- #141
denverdoc
- 963
- 0
mheslep said:I'll take crack at the environmental case. The free market environmentalism approach would be as follows. First, create pollution credits in the vein of basic trespass law, you can't throw your pollution over the fence onto my property unless I agree and you pay me for it. Thus, 10 tons of sulfur dioxide up the stack would cost X creating incentives to reduce emissions. The credits must be salable so that the system has a natural check. If a polluter tries to hide emissions, then even if one cares nothing for the local environment there's a built in incentive to police the polluter since if I'm in the market to sell credits the polluter is depressing demand by cheating. Thats going to put drag on your 100 plants, get producers to go another way, for instance, investing in clean energy.
Now, in evaluating the EPAless world we also need to compare to system as it is now, with all the paperwork and licensing process. If that is greatly reduced, it also reduces impediment to the creation of new efficient/cleaner plants (which they should be w/ credits) and replace the broken down old cars of the power industry - the pre 1977 filthy coal plants still chugging along. Finally, with regards to fears of excessive legal costs in a EPAless system, don't discount the legal costs now.
With regards to individual polluters (catalytic converter removal,etc) - I don't know how to address that. In any case that's covered AFAIK by state laws. I can't pass my state inspection system without one, so no federal EPA needed there. Indeed, the EPA blocks states from increasing restrictions on auto emissions past some EPA-knows-best limit without a waiver from EPA as California's are likely quite aware at the moment.
I don't know if Rep. Paul agrees with all this in detail. He's stated that private property rights need to be enforced (again), and that though its not a priority for him he'd move towards dumping EPA. The above is basically the less - government approach to cleaner air/water/... per, say, https://www.amazon.com/gp/associates/link-types/marketplace.html?t=theedgeofengl-20&asin=9990561818"&tag=pfamazon01-20
A final reason: I don't see much basis in the constitution for EPA in its current form; its a distortion beyond all recognition of the commerce clause.
This experiment has been tried and led to the creation of the EPA. I am not sure why folks don't get the mercenary aspect of commerce/free enterprise, esp as practiced here in the USA. No one gives a hoot about future damages or reduction of life quality until it results in law suits--and then careful calculus is applied to the future cost of litigation vs doing biz as usual. Without some standards such as the ones promulgated by the EPA, there is no legal ground to stand on. Witness the tobacco suits. One expert after another to convince jury after another there is harm associated with tobacco smoke. This is an egregious case, try arguing what DU has done to Iraqis, above ground testing to Nevadan's and southern Utahn's, it becomes very difficult to prove damages and collect. As someone quipped above, if you want an economy based on legal opinions, elect Paul.
Last edited by a moderator: