Robert Bradley Jr.: POWER’s Peltier: MACT’s Missing Intellectual Justification

“EPA’s politically appointed leadership believes that the perversion of science is a ‘minor evil’ committed to achieve the ‘greater good’ of ridding the nation of coal-fired power generation. Science may be the first casualty in the EPA’s war on coal, but all of us are its victims.” – Robert Peltier, “MACT Attack,” POWER, July 2012, p. 6.

Robert Peltier is no ordinary participant in today’s important energy debates. He is editor-in-chief of POWER magazine, which covers all technologies relating to electricity. He is a professional engineer with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering. Peltier in a previous life was a tenured professor. He has worked in manufacturing and for a public utility. And before that, he was a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy.

It is his job to study the technological possibilities with an eye to competitive viability in electric generation. When examining regulation—past, present, or proposed—he considers the peer-reviewed literature as well as personal opinions to get to the essence of things.


About these ads

2 responses to “Robert Bradley Jr.: POWER’s Peltier: MACT’s Missing Intellectual Justification

  1. Machiavelli writes, “I shall do a minor evil to achieve a greater good.”
    This kind of thinking leads to the Fascist approach to social reform described by the sentence “The end justifies the means.”
    Evil – the willingness to allow others to suffer – is easier to do when you can convince yourself that some good will come of it.
    Tolerating a ‘minor’ evil in a political agenda is like tolerating a pinch of feces in your wine.

  2. tadchem: “Evil – the willingness to allow others to suffer”

    That principle is itself the greatest evil. It is the most intolerable implementation of “The ends justify the means”. If one were to accept principle and work to do no evil, then if ANYONE on earth is suffering you must sacrifice yourself and everything you have to end that evil. This would be true even if you had no hand in the suffering and even if the suffering was caused by the actions or non-actions of the one who suffers.

    If the principle were consistently applied, all would suffer and parish because nothing would or could be produced. To produce, you must be willing to allow multitudes of known and unknown others to suffer. Only after you have produced something, do you have what is required to sustain yourself while you eliminate the suffering as well as have the goods the sufferer needs to eliminate his suffering. All must be given to those who don’t produce even at the cost of your own existence. All are enslaved to all!

    Your principle eats itself! It is the ultimate of cannibalism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s