EPA administrator announces resignation
December 27th, 2012
10:36 AM ET
2 years ago

EPA administrator announces resignation

(CNN) - Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson will step down after the president's January State of the Union speech, the agency said Thursday.

Jackson thanked President Obama for having placed her in the post four years ago and said she leaves the EPA "confident the ship is sailing in the right direction."

FULL STORY

Filed under: EPA • Lisa Jackson
soundoff (5 Responses)
  1. Tommy G

    I'm sure Obama will find another far left loon to head the EPA and use EPA regulations to decimate American businesses and jobs.

    December 27, 2012 10:51 am at 10:51 am |
  2. chilly g

    i was hoping to hear some positive comments.

    December 27, 2012 10:56 am at 10:56 am |
  3. Rudy NYC

    Tommy G wrote:

    I'm sure Obama will find another far left loon to head the EPA and use EPA regulations to decimate American businesses and jobs.
    ---------------------–
    I am reminded of Michelle Bachmann making similar remarks last year at meat processing plant in Iowa(?). She was complaining about regulations hurting businesses, the plant in particular, while she conducted a photo op at the plant. Bachmann proceeded to tour the storage and processing areas.

    Bachmann even worked up some elbow grease by actually doing some of the labor intensive work of butchering a carcass. She did all of this protesting regulations in the meat processing industry, while *not* wearing hair restraint the first. Did she not realize that she was arguing for a lack of general hygiene and unsanitary conditions?

    December 27, 2012 11:32 am at 11:32 am |
  4. Larry L

    Tommy G – ever notice how the right-wing always fights against those things that employ science and medicine to help our society? They don't believe in man's impact on global climate change – until the storms and droughts ravage the country and they want federal assistance. They fear the evils of stem cell research – until they get cancer and need a miracle cure. They even ridiculed the First Lady for suggesting ways to fight childhood obesity – until their kids get diabetes. They support subsidies for oil companies with 20% profits (but not for renewable energy development) – yet remain critical of people on welfare. The EPA's work prevents untold numbers of cancers and other diseases. It keeps industries from poisoning our air, soil and water. Look back before the EPA and you'll see the difference. How many cases of cancer are you willing to accept to boost corporate profits? Are you willing to see your children or yourself get cancer "for the good of the business community"?

    December 27, 2012 11:47 am at 11:47 am |
  5. S.B. Stein E.B. NJ

    The problem is that there are too many people out there that see any regulations as a problem. If we all understood the science, then there would be less of a problem with the pollution rules. Does no one remember the reduction in lead in gasoline reducing the lead out there? That was successful; climate change should be the same way. The only challenges to it are from industry. Some people have no foresight because pollution prevention and clean up could be big business if businesses are required to clean up what they put out.

    December 27, 2012 12:05 pm at 12:05 pm |