7 ms·

I think the EPA, and most executive agencies should not be allowed to write policy. They should be broken up into an independent advisory group, and an enforce

• hcurtiss 6y ago
  Agreed. The problem is that many of these decisions are not exclusively "science." They involve policy-making, and agenda-driven organizations are masking their preferred policy choices as "science." Toxic risk assessments are a perfect example. Toxicity assessments are famously arbitrary (e.g., adjusting acceptable dosages by orders of magnitude on the basis of uncertainty when one could argue for any other uncertainty factor).
  • TrispusAttucks 6y ago
    This. Not many people are anti-science. It's just when opinion gets passed for science that we should be worried because opinions are instructed by agenda. And if there is a funding motive behind that agenda, well, your gonna have problems with corruption.
    • mcguire 6y ago
      I dunno. From what I've seen, most people are pro-sciencism, not science. Science is difficult and rarely provides easy answers. If it does not affect them, sure---nobody really cares about the big bang, dark matter, etc., and astronomy provides pretty pictures---but if the question interacts with their jobs, cultures, or lifestyles then they are very happy picking the result that agrees with them and ignoring any nuance or counter-evidence. Would you or the parent have any specific examples? The only thing I can think of is the different values assigned to human life by different agencies.
      • hcurtiss 6y ago
        That's one. And as I mentioned above, the uncertainty factors are pretty wild. Because some individuals within a species may more vulnerable to a toxic than those tested, the standard practice is to move the decimal point for the lowest/no observed effect dosage one place to the left. And when you're using animal studies, it's standard practice to account for inter-species variability by moving the decimal point to the left another digit. If your data was at all suspect, they will apply another uncertainty factor (though usually less than a full order of magnitude). And always, the adjustment is in the direction of being more conservative, notwithstanding the fact that humans are frequently more resilient to toxic exposures than small animals, not less. An order of magnitude is a big deal when dealing with very small exposures. Two orders of magnitude starts to become completely unmoored from reality. How conservative we are in the face of that intra/inter-species uncertainty is couched as "science," but it is TOTALLY a policy call. And it has real world impacts. For large manufacturers, an adjustment factor of half that much frequently means the difference between no pollution controls and tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars in pollution controls. I find that where you land on that uncertainty has nearly perfect correlation with your politics.
    • jhayward 6y ago
      There are at least 70 million Americans that are anti-science. How many would be "many"?
      • redis_mlc 6y ago
        Yup, Marxists with their CRT nonsense despise science (and mathematics), which being objective contradicts their narrative that everything is a social construct. That's what you meant right? US university scientists consider the left to be their enemy, not the right. Ask one.
      • TrispusAttucks 6y ago
        Where does this number come from?
• mschuster91 6y ago
  I agree with you regarding punishments for polluters (although I do find execution a bit on the harsh edge). However, your idea of agencies not writing policies... is not gonna last long. Congress is already ineffective and broken and there is not much on the horizon to change the reasons behind its dysfunctionality. There's a sad reason for the steady expansion of executive rights, and as long as this isn't fixed it is foolish IMO to force the executive to rein these in. Edit: not to mention that, unlike government agencies, Congress is extremely corrupt. What is to prevent polluters from simply buying off Congress?
  • dec0dedab0de 6y ago
    Edit: not to mention that, unlike government agencies, Congress is extremely corrupt. What is to prevent polluters from simply buying off Congress? Why would they be any less corrupt? What is the DEA's stance on cannabis again? No person or group is above being paid off, or acting in their own interests over those of the country. Which is why power should be spread out as much as possible, to mitigate the risk.
    • mschuster91 6y ago
      > Why would they be any less corrupt? Government agencies have historically proven themselves to be largely immune to the wild flip-flop at the political top. This is the kernel of truth behind the Trumpists' claim of the "deep state" conspiracy. > What is the DEA's stance on cannabis again? The same unfounded-in-science crap it was many decades ago, which further proves my point: it is incredibly hard to change the course of a government agency away from its mandate.
