4 ms·

No government "dependency" means no enforcement.

by daveguy 10y ago

SteveNuts 10y ago
That's why we have the 2nd amendment
- txru 10y ago
  We have the Second Amendment because the Governor of Massachusetts, Bowdoin, couldn't raise enough guns during Shay's Rebellion to safely take down the rebels. I don't think it had much to do with permitting citizens to enforce Federal policy that the government could be doing, but isn't.
- a3n 10y ago
  Please explain. Are individuals going to, at their discretion, point guns at people to enforce individual environmental preferences? I don't see anything that implies that in the 2nd Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...
  - nickpeterson 10y ago
    No, I believe the connotation is that it's easier to intimidate people than convince them.
a3n 10y ago
I think this could "devolve" naturally to states. California is already making noises about its own enforcement efforts. Maybe even more so with health care/insurance, since people who are dying can see themselves die every day, while it's a bit easier to ignore "the environment." I'd like to see states, probably led by California, possibly with New York and Washington, start their own single-payer system, open to any state that wants to join, contribute and comply. Because I'm kinda tired of being a football kicked back and forth every two years for nothing but political points.
- throwaway5752 10y ago
  Wait until you see what abuses of power and logic they can achieve now with power in all three branches. CA won't be able to enforce a thing. "States rights" as a slogan was accurately described by Atwater, there is no real principle there.
  - a3n 10y ago
    Your garden hoses and cars are greatly influenced by California's large market and their regulations. Your textbooks are greatly influenced by California and Texas. Large states, or groups of states, can influence things by simple scale, if it's not practical to go against them.
    - throwaway5752 10y ago
      I know this, what's your point? What if the EPA drops regulation of lead in garden hoses, Congress introduces a bill that says "states cannot have more stringent regulations for lead in garden hoses than the EPA", the president signs it, and the legal challenge to it reaches the Supreme Court where it's defeated 5-4? You take it for granted that states have certain rights historically, and that the current government will respect established norms and rules (and failing that, the institutions of government that should protect against this will not fail). My point is you should not take that for granted any more.
      - a3n 10y ago
        My point is exactly that, that states do have a right to self-regulate, notwithstanding constitutional questions. The end-position that you describe would be terrible, but it's very possible. But I don't think the states would go down without a fight, and I don't think the Supreme Court should ever be looked at as a slam-dunk; many Presidents have learned that lesson. It would be a very awkward argument that the Feds know garden hoses best, at the same time that the Feds are saying that States know health care best. And courts so far have shown themselves willing to consider what this administration has said in recent history about the Muslim/Travel ban to judge intent and constitutionality. So the two self-contradicting points of view ("We know best," "they know best") are likely to get some scrutiny. Just because things look dark doesn't mean it's over. Even if you're a cynic.
dmix 10y ago
Are fines and coercion realy the only way positive change can happen to deal with climate change? Are there no significant projects that could be accomplished through private funding? No public outreach campaigns? etc There were hundreds of millions of dollars going to Clinton's campaign and other anti-Trump PAC. That kind of money put on issues could go a long way. Not to mention the fact that EPA's budget was $8,139,887,000 in 2016 with 15k employees. They are still a significant force in the country. https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget If we're just talking about marketing alone I'm pretty sure there is still a significant amount of work that needs to be done just to convince the public (and not just your everyday simpletons) that this is something serious that requires a top heavy government approach. Cleary many influential people still believe otherwise and they have influence in American politics. If you look at other controversial issues in America that have made progress over the years, across both parties, such as gay marriage [1] and marijuana [2] it's clear that opinions can change. [1] http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/29/public-support-for-marijuana-legalization-surged-in-2016/?utm_term=.b4615d0ba5e4 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/29/publi...
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Yeah, basically. We don't need another damn public outreach campaign, as if somehow we just haven't been marketing it right all this time and suddenly everyone who has vested interests in fossil fuels is gonna see the light and want to protect coral reefs and fluffy animals. Let's get real here, this fight has been going on about a quarter of a century now and the problem is not a lack of effort to explain the importance of the issue to the public.
ohthehugemanate 10y ago
Is it crazy to have research separate from government, and enforcement the job of the "real" EPA? I'm thinking something like how the FCC and FTC work. They do very few studies on their own; they evaluate evidence, make binding resolutions, and enforce rules.

