- Apr 5, 2010
- 80,193
- 32,286
- 2,300
I am a big fan of the show Air Disasters (even if I am terrified of flying). It's probably due to my Engineering background, and how the show revolves around all parties trying to figure out what happened to prevent it from happening again.
During an investigation you have several stakeholders, all involved in trying to figure out the cause of the accident. You have the regulatory agency, the FAA. The investigating agency, the NTSB (or the FBI if some criminal act is supposed), the airline, the aircraft manufacturer, the air traffic controllers, and others depending on the situation (local community, airport agency, etc).
What made me think about how regulation applies to this is that all stakeholders involved want the same eventual outcome, for airplanes to take off, fly, and land safely. While there may be arguments of degree or scale, the end result is the same. getting people from point A to point B via airplane.
When it comes to environmental regulations, however, you may have some parties that want to see the end of what is being regulated. Some examples would be fossil fuel plants, or commercial fishing of certain species, or as we see in California, management of certain land types. When people that oppose what is being regulated are allowed to participate in the process, you get regulations that could be meant to make the regulated activity so burdened that it becomes impossible to do said activity. It would be like having a stakeholder in an airline accident investigation who has the goal of ending all air travel. Wouldn't that person be disposed to make any finding as onerous as possible?
During an investigation you have several stakeholders, all involved in trying to figure out the cause of the accident. You have the regulatory agency, the FAA. The investigating agency, the NTSB (or the FBI if some criminal act is supposed), the airline, the aircraft manufacturer, the air traffic controllers, and others depending on the situation (local community, airport agency, etc).
What made me think about how regulation applies to this is that all stakeholders involved want the same eventual outcome, for airplanes to take off, fly, and land safely. While there may be arguments of degree or scale, the end result is the same. getting people from point A to point B via airplane.
When it comes to environmental regulations, however, you may have some parties that want to see the end of what is being regulated. Some examples would be fossil fuel plants, or commercial fishing of certain species, or as we see in California, management of certain land types. When people that oppose what is being regulated are allowed to participate in the process, you get regulations that could be meant to make the regulated activity so burdened that it becomes impossible to do said activity. It would be like having a stakeholder in an airline accident investigation who has the goal of ending all air travel. Wouldn't that person be disposed to make any finding as onerous as possible?
