Archives for posts with tag: environment

Statistics don’t care to be saved.

“As a physician, I am intrigued, if not put off, by the EPA concept of “premature deaths.” How am I to know that that unfortunate patient, who has just died, died prematurely? If asked, he would undoubtedly claim that he had died before his time, no matter the actual cause. All deaths are “premature” when viewed subjectively.” Dr. Charles Battig

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/new_climate_regulations_will_save_lots_of_imaginary_people.htm

Dr. Batting uses examples to explain why EPA rules will help no one. While reading Dr. Battig’s keep in mind that our air and water in the USA have gotten significantly cleaner every year since 1970 when we first started keeping track. Every year cleaner for 45 years. Our air and water are cleaner than they were 100 years ago? How clean do we need to be?

Cleaner than clean hurts.

The bottom line is the EPA rules will hurt the bottom line, especially for those with the lowest bottom line. EPA rules passed the point of diminishing returns long ago. The EPA causes far more harm than it mitigates. The EPA is the most dangerous thing known to mankind.

End the EPA.

The practical way to end the EPA is to repeal the Clean Air Act. I hope that is possible.

Political will will have to be high. Those voting to repeal the laws that empower the EPA must have sufficient backbone to take the name calling and threats.

The politicians will have to replace the laws, because we do actually need to protect our air and water, but the laws must be targeted and specifically limited in scope and control. Very specific. I expect that will cause some problems and confusion for a while as lawyers fight each other and politicians to iron out the details. Still, it has to be better than what we have.

EPA is killing us.

EPA is the most dangerous thing on earth.

The EPA has become a monster that will destroy its creator, us. The EPA is the Frankenstein monster. It must be eliminated. We must repeal and replace the Clean Air Act with sensible, restricted, targeted legislation that makes sense for keeping our environment protected, but this replacement legislation must ensure citizens are not harassed and criminalized for building ponds on their own property. The new agencies to replace the EPA must be small, chartered, and limited, both in scope and in longevity. Such agencies should be chartered with Congressional oversight and not be put under full authority of the executive. Regulator agencies are law-givers, and thus must be under Congress, not the executive branch.

End the EPA. It is causing far more harm than good.

I like Norman Rogers writings. He’s written a piece at American Thinker, http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/the_climate-industrial_complex.html (and a slightly older article here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/08/global_warming_as_faith.html). Good stuff.

In the current article, Mr. Rogers makes the case that our science associations, pretty much without exception, are self-serving money grubbers. Pretty much the only thing this science organizations accomplish any more is grant proposals and propaganda designed to keep fear high and public money flowing.

The argument leads directly to the politicized “science” environment we see with all things related to environmentalism and climate alarmism.

Quoting from the article:

“The climate science establishment does not criticize “clean” energy companies promoting highly impracticable schemes, be it wind farms, solar installations or electric cars. This is not because they don’t know that these schemes are useless, even by the standards of true believers in global warming, but because they have no enemies in the global warming subsidy sphere. They welcome allies in the climate-industrial complex, no matter how deficient in intellectual integrity, in the long march to fleece the taxpayer.” […]

“When scientific organizations endorse global warming catastrophe theory, remember that these organizations are really just fancied-up labor unions and their reports and statements are generally self-serving declarations disguised as objective analysis.  It is obviously foolish to ask scientific organizations to give objective advice concerning programs in which they are deeply self-interested.  The National Academy of Sciences says it mission is to give “… independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology.” The problem is obvious.  The government should seek out persons and organizations without a self-interest stake when asking for advice concerning science policy and science spending.”

%d bloggers like this: