Any regulatory “good cause” can be carried too far. Eventually most of the more important changes needed have been accomplished or have proved too difficult to accomplish. At that point those favoring the “good cause” begin to find problems that do not exist, are not worth trying to regulate, or are so poorly understood that anything “accomplished” is likely to prove the wrong answer. And if the “good cause” is being implemented primarily by a regulatory agency, the agency may lose its way by being taken over by enthusiasts on one or the other regulatory side. This can result in immense problems, even for those on the “winning” side by leading to such extreme policies that the public loses confidence in the Agency and even the movement.
This is where we are with regard to environmental protection. In the early days, there were a number of problems that needed to be solved but were not receiving sufficient attention (such as smog in Los Angeles and water pollution in many areas). But gradually the movement supporting the changes and the agency involved went off course–went “mad” as I have characterized it. This is clearly what has happened in the case of the US Environmental Protection Agency. Such agencies must be kept from over regulating, as is particularly likely to happen if the agency is captured either by those totally opposed to or in favor of regulation.
What Is Required Is Both Good Economics and Science as Well as Preventing Capture by One Side or the Other
As discussed two weeks ago, the best way to do this is to insist that they use good science and economics in every decision they make, but it is also very important that zealots on both sides are not allowed to capture the agency. This has increasingly not been the case for USEPA, which started going off the rails during the Carter and Clinton Administrations, when they agreed to accept high level political appointees from the environmental movement who brought in those with similar views and encouraged the Agency to adopt ever more extreme environmental policies.
When the ultra-environmentalist Obama Administration came into office it did not take much to push the Agency into following the policies advocated by the environmental organizations, many if not most of which cannot be justified on the basis of good science and economics. At that point, EPA had been fully captured by the movement. This is the Agency that the Trump Administration inherited in 2017, and is trying to reorient towards pursuing more sensible environmental policies.
Many a vainglorious egghead has publically endorsed the climate alarmist con. Their vaunted reputations are now at risk.
The Swamp holds many dark secrets that are illumed by junk science. Trump was not supposed to win the last election and is a horrible threat to the exposure of con artists.
Elected Politicians sell their ideas to voters. To some extent many become con artists in order to win elections.
Salesmen and Con artists can be amusing even lovable in the marvelous fictional case of Professir Harlan Hill. The Music Man contributed snappy 76 Trombones as well as teaching wisdom about salesmen.
Another fun character was lawyer Jackie Chiles in the comedy Seinfeld. We the audience know Jackie is dishonest, but he is hard not to like anyway.
Seinfeld was a comedy, partly arranged by Larry David, family friend of Al Gore.
It’s not so funny when the salesman of a junk science wheeze Is a US President, who plays the role seriously instead of as witty social comedy like robert Preston and Jackie Chiles.
The Clinton foundation was said to pocket $120mm from one uranium transaction. How many other transactions have take place to justify the strange longevity of a hypothesis without merit?
The implications of the climate alarmism debacle are powerful. Doc has said cogently that alarmism does not pass muster as science. Then why do so many pay it heed?
Seeing the mystery of the persistently irrational, climate alarmism, many economists would advise follow the money trail. Who gains from selling the climate alarmis myth?
When a policy agenda is anti-American and clearly based on junk science, then sources of funding to the Democratic Party deserve serious investigation. Could money secretly flow from oil producing nations to American environmental groups, politicians, or the New York Times?
Who stands to gain if environmental agendas serve to hobble the US economy?
We have a presumption of innocence under US law. This means even a despised criminal is given an attorney who will do his best to defend him. If the glove does not fit, you must acquit.
Similarly with climate change. The smooth talking political leader says all scientists agree, only dunces like Onald Trump and Doctor Carlin can’t realize the flat earth obvious.
This is mere politics and self interest, with science itself profoundly disrespected.
I have explained my opinion about president Obama. The former President is wonderfully intelligent. He is pretty well spoken, especially if we discount the thin content of ideas shoveled out to voters.
Someone so wonderfully intelligent has to realize the nonsense of climate alarmism. Thus in championing this cause, he does so with awareness the cause is untrue and hurtful to the US economy and national security.
As a devout socialist who has fiddled while ignoring North Korea, illegal immigration, the budget, drug smuggling, downsizing the us military, and rubbing antlers with Venezuela, Cuba, China, and Iran, he has worked hard and consistently to hurt the very nation he was sworn to serve.
The utter absurdity of climate change helps highlight President Obama in a less than flattering perspective.
The same can be said of al Gore, son of a Senator. Gore teed up the climate alarm charade. Advent of a Great Recession catapulted the junior senator from Illinois into the drivers seat of Al’s depraved agenda.
The low brow falsity of climate alarmism further serves to illume the sickness of elites who salute Der Eco Fuhrer. This is the putrid antierican mess bequeathed to trump and Pruitt. Yikes.
Mr. Obama is trained as an attorney. He is probably guided by the thought he should represent the views of backers. He was backed early by environmentalists hence he supported global warming. He has done this faithfully. Whether any climate alarmism is actually true as a matter of science would not matter to a lawyer representing the alarmist position.
Doctor Carlin may be a little too kind to the leaders of alarmism when refering to madness or zealotry. for Mr Obama, it seems plausible he is just playing politics and representing client supporters faithfully.
Is Doctor Carlin being fair to zealots?
And are climate change leaders truly mad?
I would argue leaders of the climate change movement are far from mad. They know their cause is false. They are instead very sane, self interested, dishonest and corrupt.
A chap like Mr Obama is intelligent cool calm and collected. He is thus as deeply cynical as it gets, feigning concern for a cause he inwardly knows is spectacularly dopey. Ditto Al Gore.
Democrats have invented a free lunch. Charging industry for retroactive liabilities legal back in their time. This makes any past productive activity liable to future prosecution. This is sick and against American manufacturing.
They have further chosen to duck genuine debate over highly speculative claims, in the case of climate. This is a form of totalitarianism, rewards dopey claims, and Promotes Fake Dishonest news.
One corrective would be to bar unions within the Federal government. Employees should serve the people, not rubber stamp Eco lunacies and kow tow to activist groups and Hollywood nit twits.
Another restraint is to require cost benefit studies of proposed environmental policies.
A basic defense is democracy itself. The people can serve to resist selfish psuedo scientific elites. This yielded President Trump and Administrator Scott Pruitt. Bless both. And Doc.