Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Observations From the Back Row: 6-29-11


Why do anti-aviation group Plane Stupid, and perennial hippie hangout, Greenpeace hate Gaia?

This is from the Daily Bayonet….skewing the clueless since 2006. RK

Both Greenpeace and Plane Stupid celebrated when Heathrow airport’s planned third runway was cancelled, in part because of protests led by their merry bands of gap-year student activists who climbed all over things that didn’t belong to them. Greenpeace and Plane Stupid wants to save the planet from airlines, but it’s a cosmic rule that hippie action is always met by the equal and opposite force of unintended consequences.

Delays caused by restricted capacity at Heathrow comes at a high cost to the planet:
Sixty per cent of arrivals into Heathrow Airport are caught up in holding patterns above the capital, at a massive cost to the economy and great frustration to passengers. Figures compiled by air traffic control service NATS have revealed that jets circling for a cumulative 55 hours a day are burning 190 tons of fuel and discharging 600 tons of co2 into the skies above London, costing £119,000 in wasted fuel every day. You have to change a lot of light bulbs to save 600 tons of CO2.
If the planet was a living, breathing organism capable of sentient thought, it would probably shake the hippies off like so many fleas, just to save itself from the stupid. Take that, Gaia!

My Take – This statement has been shown to be imminently true. You can’t fix stupid!

EPA regulations — our economy’s golden goose? By Steve Milloy

Every dollar spent complying with federal regulations returned anywhere from $2.13 to $14.90 during the 2000s, according to a new report from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). EPA rules accounted for approximately 84% of this alleged regulatory largesse. Needless to say, the OMB report is total nonsense.

First, the OMB report is not a re-analysis of costs and benefits claimed by federal agencies or a retrospective analysis of actual costs and benefits. The report simply parrots and adds up what the hallucinatory agencies have previously claimed.   In particular and as we pointed out in “EPA’s Clean Air Act: Pretending air pollution is worse than it is,” EPA benefits estimates are LOL-ably wild, if not entirely imaginary.  It’s really sad that OMB — once a respected champion of cost-benefit analysis — has been reduced by the Obama administration to bootlicking arithmetic.

My Take - I recommend following the link to Steve’s analysis in, "EPA’s Clean Air Act: Pretending air pollution is worse than it is", you will find it fascinating. I find it hard to believe that these people would think even for a second that the insane could believe this nonsense. Under this rationale we would have to assume that the problem with the economy is that government isn't nearly big enough and that there are far too few regulations determining all that we do. Really? During the Wilson administration (which LITERALY turned into a fascist regime during WWI) they took pride in the fact that they eliminated, actually outlawed, "755 types of drills in their campaign to "strip from trade and industry the lumber of futile custom and the encrustation of useless variety" - as though one plow were the right plow for every field, as though one drill were the right drill for ever hole." These people never get it. This is what is necessary for innovation and advancement. That is the primary reason socialism ultimately fails everywhere in the world. Central planners cannot possible think as well or know as much as the other 99.9999999% (or whatever the number actually is) of the population. If a certain kind of drill is unnecessary the market place will fix that. No one will buy it. They don’t need some bureaucrat who went to college and then into government to tell them they don’t need it. RK

Owners of land taken over by feds getting day in court Supremes to review EPA decision it controls residential parcel in Idaho
"With this case, the Supreme Court confronts important issues for property rights and due process. When the government seizes control of your land, and you disagree with the justification, shouldn't you be allowed your day in court? Just as important, should EPA be a law unto itself, without meaningful accountability to the courts and the Constitution?"……..

And it's not just the Sacketts' land that could be subject to such orders. The foundation arguments suggest that private property across the nation could be at risk. The legal team noted that between 1980 and 2001, the EPA issued up to 3,000 compliance orders every year across the nation. "The reality of the Sacketts' situation is that they have been unambiguously commanded by their government not to complete their home-building project, to take expensive measures to undo the improvements that they have made to their land, and to maintain their land essentially as a public park until the property is 'restored' to the satisfaction of the EPA. They have been threatened with frightening penalties if they do not immediately obey; but they have been refused the prompt hearing they should have received as a matter of right in any court," Pacific Legal argued.


No comments:

Post a Comment