      • mcguire 6y ago
        It's called the Civil Service system and it was put into place for a reason.
• acover 6y ago
  Why can't congress delegate implementation to an agency? Congress can always override the agency if needed. If you think congress is incapable of oversight then you are just for complete deregulation.
  • dec0dedab0de 6y ago
    It's much harder to change a law, because there are many more chefs in the kitchen. The president can put pressure on any of the executive agencies to make any policy they want. One person should not have that much power over ~400,000,000 people, even if i agree with that person. Federal laws should be simple and straight forward enough that most people agree with them. The only way to achieve that is to have some accountability to those people.
    • cheschire 6y ago
      Most people cannot agree on even simple and straightforward issues due to any number of reasons ranging from capacity for change, political alignment, or what their favorite news anchor told them to do. And that seems obvious enough that it really does just sound like you're wanting deregulation. And if not, then it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too.
      • dec0dedab0de 6y ago
        Most people cannot agree on even simple and straightforward issues due to any number of reasons ranging from capacity for change, political alignment, or what their favorite news anchor told them to do This is not true, most people don't really care. They might have a team they root for, but even those seemingly braindead people that are posting on the internet towing their party line are just looking for a way to fit in. They are all capable of thinking for themselves, and most of them will have a reasonable conversation with you if you run into them in the real world. Seriously all I am saying is that regulation should be slow to change, and be approved by elected officials. I also think there should be way more congressional districts, and senators. Currently there is way too small of a sample size to be representative of the population. Basically I'm in favor of more democracy not less. Honestly if it wasn't such a waste of time I would be ok with replacing congress with open voting on every issue.
• black6 6y ago
  It's the difference between the "legacy" government (your traditionally elected public officials), and the "efficiency" government of bureaucracy. The legislature in the US has offloaded the power to make law to a multitude of bureaucratic agencies through the use of administrative law, as distinct from legislative law. Through the acts that establish these agencies, they are granted the power to create and enforce these administrative laws, which often leave the law-breaker with little recourse other than capitulation. The book National Security and Double Government by Michael Glennon is a fantastic resource for those interested in learning more.
• coliveira 6y ago
  The problem is not that bureaucrats are writing these laws (at some level this needs to happen), but the immoral relationship between these agencies and private interests. Everyone knows about the revolving doors between industry and government. This needs to be stopped by congress.
  • ip26 6y ago
    I agree it needs fixing but allegedly it's pretty hard to solve. The ideal regulator knows the industry inside & out. Best place to find these people? From the industry. But the appointment is only a few years long, and these people still need a job after their appointment ends.
    • coliveira 6y ago
      That not correct. It is similar to saying that the ideal person to write criminal laws must be a criminal. One possible place to find people with deep knowledge about a particular area is academia, just to give an example.
      • rmah 6y ago
        For some industries, it's not just correct, but very correct :-). I have a bit of experience in working with a financial industry group that coordinated with regulators in different nations (US, EU, UK, Japan, Brazil, Singapore, etc.) in finalizing the details of rules for a fairly esoteric area of finance. None of this stuff is taught in schools except in the most general/theoretical terms. It's very complex and tough to understand without being well versed in: financial markets, stochastic calculus, derivatives, risk models, monte-carlo simulations, trade execution, inter-institution asset liabilities, etc, etc, etc. It's literally impossible to even know half this stuff the regulations covered exists without having worked in the industry for an extended period of time. Much less understand the implications of rules changes. From the various calls I sat in on, a few things that became clear to me was that: 1) while industry did have a significant say in how the rules were eventually setup, the overriding goal was a) clarity and b) uniformity across jurisdictions. the exact details were (usually) not quite as important. 2) while regulators (i.e. government) left much of the details to the industry group, they a) set the broad goals and guidelines and b) did sometimes make decisions that nearly everyone on the industry side did not like. But those decisions were always accepted in the end (often with lots of offline complaining) -- industry didn't really have a choice. 3) regulators clearly had authority over industry even though the people there were ex-industry. They knew it and everyone in industry clearly knew it. Essentially, it was regulators off-loading a bunch of work on industry. If they had to pay for it themselves, it would have cost a silly amount of money to set the rules for an sub-industry 99% of people have never even heard of. Where corruption comes into play is what those "broad goals and guidelines" are. And that's decided at the legislative level, not at the bureaucratic level. Perhaps things are different for the EPA and manufacturing. I can't say as I don't have any experience interacting with the EPA.
