tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6130126685334700207.post721631749956106261..comments2023-09-09T07:55:53.277-07:00Comments on El Pollo Real: Comment Link Brokenchickelithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6130126685334700207.post-46186498803129095422011-09-19T16:35:16.121-07:002011-09-19T16:35:16.121-07:00The public trust and opinion of DoE at this point ...<i>The public trust and opinion of DoE at this point speaks for itself.</i><br /><br />I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. I must have far less faith in how well educated most Americans are on matters of science to endorse public opinion of a science agency, as a whole, as a meaningful mark of its performance.<br /><br /><i>If POTUS wanted to fix one thing with one fell swoop he could replace Chu with someone less adversarial towards the energy industries in America.</i><br /><br />See above. Also, I simply don't understand why an industry - especially an industry with a financial stake in how a scientific matter is decided - should be privileged in determining a regulatory agency's decisions. They have the least reason for objectivity of any party. <br /><br /><i>The litigious nature of our country would see to the extinction of such polluters well before any agency need intervene.</i><br /><br />I don't agree. Litigation benefits from harms that are very damaging, immediately observable and intensely personal. (Makes for a better narrative in front of a jury, I suppose). If the costs of a small scale harm, pollutant, toxin, etc. are spread out over an entire population, over a very long period of time, the harm is ignored, the harm is conflated with natural, pre-existing risks, the harm is allowed to be seen as normative, and then allowed to be increased based on a higher threshold level of damage now becoming the new norm. <br /><br />Public, common resources, are therefore especially prone to degradation - despite our crucial reliance on them. This probably argues for more vigilant oversight over such resources than over private property, given the lack of stakeholders with a solely <i>personal</i> interest. Organizing class action suits is hard enough. Organizing an entire society around these more easily hidden harms, damn near impossible. <br /><br />Boiling frog metaphors... <br /><br /><i>Let's consider the environmental movement and public perceptions... Today's "big messages" are clouded with ambiguity.</i><br /><br />I don't think I disagree with anything you're saying here. If you're saying that certain proposed solutions could come with their own harms, trade-offs - or could be short-sighted in themselves, I certainly see no reason to disagree with that. <br /><br />I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the last paragraph but the stance from <i>The Economist</i> that you summarize sounds accurate. <br /><br />Since it seems we may be getting into a discussion on the best way to regulate the commons, negative externalities, etc., the collapse of fisheries might be a better example. Recent (dare I say "ground-breaking") economic research has been recognized in this field. The basic idea seems to be that important long-term interests and short-term goals may often be at odds with each other, and balancing them out doesn't always fall best under the purview of a single party.Ritmo Re-Animatedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15912086218531198114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6130126685334700207.post-57792476630056735362011-09-19T15:58:56.272-07:002011-09-19T15:58:56.272-07:00Yes. Don't apologize for lengthiness. You'...Yes. Don't apologize for lengthiness. You're entitled to give at least as much as I gave!<br /><br />Anyway, you have some good points here worth responding to, as I feel obliged to do given your challenging distillation of all that you had to say, in response, into an entire post of its own. I'll read through and try to respond in a way that helps us cut to the main ideas/points, if that's ok with you. <br /><br />Thanks -Ritmo Re-Animatedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15912086218531198114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6130126685334700207.post-4747969161840688452011-09-19T09:24:21.898-07:002011-09-19T09:24:21.898-07:00Chickenlittle - you're calling it the way you ...Chickenlittle - you're calling it the way you see it. I don't think it's too long.LLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05538854359365988863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6130126685334700207.post-73693570640686888492011-09-18T19:38:16.076-07:002011-09-18T19:38:16.076-07:00Maybe it was too long!Maybe it was too long!chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.com