The Senescent Crone proving once more it does not understand diminishing and negative returns
Wealth generation and technological improvement cause societies to devote more effort and support greater cost in cleaning up production and the local environment.
Adding ever more regulation and more expensive requirements does not necessarily lead to any environmental improvement and excess regulation and cost lead to environmental degradation as society can no longer afford optimal levels of production with minimal disturbance of wildlife, habitat, water and air quality.
A wonderful example of absurd ‘green’ regulation is carbon dioxide. Aerobic life on earth thrives with higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide – levels far beyond that which human activity can attain. Human return of carbon previously sequestered by biological activity, carbon lost to the essential carbon cycle, is the best thing humans have ever done for life on earth, albeit accidentally. Greens, however, are hell-bent on restricting this gift to life for no other purpose than inhibiting humanity.
More regulation is not better but the misanthropes of the Left are apparently incapable of recognizing this:
American business has always chafed at regulation, but rarely have the cries of outrage been as shrill as during the Obama administration. The United States Chamber of Commerce has moaned of a “regulatory tsunami of unprecedented force” issuing from Washington. Every Republican candidate this year has run on an antiregulatory platform, and one of the loudest has been Mitt Romney, who has promised to immediately tear down President Obama’s “vast edifice of regulations.”
That is not surprising, since Mr. Romney’s campaign is being bankrolled by big-business interests. The industries making unlimited donations to pro-Romney “super PACs” would prefer that Americans not be reminded that government regulations keep the air and water clean, improve the safety of consumer products, reduce workplace hazards, and prevent destructive financial practices.
It is absurd, however, for Republicans to attack Mr. Obama for carrying out an unprecedented “regulatory jihad” when, in fact, the administration has a mediocre record when it comes to curbing dangerous practices by industry. As much as any Republican administration, Mr. Obama’s has focused narrowly on the costs of a rule compared to its benefits, and has for political reasons rejected rules opposed by business. The results have often disappointed environmentalists and consumer advocates.
“The administration has adopted sensible and important rules to ensure health, safety and economic security. Increased automobile fuel efficiency standards, imposed in 2010, will reduce dependence on foreign oil, improve the environment, and save money for consumers. Requiring power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants, and cutting smokestack emissions over 27 Eastern states, will improve public health. Other rules have raised truck safety standards. The president fought hard for the Dodd-Frank financial bill, which, if properly carried out, could protect consumers and help reduce the banking abuses that led to the Great Recession.”
The NYT definition seems to be that if it improves public health, it isn’t regulation. Or something.
BTW . . . They don’t mention Obamacare.