are willing to cooperate in order to avoid a lawsuit. But the EPA doesn't disregard its responsibilities to deal with polluters.
The EPA are the ones who sue polluters, and they do get fined, usually heavily.

Yes, but it ignores the property rights of those being polluted because the EPA permits a certain quantity of pollution for co-operative businesses. Under the common law system, the business would be liable for any pollution caused.

What exactly is Milwaukee vs Chicago? I've never heard of that court case and Google has apparently never heard of it either.

I'm not entirely sure if it did go to court, because it was around that time that the Clean Water Act and the EPA took control of the dumping in Lake Michigan. As I understand it, the EPA ended up using taxpayer money to give to the MMSD in order for them to clean it up - which goes against the idea of polluters being responsible for cleaning up their own mess. However, as you say, there is very little evidence on it so I'll rescind.

However, there are other examples of dumping in Lake Michigan where the party responsible has not been held to account (by, say, Chicago, which has to treat all the water).
http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/chi-pollute_15jul15-story.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/south-milwaukee-registers-sewage-overflow-into-lake-michigan-tributary-b99311460z1-267179531.html
This would be fine if the taxpayers weren't the one's responsible for the fallout of the dumping.

I'm asking because it seems as if you don't even understand the responibilities of the EPA. I know because I've taken multiple classes where I've learned about environmental issues and the role the federal, state, and local governments play to protect it and the people, as well, I've listened to speakers from the EPA and of course I've done my own independent research for projects and papers. It's something I'm knowledgeable on, which is why I feel I'm prepared to talk about it despite being a technocrat. And generally you seem to be fairly intelligent yourself, but the fact of the matter is that you don't know what you're talking about when you talk about the responsibilities of the EPA.

I'll admit I'm spit-balling a bit when it comes to the EPA, but I'm not arguing with you to win so much as raise my own awareness. It's the fact that I know you're more intelligent than me on the EPA that's keeping me engaged.

You should know why I'm confronting you about your sources. You don't have to brush it off and say we all have to get our information somewhere. The Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act are the two more important pieces of legislation the EPA handles. The only people I could imagine that are insane enough to say that a law that prevents governments and private institutions from dumping pollutants into our water supply is a law that needs to be eliminated might be... well shit, I don't know if even the Tea Party could be that insane. You probably read news articles written by factory owners that are buttmad because they got caught dumping waste in a river.
 I get that the government can succomb to lobbying and be paid off, but that's not a reason to solely target the EPA and eliminate its powers and responsibilities. There are other ways you can go about taking on corruption without destroying government.

Maybe I'm just tired, but it really feels as if you're missing the point. The Federal government doesn't need to disallow things like pollution and dumping, because the polluter should be fully accountable to the people being polluted against. I absolutely despise dumping, but the point is that having the Federal government as the remunerating party is inferior to having the actual victims compensated.

The information the EPA gathers is extensive, and it being a federal administration helps. Still, I believe it couldn't hurt to link a few short articles on what the EPA does.

Overview

Regulations

Enforcement

The only objectionable things with the EPA are it's regulation-making when it becomes burdensome and the enforcement aspect. I'm not saying polluters shouldn't be left alone, I'm saying they should be accountable to those suffering the effects instead of a Federal agency which has different motivations and incentives. Speaking of incentives, it'd be useful to consult economists when the EPA writes its regulations (I'm sure you'll tell me if they already do), because there was an economist - Vernon Henderson - who calculated that the EPA's regulations had managed, through lack of forethought, to increase levels of the pollutant Ozone by around 10%.

And then there was the court case of Sackett v. EPA to challenge the Federal government's claim that landowners needn't be given a pre-enforcement review, and how EPA water standards disproportionately hit rural communities.

I'm all for having an agency which collects data and advises on environmental concerns, but not one which acts as judge and jury.