Against the EPA

[mulayeuxbleu]

First problem: the EPA was made through executive order, skirting the Congress. Congress is supposed to make laws, not bureaucracies established outside of Constitutional mandate.

Second problem: who says the EPA is the only way that we can protect our environment? I think it more likely that each state, knowing it’s own needs and environmental issues, can handle the job much better than a centralized one-size fits all agency. This is much more in line with subsidiarity.

Third problem: ok, their first record was great. I mean, they were fresh and hungry, but that second album just stunk it ALL up.

And finally, no, I would NEVER trust large industries to be able to police themselves, nor do I trust large government to do the same.

 

[Orogeny]

It’s a systemic problem that neither I nor anybody I know knows how to solve. Government bureacracy requires clear and rigid rules. Almost nobody in government employment is of the sort of mindset that truly likes to lead and make effective difference. That kind of behavior gets you noticed by politicians and either promoted by them (good) or fired by them (bad). But politicians come and go, so even if you make one happy and get promoted, when he loses and is replaced by his opposition, you will be labeled as the “enemy” and marginalized until you quit. The only way to stay safe in long term public employment is to follow the rules carefully, do what you are told by the elected guys and don’t draw excessive attention to yourself.

Several years ago, a regulator with our state EPA, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) who was the project manager for several projects I worked on decided it was time to leave state employment and get a job in the private consulting sector. He was in quite high demand because of his history with the TCEQ, so he had no problem getting a consulting job. Better money, no more dealing with state issues.

It lasted about one year. I saw him at a trade show and he told me that it was way, way harder to try to use good, technical approaches to solve a problem and help your client meet the state requirement that he helped establish than it was to review reports and give directives. He was shocked at how much it costs to meet the letter of the law AND how silly (see Manualman’s example of the landfill) some of those rules are. He went back to to work at the TCEQ.

What Manualman says is right. You don’t deviate from the rules if you are a regulator. It causes you nothing but problems.

Peace

Tim

 

[valentino]

I imagine a lot of people will be upset with what Michael Voris has had to say about global warming.

youtu.be/uMFAhW_ZmV8

youtu.be/qwQEoCANZsQ

youtu.be/6A6UBqEWRD8

However, it really says something when even Jesse “The Body” Ventura (admittedly not a Catholic) has been rather skeptical about the concept. Click on the following link:

youtu.be/QRuzVbAODHw

thanks for those links:1 question.how does one explain the glaciers meltings.Ive seen pictures which were said to be taken 100yrs ago and they show them today and the glacier is gone and there is bare earth.They also say sea levels are rising and they show area which previously was land and now its under water.quite a bit under water.