Bush ready to gut Endangered Species Act.

[morpheusx]

not the polar bears, without polar bears we wouldn't be able to have those great Coke commercials at Christmas.

[dogfriend]

So, because there is a possibility that GW considerations might slow down or kill some projects, the Bush administration will just eliminate all oversight by parties outside the project? What a clever solution by a clever administration.

[tripp]

Remember, regulation is bad for the people. The private sector knows best.

[dogfriend]

Originally Posted by tripp

Remember, regulation is bad for the people. The private sector knows best.

Yes, that worked so well for the California Electrical Power industry and the Mortgage industry. Let's extend it to Environmental Protection.

[Devil's Advocate]

UMMMMMMM Polar Bear burgers!
What is weird is that people think, and it seems to have been accepted as fact, that the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and other environmental laws prevent human caused impact or disturbance to the environment.

While certain chemicals are certainly regulated, in general any project can affect and even wipe out any portion of almost any natural habitat. The only thing the environmental laws actually say is that you have to do a study to determine the impacts of the project. That is why the studies are always attacked, not specifically the projects.

Any whoo most environmental laws are just used by no-growthers to stop development in their back yards.

Unfortunately this makes it more difficult for the legitimate use of the laws to prevent true harm to the environment because the no-growthers usually piss off average Joe's who otherwise wouldn't care much.

[dogfriend]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

UMMMMMMM Polar Bear burgers!
What is weird is that people think, and it seems to have been accepted as fact, that the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and other environmental laws prevent human caused impact or disturbance to the environment.

While certain chemicals are certainly regulated, in general any project can affect and even wipe out any portion of almost any natural habitat. The only thing the environmental laws actually say is that you have to do a study to determine the impacts of the project. That is why the studies are always attacked, not specifically the projects.

Any whoo most environmental laws are just used by no-growthers to stop development in their back yards.

Unfortunately this makes it more difficult for the legitimate use of the laws to prevent true harm to the environment because the no-growthers usually piss off average Joe's who otherwise wouldn't care much.

You're Karl Rove aren't you?

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by tripp

Remember, regulation is bad for the people. The private sector knows best.

I know it was stated somewhat tongue in cheek, but there needs to be a balance. The private sector has proven quite efficient in many areas when there is adequate incentive to do so. The public sector is painfully inefficient and ineffective, though when it devises appropriate incentives for the private sector, can achieve desired objectives.

But just be careful how regulation is accomplished. As per my prior example, if any project that produces incremental CO2 can be shut down because it "threatens" polar bears due to "global warming", that is a pretty draconian public policy. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, you couldn't build a road, put up a building, or for that matter, cut a fart without violating the law.

[malorn]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

I know it was stated somewhat tongue in cheek, but there needs to be a balance. The private sector has proven quite efficient in many areas when there is adequate incentive to do so. The public sector is painfully inefficient and ineffective, though when it devises appropriate incentives for the private sector, can achieve desired objectives.

But just be careful how regulation is accomplished. As per my prior example, if any project that produces incremental CO2 can be shut down because it "threatens" polar bears due to "global warming", that is a pretty draconian public policy. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, you couldn't build a road, put up a building, or for that matter, cut a fart without violating the law.

Taken to it ultimate conclusion, could we still breathe?

[Godiva]

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

What is weird is that people think, and it seems to have been accepted as fact, that the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and other environmental laws prevent human caused impact or disturbance to the environment.

No. But it reduces the disturbance and impact. What I believe is that without these laws in place and enforced there would be even worse damage and destruction done by the private sector in the pursuit of profit.

Capitalism isn't about sensitivity to the environment or consideration of the public. If it was, it wouldn't be called Capitalism.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Godiva

No. But it reduces the disturbance and impact. What I believe is that without these laws in place and enforced there would be even worse damage and destruction done by the private sector in the pursuit of profit.

Capitalism isn't about sensitivity to the environment or consideration of the public. If it was, it wouldn't be called Capitalism.

OK - if you want to take that cynical of a line...

The public sector typically only masquerades as protectors of the public interest. It is really more protecting their jobs, strengthening their unions, and promoting special interests.

If you don't think so, look at the SEI website. So they agitate for public employee unionization to increase membership so they can garnish wages (whether you want to belong to the union or not) so they can increase their budget so can further expand unionization efforts and further garnish wages to create even larger budgets to buy political favors via political action committees and fealty from their ever-expanding membership come election day.