CDZ The problem with regulation when a stakeholder wants to eliminate what is being regulated

[martybegan]

Making a duplicate post in the CDZ to have at this all civil, like, and in the other thread not so civil.


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?

 

[william the wie]

Obviously

 

[oldsoul]

Making a duplicate post in the CDZ to have at this all civil, like, and in the other thread not so civil.


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?

So, I'm wondering, what are you putting up for debate here? Who should be involved in decision making? Barring those who oppose a given activity a "place at the table" when regulations are discussed?

In a perfect world, all views would be heard by an unbiased panel of "experts", then the "panel" would make recommendations to an impartial, nonpartisan "decision making" committee that has some sort of accountability apparatus overseeing them to ensure they remain impartial. Kind of how our judicial system works. A Grand Jury decides if there is enough evidence to reasonably suspect a Defendant has committed a crime. The Prosecution and Defense present their "case" to the jury. Then the Judge informs the jury of the law, and they go make a decision. The "accountability apparatus", in this case, is the "jury selection" process, coupled with the trust of "the people" that the jury will follow the rules, backed up with a set of laws that a person on the jury could (theoretically) be guilty of if they misrepresent themselves.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a "perfect" world. So, what are you proposing?

 

[martybegan]

Making a duplicate post in the CDZ to have at this all civil, like, and in the other thread not so civil.


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?

So, I'm wondering, what are you putting up for debate here? Who should be involved in decision making? Barring those who oppose a given activity a "place at the table" when regulations are discussed?

In a perfect world, all views would be heard by an unbiased panel of "experts", then the "panel" would make recommendations to an impartial, nonpartisan "decision making" committee that has some sort of accountability apparatus overseeing them to ensure they remain impartial. Kind of how our judicial system works. A Grand Jury decides if there is enough evidence to reasonably suspect a Defendant has committed a crime. The Prosecution and Defense present their "case" to the jury. Then the Judge informs the jury of the law, and they go make a decision. The "accountability apparatus", in this case, is the "jury selection" process, coupled with the trust of "the people" that the jury will follow the rules, backed up with a set of laws that a person on the jury could (theoretically) be guilty of if they misrepresent themselves.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a "perfect" world. So, what are you proposing?

Not proposing anything, just observing, and hoping to start a conversation.

 

[Toronado3800]

Making a duplicate post in the CDZ to have at this all civil, like, and in the other thread not so civil.


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?

I'll argue we're generally getting there. We're better off than the 1970's or 1930's in many regards. We're also probably ignorant of the effects of new "pollutants" and the next generation will cuss us for exposing them to this or that frequency of wi-fi beams or radar from side view mirrors. That's also probably part of the 1st and 2nd world human condition at this point of the game.

PERSONALLY I'm the fellow who owns 3, THREE, V8 having domestic cars, 80 valves between them lol, but I'm in favor of catalytic converters, don't cuss them Republican governors of California for dragging us away from leaded fuel and can learn about environmental disasters from even trips to our local botanical garden, yes that's you global warming can I've opened and Japanese Maples I can plant now thanks to warming!

So, if I can ride the fence and generally be in favor of cars existing but also be in favor of having environmental standards most folks should be.

 

[martybegan]

Making a duplicate post in the CDZ to have at this all civil, like, and in the other thread not so civil.


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?

I'll argue we're generally getting there. We're better off than the 1970's or 1930's in many regards. We're also probably ignorant of the effects of new "pollutants" and the next generation will cuss us for exposing them to this or that frequency of wi-fi beams or radar from side view mirrors. That's also probably part of the 1st and 2nd world human condition at this point of the game.

PERSONALLY I'm the fellow who owns 3, THREE, V8 having domestic cars, 80 valves between them lol, but I'm in favor of catalytic converters, don't cuss them Republican governors of California for dragging us away from leaded fuel and can learn about environmental disasters from even trips to our local botanical garden, yes that's you global warming can I've opened and Japanese Maples I can plant now thanks to warming!

So, if I can ride the fence and generally be in favor of cars existing but also be in favor of having environmental standards most folks should be.

Then the issue isn't with someone like you, it's with someone who doesn't want ICE vehicles to exist anymore.

A catalytic converter doesn't change the overall use and function of a vehicle, it just adds cost. With the end of leaded gas, it just required a change in technology, i,.e. cost, but really a one time cost.

You have people involved in setting auto standards who want nothing more than the end of ICE powered vehicles, and human nature being human nature, you know they will push regulations that are solely to make ICE vehicles cost prohibitive to get their way.

In California, you have forest management discussions on logging, and there is a sizable portion of the debate that says "don't log, ever ever ever." Any regulations they would tolerate aren't to regulate, but to ban by proxy.

 

[Toronado3800]

Making a duplicate post in the CDZ to have at this all civil, like, and in the other thread not so civil.


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?

I'll argue we're generally getting there. We're better off than the 1970's or 1930's in many regards. We're also probably ignorant of the effects of new "pollutants" and the next generation will cuss us for exposing them to this or that frequency of wi-fi beams or radar from side view mirrors. That's also probably part of the 1st and 2nd world human condition at this point of the game.

PERSONALLY I'm the fellow who owns 3, THREE, V8 having domestic cars, 80 valves between them lol, but I'm in favor of catalytic converters, don't cuss them Republican governors of California for dragging us away from leaded fuel and can learn about environmental disasters from even trips to our local botanical garden, yes that's you global warming can I've opened and Japanese Maples I can plant now thanks to warming!

So, if I can ride the fence and generally be in favor of cars existing but also be in favor of having environmental standards most folks should be.

Then the issue isn't with someone like you, it's with someone who doesn't want ICE vehicles to exist anymore.

A catalytic converter doesn't change the overall use and function of a vehicle, it just adds cost. With the end of leaded gas, it just required a change in technology, i,.e. cost, but really a one time cost.

You have people involved in setting auto standards who want nothing more than the end of ICE powered vehicles, and human nature being human nature, you know they will push regulations that are solely to make ICE vehicles cost prohibitive to get their way.

In California, you have forest management discussions on logging, and there is a sizable portion of the debate that says "don't log, ever ever ever." Any regulations they would tolerate aren't to regulate, but to ban by proxy.

In general I'll ad we're better off when folks at least skeptical of my ideas have to vote for them or have input.

Groupthink is dangerous.