• zepto 6y ago
  It’s a nice idea but if you have scientists as just advisors, separate from policymaking, the science will simply be muted altogether.
  • analog31 6y ago
    Going further, if enforcement is separate, I predict hearing from the FBI, "we have enough money to catch polluters or murderers, which do you prefer?" My state (Wisconsin) has largely de-funded enforcement of environmental laws, with predictable effect.
    • whatshisface 6y ago
      >we have enough money to catch polluters or murderers Mass marginal murderers versus highly concentrated murderers. ;)
    • throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      >"we have enough money to catch polluters or murderers, which do you prefer?" If the rest of law enforcement is any indication then this should work out quite well and align the enforcers with what people actually want. Look at poor city police departments. This is basically what they do. They prioritize the crimes that get their bosses yelled at by the politicians. It certainly isn't great for the officers who have to work in it but it's a great way to ensure resource allocation at least kinda sorta reflects the will of the people. The FBI and EPA have no shortage of "you spent your resources doing what?" themed missteps. There needs to be some way to get them to do what people actually want them to do.
      • mcguire 6y ago
        "...what people actually want them to do." Which is ... nothing, in regards to regulatory matters, at least. Until it begins to affect them, in which case it becomes a crisis requiring immediate and massive changes, if the people in question have enough political clout.
      • bobthepanda 6y ago
• boh 6y ago
  Policies don't have the same power of law, they do however include incentives for compliance. My cable company doesn't have to go through Congress to pass legislation to have me comply in paying my bill. They can choose to give me late fees and ultimately cut my service, incentivizing me to comply. Does that mean that corporate middle managers, who were not democratically appointed, are regulating my behavior on par with the governing body of the US? This may seem like a dissimilar comparison, but corporate entities establish policies that effect consumer behavior all the time. Most decisions in general aren't made democratically, given the need for specialized knowledge and effective/time-sensitive execution for many decisions. Congress still makes the laws, agencies, and pretty much every private/public organizations, make policy. The assumption Congress would be better because they'd "balance all other concerns" has no bearing on reality.
  • mlyle 6y ago
    Policies totally have the same power as law. The DEA & FDA can decide something belongs on a schedule, and then the DEA can arrest you and have you put in prison for possessing something on that schedule.
• vkou 6y ago
  Congress has been deadlocked for the past two decades, where even the least contentious pieces of legislature can't make it through the senate filibuster. If your goal is to freeze all environmental law at where it is today, I agree, neutering the EPA is the best way to accomplish that. If your goal is to have democratic oversight over the EPA, you already have that - by virtue of voting for the executive. You're essentially grousing that the executive has more power than you'd like them to have in a scenario where their main check-and-balance - the legislature - is busy playing golf and arguing over suit colors. Okay, sure, that's definitely an argument you can make, but that's not going to change as long as the legislature remains deadlocked, and unwilling to legislate. If the legislature wanted to, it could trivially overturn policies, by passing new laws. It doesn't, though. Your democratic oversight is already here - its just that the representatives you voted for disagree with you on whether or not they should do anything. In a battle between regulatory policy and regulatory law, law will win nine times out of ten. Your lawmakers aren't fighting that battle, though. This is not a problem with your system, this is a problem with your lawmakers. Democracy is giving us exactly what we've asked for.
• jjoonathan 6y ago
  Delegating a task to congress is how lobbyists ensure that it will not be done. It is a highly effective tactic.
