Model Mad, Mechanism


In this era, when saying no in creative manner has been raised to an art form, we remain on the lookout for model mad; but it does not have to be creative or novel. If there is an established machinery to utilize, utilize it! Here is an example. We are not surprised that, when asked, people say they want their environment protected, nonetheless we are pleasantly surprised that the “system” such as it is continues to even ask:

Public To EPA On Cutting Regulations: ‘No!’

As part of President Trump’s executive order to review “job-killing regulations,” the Environmental Protection Agency last month asked for the public’s input on what to streamline or cut. It held a series of open-mic meetings and set up a website that has received more than 28,000 comments, many of which urge the agency not to roll back environmental protections.

“The EPA saves lives,” wrote Benjamin Kraushaar, who described himself as a hydrologist, hunter and fly fisherman. He wrote that environmental regulations “ensure safe air and water for our future generations. This should not be even up for debate.”

“The problem isn’t regulation,” wrote Marcia Nichols in another comment. “It’s with greedy corporate leaders who are more concerned about the bottom line.” Like many others, she credited the EPA with improving air and water that were visibly polluted in the 1970s. “I remember orange skies over cities, acid rain eroding statues in parks, frequent boil orders for water,” she wrote.

A military veteran and entrepreneur wrote, “I’m well aware that excessive regulation can impose an undue burden.” However, continued Jeff Baker, “what is less discussed these days are the economic and societal costs already avoided and prevented by current rules.”

Others criticized EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt for questioning climate science, talked about the importance of keeping curbs on carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants and said that regulations, too, can create jobs. One commenter simply filled an entire page with “no no no no no no.”

Scrolling through the comments, it’s hard to find any that advocate rolling back regulations. But there are some who took the agency’s request to heart. Richard Doherty wrote that he oversees the cleanup of contaminated sites and has a problem with regulation “40 CFR Part 261 Subpart D.” Often, he wrote, material that’s not actually hazardous has to be treated as such, which wastes money and ends up doing “more environmental harm than good.”…

Read the whole story here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s