No government "dependency" means no enforcement.

by daveguy 10y ago

No government "dependency" means no enforcement.

SteveNuts 10y ago

That's why we have the 2nd amendment

txru 10y ago
We have the Second Amendment because the Governor of Massachusetts, Bowdoin, couldn't raise enough guns during Shay's Rebellion to safely take down the rebels. I don't think it had much to do with permitting citizens to enforce Federal policy that the government could be doing, but isn't.
a3n 10y ago
Please explain. Are individuals going to, at their discretion, point guns at people to enforce individual environmental preferences? I don't see anything that implies that in the 2nd Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...
- nickpeterson 10y ago
  No, I believe the connotation is that it's easier to intimidate people than convince them.

a3n 10y ago

I think this could "devolve" naturally to states. California is already making noises about its own enforcement efforts. Maybe even more so with health care/insurance, since people who are dying can see themselves die every day, while it's a bit easier to ignore "the environment." I'd like to see states, probably led by California, possibly with New York and Washington, start their own single-payer system, open to any state that wants to join, contribute and comply. Because I'm kinda tired of being a football kicked back and forth every two years for nothing but political points.

throwaway5752 10y ago
Wait until you see what abuses of power and logic they can achieve now with power in all three branches. CA won't be able to enforce a thing. "States rights" as a slogan was accurately described by Atwater, there is no real principle there.
- a3n 10y ago
  Your garden hoses and cars are greatly influenced by California's large market and their regulations. Your textbooks are greatly influenced by California and Texas. Large states, or groups of states, can influence things by simple scale, if it's not practical to go against them.
  - throwaway5752 10y ago
    I know this, what's your point? What if the EPA drops regulation of lead in garden hoses, Congress introduces a bill that says "states cannot have more stringent regulations for lead in garden hoses than the EPA", the president signs it, and the legal challenge to it reaches the Supreme Court where it's defeated 5-4? You take it for granted that states have certain rights historically, and that the current government will respect established norms and rules (and failing that, the institutions of government that should protect against this will not fail). My point is you should not take that for granted any more.
    - a3n 10y ago
      My point is exactly that, that states do have a right to self-regulate, notwithstanding constitutional questions. The end-position that you describe would be terrible, but it's very possible. But I don't think the states would go down without a fight, and I don't think the Supreme Court should ever be looked at as a slam-dunk; many Presidents have learned that lesson. It would be a very awkward argument that the Feds know garden hoses best, at the same time that the Feds are saying that States know health care best. And courts so far have shown themselves willing to consider what this administration has said in recent history about the Muslim/Travel ban to judge intent and constitutionality. So the two self-contradicting points of view ("We know best," "they know best") are likely to get some scrutiny. Just because things look dark doesn't mean it's over. Even if you're a cynic.

dmix 10y ago

Are fines and coercion realy the only way positive change can happen to deal with climate change? Are there no significant projects that could be accomplished through private funding? No public outreach campaigns? etc There were hundreds of millions of dollars going to Clinton's campaign and other anti-Trump PAC. That kind of money put on issues could go a long way. Not to mention the fact that EPA's budget was $8,139,887,000 in 2016 with 15k employees. They are still a significant force in the country. https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget If we're just talking about marketing alone I'm pretty sure there is still a significant amount of work that needs to be done just to convince the public (and not just your everyday simpletons) that this is something serious that requires a top heavy government approach. Cleary many influential people still believe otherwise and they have influence in American politics. If you look at other controversial issues in America that have made progress over the years, across both parties, such as gay marriage [1] and marijuana [2] it's clear that opinions can change. [1] http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/29/public-support-for-marijuana-legalization-surged-in-2016/?utm_term=.b4615d0ba5e4 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/29/publi...

anigbrowl 10y ago
Yeah, basically. We don't need another damn public outreach campaign, as if somehow we just haven't been marketing it right all this time and suddenly everyone who has vested interests in fossil fuels is gonna see the light and want to protect coral reefs and fluffy animals. Let's get real here, this fight has been going on about a quarter of a century now and the problem is not a lack of effort to explain the importance of the issue to the public.

ohthehugemanate 10y ago

Is it crazy to have research separate from government, and enforcement the job of the "real" EPA? I'm thinking something like how the FCC and FTC work. They do very few studies on their own; they evaluate evidence, make binding resolutions, and enforce rules.