- Apr 5, 2010
- 79,111
- 31,424
- 2,260
Then what's your answer? We know without regulation the status quo wouldn't be maintained either. It's easy to bash the system, but as PC showed in the OP, you can't argue with the results.
My answer is that environmentalist should stick to Particulates, SOx, NOx, heavy metals, etc. Contaminants we know have an effect, and also have effective methods of treatment to render them inert. We also need to keep people out of the game who's only goal is to eliminate a given industry, not to regulate it. Finally regulations need to be kept simple, and come from only one source. If multiple agencies have a say in something, one takes the lead, and all paperwork flows through them, instead of what we have now, where you have to keep a staff of lawyers onhand to keep all your permits in order.
I'm all for streamlining and efficiency. The problem I have with the OP is that the real agenda is to try and throw out the baby with the bath water.
One could say that the agenda of the far left environmental movement is the same. They see regulation as a path to prohibition. The idea goes from regulation as a curative response to regluation as a terminal treatment for a process/industry they do not like. I like to go back to the concept of PETA proposing meat slaughter regulations. The fact that PETA's goal is the end of meat consumption makes me suspicous about thier proposed regulations, as thier goal is to end the meat industry. Why would I not be sucpicous in the same way when hard core environmental people try to regulate industries like coal/oil or nuclear power generation, industries they would like to see eliminated?