An anonymous commenter to an earlier post brought up the issue of NEPA, or the National Environmental Policy Act.
More on NEPA here.
A review of these government websites is educational.
Note the following from the NEPA website:
"Every three years, EPA sets national enforcement initiatives to focus civil and criminal enforcement resources and expertise on serious pollution problems affecting communities. The initiatives were chosen with state and public input and support EPA’s seven priorities."
Are these "National Enforcement Initiatives" voted on by the citizens of state, local or national polities, or are these "initiatives" simply ways for the bureaucracy to make it's own rules using it's own definitions?
A good example of this is the decision by the EPA to write regulations that drastically tighten the efficiency requirements for wood burning stoves.
"A federal proposal requiring more efficiency from wood-burning stoves has ignited a debate between the Obama administration and lawmakers who oppose the new regulations, arguing the rules impose an unfair burden on people in remote areas.
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule changes in January that would dramatically tighten emissions requirements on new wood-powered heaters, though does not impact ones already in homes.
The EPA estimates that as much as 13 percent of all soot pollution in the U.S. is a result of inefficient wood-fired stoves and boilers.
The dispute pits several mostly urban states, mainly in the northeast, against some rural states such as South Dakota, which says the rules would impose an unfair burden on people in remote areas. About one in four South Dakota homes has a fireplace or wood stove."
The key here is that the EPA estimates the amount of soot pollution. It actually doesn't know, but that would of course not stop it from enacting regulations, which are bureaucratically created rules, not voted on by anyone, applicable to the entire country. This foolish action by an unelected bureaucracy not only increases the cost of heating your home, but is totally unnecessary in most of the country, and during the time of the year when most people are using their wood stoves. It should be pointed out that in areas where wood burning is in fact a problem during the winter, local elected agencies have created rules to solve the problem. Local laws solving local problems, and made in a properly democratic fashion.
This bureaucratic hubris is further illustrated by looking at the NEPA webpage where they discuss such obtuse concepts as "environmental justice," which of course means exactly whatever the bureaucrats applying this law want it to mean.
"Federal agencies must consider environmental justice in their activities under NEPA. This page provides resources to enhance environmental justice considerations in the NEPA review process.
Federal Guidance on Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 (February, 1994) (PDF) (5 pp, 19K), “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (EO 12898) directs each Federal Agency to “make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations,” including tribal populations.
The Presidential Memorandum (February, 1994) (PDF) (6 pp, 48K) accompanying EO 12898 emphasizes the importance of using the NEPA review processes to promote environmental justice. It directs federal agencies to analyze the environmental effects, including human health, economic, and social effects, of their proposed actions on minority and low-income communities when required by NEPA.
Notice that these concepts are defined and enacted by executive order and memorandum, not by the democratic process.
Notice that these concepts are defined and enacted by executive order and memorandum, not by the democratic process.
This imaginary concept of environmental justice can of course be interpreted in any way desired, and those doing the interpreting are of the bureaucrats themselves - unelected, and applying regulations so vague that they could be used to justify pretty much anything.
But that is the rub.
Unelected bureaucrats are here seeking to find a problem that needs solving, and if one can't be found, to imagine one to solve. Whether arbitrarily regulating wood stoves, or creating regulations to solve the purely political creation of "environmental justice," government agencies step on the rights and the wallets of normal people over and over again, to no real benefit, then are surprised when there is anger and resistance.
Who, after all, could argue against clean air and water? Who could take issue with government employees who are just doing their job?
Well, lots of people, it turns out, when the full power of those agencies are unleashed to destroy lives to protect a tortoise that is not endangered, to make illegal stoves that have been used safely for generations, or to implement the concept of "environmental justice" on an unsuspecting population that never voted for such a thing.
Just to be clear, rule making by government agencies is not necessarily a bad thing. However, because it is by it's nature, and of necessity, undemocratic, government agencies must be very careful when creating regulations to make them as fair, and as light in their burden, as possible. A little humility is called for.
When it becomes clear to all that these agencies are simply cramming their ideas of what should be done down our throats, without any justification, and using the overwhelming power of government to do it, then they lose their legitimacy, which is what is happening now all over the country.
And by the way, this is what the rest of the country saw very recently in Nevada. This is the government coming to get you and your property, here representing the otherwise benign BLM. Who would have thought the BLM would have snarling dogs and AR-15's, and agents all dressed up in full battle rattle, all ready to violently address the miscreant rancher and his supporters? It's a miracle no one got shot and killed.
But is it any wonder people don't think of the local government worker as a public servant any longer? Those guys with their AR-15's and their cool tactical gear and their biting dogs and their brand new taxpayer purchased trucks are going to have to choose sooner or later who their employer really is, and what kind of country they think they can live in. Are they still public servants, or have they slowly changed into something else?
Well, lots of people, it turns out, when the full power of those agencies are unleashed to destroy lives to protect a tortoise that is not endangered, to make illegal stoves that have been used safely for generations, or to implement the concept of "environmental justice" on an unsuspecting population that never voted for such a thing.
Just to be clear, rule making by government agencies is not necessarily a bad thing. However, because it is by it's nature, and of necessity, undemocratic, government agencies must be very careful when creating regulations to make them as fair, and as light in their burden, as possible. A little humility is called for.
When it becomes clear to all that these agencies are simply cramming their ideas of what should be done down our throats, without any justification, and using the overwhelming power of government to do it, then they lose their legitimacy, which is what is happening now all over the country.
And by the way, this is what the rest of the country saw very recently in Nevada. This is the government coming to get you and your property, here representing the otherwise benign BLM. Who would have thought the BLM would have snarling dogs and AR-15's, and agents all dressed up in full battle rattle, all ready to violently address the miscreant rancher and his supporters? It's a miracle no one got shot and killed.
But is it any wonder people don't think of the local government worker as a public servant any longer? Those guys with their AR-15's and their cool tactical gear and their biting dogs and their brand new taxpayer purchased trucks are going to have to choose sooner or later who their employer really is, and what kind of country they think they can live in. Are they still public servants, or have they slowly changed into something else?
