19 thoughts on “Jackson may leave EPA”

  1. I lived in LA for a time when the smog was at its worst. I remember flying in and looking out the plane window at the brown soup into which we were to descend. So yes, there was cleanup needed, but whether the EPA was responsible or the Calif. Air Resources Board, I don’t know.

    The EPA under Jackson has had no problem making up numbers, claiming preposterous deaths to be expected for which there was no evidence whatsoever. When you start trying to regulate dust on farms, the agency has misjudged its responsibilities. It is an agency full of zealots in a world that will never be perfect. We need some common sense here.

  2. I know this is a bit of a late reply, but here it is.
    In 1997, the 8-hour NOx standard was revealed, and Houstonians laughed that it was impossible. Proposals were put forth to ban gas powered lawnmowers and other such nonsense. In those times, 120+ ppb ozone days were occurring 20-40 times a year. It has been a long and quite hard battle to get Houston’s air down, but we achieved attainment with the 8-hour standard in 2009, and it is noticeably cleaner and easier to breathe. This was achieved with strong, sometimes heavy-handed control on VOCs and NOx emissions far beyond what any company would invest without requirement. Similar such stories can be told around the country. While most industrialist are good people, there is a strong difference between not pumping toxic oils into streams (which no ethical person would do if avoidable) and instating large scale fugitive monitoring efforts that cost a small fortune annually (which cannot be justified on any cost basis).

    While there is a valid question about whether it was a worthwhile investment (and personally, I believe that the new lowered 8-hr standard is clearly NOT worthwhile), it was an investment with an achievement. We cannot have a valid discussion if we do not recognize this.

  3. Ben,

    I agree that the average greenie is a young true believer, filled with passion and emotion. I also agree that many of our best voices were part of that movement in their early years. But in those early years starting in the 1950’s these people saw real pollution that so obviously needed correction. It was also obvious that nicely asking the cities and industry to end their environmentally destructive ways clearly wasn’t going to work. Although there is a school of thought that common law applied through the civil courts would have eventually corrected these problems. That of course is speculative.

    This is no longer an issue of mere disagreement on the facts. Now we have years of evidence to show what happens with greenie “solutions” to non-problems are implemented. We know what happens when chlorine is taken out of the public water supplies; we know what happens when pesticides are eliminated; we know what happens when their opposition to GMO’s prevents life saving products from coming to the market place; we know the thrust of the green movement is misanthropic since they have publically stated they think mankind is a virus that needs to be eliminated; and we know that the “moderate” among them wish to eliminate 4 to 5 billion people.

    If someone supports such a movement then they must share in their guilt for the crimes perpetrated by that movement. It’s basic common law. If a person is killed during the commission of a crime, even if it was an accident, all the perpetrators are charged with murder. Even if it was one of the perpetrators of the crime they are all still charged with murder. That is basic common law. That what makes this a moral issue and that is why I have taken this issue a step further than a disagreement of facts and science. This must be placed before the public as a moral issue.

    I know young ones who active in this movement and they are irrational. They are filled with self-righteous moral indignation; they can’t be reasoned with; they can’t be persuaded; they can’t be turned from their path; but most importantly, they can’t claim ignorance. That leaves only condemnation of them and their position since we now know this is a movement that hates humanity. That means to be green is to be morally defective to the point of insanity; for what sane person would wish be part of a movement that attempts to kill so many in so many ways?

  4. Is the EPA necessary? Does this agency have a reason for being? Have they accomplished anything that is good for the country? Can we just peacefully close it up and send the inhabitants home? When Conservatives talk about Big Government and its evils, opponents always want to know what we want to get rid of. The EPA, The EPA, The EPA.

    I always wonder what Barack Obama’s initial instructions to the EPA were:”Go forth and regulate, issue red tape, hamstring industry, bring down the energy sector, and oh yes, eliminate dirty coal.” Other suggestions?

  5. Rich, let me posit this. If they believe the propaganda that they are putting out, then they would be morally deficient NOT to commit murder, both physical and economic to stop it.

    Now, I have no patience for those that lie to support their cause. Which is why I will never purchase a Bill Nye the Science Guy box set, and I believe that Gore has a nice spot waiting for him in Antenora. However, the run of the mill Green actually believes what they say. The desperation in their voices is actually genuine because they really feel that everyone will die should they fail in their mission.

    That is why so many of the strongest voices on our side were once greens, and a good fraction of junior environmental engineers are members of the Sierra Club. After 10 years experience, effectively none of them are.

  6. What if the Administration came to it’s senses? Stranger things have happened. Over here politicians still have their mouth full of eco-nutism, but no real action is undertaken, in fact whole formerly very powerful EPA like institutions have been put out to pasture.

  7. In the event that the administration picks someone more centrist and professionally bureaucratic / technically oriented than ideology oriented, it is only because of the gains made by the skeptical side and is not evidence of any conversion to limited power by the bureaucracy or of conversion to centrism by this administration. Just a forced change in strategy.

  8. Rich, that is a good humored but enlightening comparison about the greenies and the man from La Mancha. I enjoyed it. The only problem is that these people are more radical in their philosophy and in their desire to not to know the truth.

  9. “If it takes force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with your ideas. If you are willing to use force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with you.” – Mark Fournier

  10. Al Gore as head of the EPA would be the final nail in the coffin of the USA.
    Expect the unexpected. We live in strange times.

  11. I find it hard to believe that anyone could be more compliant….but I do believe there are plenty who are more rabid….openly rabid that is. Let’s face it. To be green is to be morally defective. To be an enforcer of green is to be morally defective to the point where their sanity must be called into question. It isn’t like we don’t know the consequences of their actions. Dystopia follows the green movement like Sancho Panza followed Don Quixote, who was an insane man. Which has to call Sancho Panza’s sanity into question since in the book he left his family and responsibilities to follow this insane man. I don’t really see much difference between the leaders and followers of the green movement today in the real world and the fictional story of The Man From La Mancha. Both are looking to tilt with windmills and both are insane. .

  12. I shudder to think who this administration will pick to replace her. Someone even more rabidly green and compliant to the will of the White House, probably.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.