BTW, to address your post my friend, as a “water person”, I’m happy the EPA saw fit to get involved in doing away with the pollution of the two stroke on lakes and streams. I have seen the positive affects. It may take a while, but should the ICE have the same fate ? Yes, if the replacement is more efficient, affordable and profit making.
Nice post; most successful democracies have multiple parties and many have coalition governments. These coalitions allow a wide range of views and somehow get things done by being co-operative rather than belligerent. Governments with entrenched parties, such as Mexico, are often inefficient to the point of being dysfunctional.
The PRI for many years, ruled Mexico in a very similar way that the Communist Party ruled Russia and China.
Dag, I too am thrilled at many of the accomplishments of the EPA. Before the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, LA’s air was brown and made peoples’ eyes water, many of our waterways were toxic and many putrid, and we were truely ruining our environment at a rapid pace. Even our oceans were being destroyed. They have truely made a world of difference.
However these were legislatove mandates. The EPA’s function was to promulgate and enforce regulations to ensure compliance with the laws. This new ruling gives them powers to enact their own standard, at least as regards CO2. Therein lies my concern.
Perhaps ICEs are headed for obsolescence. I myself expect that plug-in electric cars will reign in my children’s lifetime. But whatever is statutorily done, IMHO it should be done through the legislatve process.
I hear your concern. The constitution mandated “x” number of legislatures. As the country grows in size and complexity, more is required to the point of allowing appointed, non elected officials to make rulings and “statute” non legislative mandates. There are over 100 non voted upon bills in the now completely dysfunctional senate because there is no majority rule. The representative part of the govt. is grinding to a halt, and payola part is alive and well and it’s much easier to pay off just two parties whose platitudes disagree with their agendas which differ little in execution.
That’s just my little rant that our forefathers who did a wonderful job constructing the fundamental operating by laws, also saw fit to say that as times change (amendments) to that constitution are needed to keep in step. Any amendment to encourage the people to become more politically involved and represented is more than welcome and we’d have fewer EPA non legislative amendments.
BTW, we’re presently setting up a road association by statute and I’m sure glad it wasn’t written by the legislature. One can actually read it.
Harmless indeed.
In the near term, like decades or a century or two, it is definitely a good thing. But only so long as the tree does not decompose. Trees are only long-term carbon storage if they get buried. But if we decrease carbon output and plant enough trees to absorb what we’ve already put in the atmosphere, it could definitely smooth out the graph a bit.
That said…cities wouldn’t be enough. You’d need massive reforestation.
Not that most cities couldn’t use some more trees.
They don’t understand the concept of a greenhouse gas. They don’t understand the concept of dynamic equilibrium.
My niece lived in Louisiana near New Orleans for a number of years. She compared it to a third world country in terms of how well democracy functioned there.
And the primary reason that this is so is because the Government has created a culture of dependency by encouraging so many people to become wards of the state. This dependency results in a loyal voting block which allows the politicians to stay in power. The unfortunate result of this is that there are now several lost generations of parasites with no incentive to do better for themselves because they know that they will get a handout from the taxpayer. Welfare is a great concept in the short term…it is a horrible way to enslave people in the long term. Leave welfare to the church, not to the state.
Well said!