The Success of Environmental Regulation

Matthew Yglesias makes a point I think should be made more often. I often hear people saying things like: 'x years ago, person y predicted that if nothing was done about issue z, then we would have problem q, and here we are now, and problem q hasn't materialized' while failing to note that things were done, and they worked.

Case in point, Mark Perry from the right wing(nut) American Enterprise Institute, puts up a chart showing that levels of various pollutants has declined in the U.S. over the last couple of decades, and takes that as proof that warnings about the hazardous effects from growth in the levels of these pollutants was misguided - while failing to note that the decline largely resulted from clean air legislation of various forms that was instituted in response to those warnings.

This point was made nicely by Taleb in 'The Black Swan' as he pointed out that people who take action that prevents bad things from happening (before the thing is imminent), rarely receive any real reward for their actions - because nothing bad happened nobody pays any attention.

Crash Course

No posting after today until March 11, most likely, as I'll be on vacation.

In the meantime, keep yourself busy reading Chris Martenson's crash course on the unsustainability of our economic, environmental and energy systems.

Sustainability has kind of been corrupted into meaning replacing your light bulbs, but we need to remember that it means things that can't be sustained won't be sustained and start figuring out how the core systems that keep our society functioning can be moved to a sustainable footing, because they're very far from one right now.

Shut it Down

"You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead"¹

I hate to disagree with Paul and John, and I've been to the building that houses the Senate and it's quite nice, so burning it down seems a tad excessive, but the appointment of a bunch of new senators seems like a good time to point out that the Senate really should be shut down. The truth is, I don't really care who is appointed to it.

If anyone disagrees, please let me know what the Senate has accomplished in the last 10 years besides thwarting the public (and the government's) desire to update our 113 year old (and counting) animal cruelty legislation. The whole, absurd, story can be found here. And if it was accomplishing more, would that be a good thing, given its undemocratic nature?

Seriously, do we really need to spend millions of dollars a year just so we can have a chamber of sober second special interest pleading? Is the governance of the provinces suffering in some way due to the absence of provincial Senates?

I appreciate that it's a whole can of worms to try and modify the constitution but is that the only reason the Senate is still standing - or are there people who think it's a good idea? - Or people who'd like to see an elected Senate? I'm just wondering (I'll have to figure out how to post a poll one of these days).

--------------
Update (mere hours later): You know how once you're looking for something you suddenly see it everywhere?

From today's globe,

"Environment Canada estimates that, on average, a minimum of 300,000 seabirds are killed every year in Atlantic Canada waters as a result of ship operators illegally dumping bilge oil. This number of deaths is greater than that caused by the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska in 1989.

Bill C-15 provides an opportunity to eliminate an unnecessary activity practised by irresponsible companies and individuals whose actions make the entire industry look bad. Newfoundlanders who have had to walk along beaches filled with dead and dying oiled sea birds - indeed, all Canadians who treasure Canada's coastal environment - will be pleased to see this abhorrent activity dramatically curtailed, if not entirely stopped. Without the swift passage of Bill C-15, this environmental disaster - first reported nearly 45 years ago - will continue."

C-15 has already passed the House of Commons but,

"Unfortunately, in the past few weeks, representatives of Canada's shipping industry have been working hard to scuttle this proposed law either by having the Senate defeat it, or by making amendments that will weaken the bill and cause it to go back to the House of Commons."

Sober second special interest pleading indeed.


-----
¹ From 'Revolution' by the Beatles, on the off chance that my pool of readers is large enough to contain someone who doesn't recognize it.

This and That

Over at Polspy, Sean asked the question, "Is it possible to be a Conservative and an environmentalist at the same time, or are the two mutually exclusive?" and got some interesting (and some silly) replies.

My favourite came from Ray who said,

"Of course it is possible to be conservative and an environmentalist, as easily is it is to be conservative and gay, though Scott Brison might disagree with me. ...

[big chunk omitted - go read his comment in full] ...

Grizzlies are in an endangered state, eagles are being butchered for cash, but the single most contentious issues in Ottawa are whether or not gays will be allowed to marry or whether Canada will support a program it is already in to help the Americans shoot rockets that don't fly to defend us against missiles that don't exist.

It's wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong."

My personal opinion, as I commented, is that if we're talking big C Conservative (i.e. the political party not the philosopy) then it is possible, but they sure aren't making it easy.

-----

Meanwhile, at Crooked Timber, John Quiggin has a thoughtful post up on the general trend towards democracy over the last 50 years and how the invasion of Iraq may have impacted it.

-----

And finally, something I was not only slow in posting about, I was even slow in linking to Pogge when he posted about, was a pair of columns in the Toronto Star by Thomas Walkom about the erosion of civil liberties and the privacy of our information in this post 9/11 security legislation environment. Both are worth a read, unless you prefer to remain in a good mood, in which case give them a pass.

Geo-Green

It's not often that I agree whole-heartedly with NY Times op-ed columnist Thomas Friedman, so I thought I'd mention his most recent column, No Mullah Left Behind.

Here's the essence of what he's saying,

"Imagine if President Bush used his bully pulpit and political capital to focus the nation on sharply lowering energy consumption and embracing a gasoline tax.

What would that buy? It would buy reform in some of the worst regimes in the world, from Tehran to Moscow. It would reduce the chances that the U.S. and China are going to have a global struggle over oil - which is where we are heading. It would help us to strengthen the dollar and reduce the current account deficit by importing less crude. It would reduce climate change more than anything in Kyoto. It would significantly improve America's standing in the world by making us good global citizens. It would shrink the budget deficit. It would reduce our dependence on the Saudis so we could tell them the truth. (Addicts never tell the truth to their pushers.) And it would pull China away from its drift into supporting some of the worst governments in the world, like Sudan's, because it needs their oil. Most important, making energy independence our generation's moon shot could help inspire more young people to go into science and engineering, which we desperately need."

and he doesn't mince words (not that he ever does) in his conclusion,

"But no, President Bush has a better project: borrowing another trillion dollars, which will make us that much more dependent on countries like China and Saudi Arabia that hold our debt - so that you might, if you do everything right and live long enough, get a few more bucks out of your Social Security account.

The president's priorities are totally nuts."

Now if he (Friedman) could only get over his rose-coloured glasses love affair with laissez-faire global capitalism, we'd really be making progress, but this is a good start.