• gotstad 6y ago
  I had this very discussion just a few days ago. Agencies like the EPA cannot satisfy their objectives by advising alone. Administration and case-handling is the bread and butter of executing any strategy, and laws alone won’t cut it. It is inevitable to have some sort of policy-making involved, even for an agency, because the very strategy they choose to reach a certain goal (set by politicians) or enforce a law (set by politicians) may itself be a choice between political alternatives.
• garmaine 6y ago
  > In my world C-Level/Board members of a company willfully polluting to save money would be executed. I... what? I’m glad I don’t live in that dystopia.
  • jackpirate 6y ago
    It shocked me at first too, but on thinking about it the policy a bit more I think it's actually quite reasonable. Environmental pollution directly results in increased human death (due to cancers/etc), and GP wants the people responsible to be liable for those deaths. Under this scheme, accidental pollution would then be the equivalent of manslaughter, and intentional pollution would be the equivalent of murder. I'm personally not a fan of executing murderers, but many states in the US execute them.
    • garmaine 6y ago
      Most of the civilized world has gotten rid of the death penalty, even in murder cases. Even those that still do have capital punishment generally do NOT apply it to manslaughter cases. Your jump from manslaughter to murder is not legally justified, unless the polluter caused environmental damage explicitly for the purpose of killing people, which I'm pretty sure is not what you are describing. But even setting that aside, we are talking about capital punishment for a crime, the evidence for which is statistical and divorced from the actual crime itself. The managers who make the decision to pollute aren't on the scene leaving their fingerprints. As this is not something for which there is a smoking gun proof of culpability, which makes it ripe for abuse. Do you really think the people who called the shots are going to be the one on the executioner's block, or will it be some mid-level fall guy? And what about manufactured controversy? How difficult would it be to make a spurious connection between some unlikeable business and an environmental disaster, getting a jury to give that business' managers the death penalty? What an upgrade to cancel culture: now you can get your opponents legally murdered. Finally, the actual suggestion here is that C-level leadership and board members be executed for crimes their company commits. Note this means that someone lower down in the organization could commit a crime which causes the CEO or board members to be executed. So we're talking about killing people who might not even have been involved in the decision at all! I stand by my prior description of this proposed society as dystopia.
• LocalH 6y ago
  I would agree with you, except for the application of capital punishment. Prison time, absolutely. Hefty fines, absolutely. Lifetime ban from any executive positions, absolutely. Murder? No way.
• lazide 6y ago
  The challenge being is that Congress doesn’t want to go through all the trouble to do that, and frankly would probably be too slow even if they did. Say Congress writes a law saying it’s illegal to dump toxic waste in a river. Pretty clear cut, right? Well, law rolls out, and now you have an enforcement problem with all the edge cases. For instance, what counts as a river? Does the drainage ditch behind the building count? Does the creek? Does it matter if it has water in it right now, or will have water in it later? Also, what counts as toxic waste? If a substance is poisonous at say 100ppm and considered toxic - what happens if we dilute it so it’s 100ppb. Still toxic waste? What if the background level in the tap water in the area is 100ppb? Is it dumping if a building containing the waste catches on fire and falls in the river? Does it have the same penalties? What if it was arson? These edge cases come up during the regular course of enforcing these laws, and at some point someone has to decide what the right thing to do is. Situations can change too - say a dry river wasn’t considered a river - until a massive conglomerate used that ‘loophole’ and started dumping massive amounts of toxic waste into dry river beds, that then flooded and poisoned a bunch of people. Do you want to wait for congress to get it’s act together, or do you want an agency to step in and follow the intent of the law, clarifying the prior ‘dry rivers are not rivers’ stance to ‘a channel that has, or will have, predictable seasonal water flow’? The rule making process is designed to give visibility, and predictability into this process. It used to be people would just do whatever and never formalize these decisons, or formalize them internally and never publish them so people could challenge them.