Keeping Up With the Competition II: Enough with the Regulations, Already

Here's the best news that isn't fit to print. The Environmental Protection Agency released its annual report on air quality trends. And guess what? Our air is much cleaner today than it was forty years ago. That's no real surprise. It's also gotten much cleaner over the last twenty years than the previous twenty years. Again, that's not much of a surprise either.

The surprise is that this wasn't reported by the MSM.

So, what accounts for the embargo on what should be considered good news and a story of success against the ravages of mankind upon the planet? Could it be that this information is being smothered in an attempt to convince the public we still need the Cap and Trade Bill?

Even more important is this question:  How much regulation is enough?

It's becoming clear that what we're doing is working, and judging from this report, working quite well, thank you. But at what point does regulation begin to become counterproductive, costing more in regulatory fees, fines, and unecessary lawsuits? And how much cost is added to the price of doing business because of them? Also, are we hanging a regulatory millstone around the neck of American businesses that other countries don't?

To answer this question, we need look no further than California. Their Legislative and Analytic Office is now starting to see the negative effects of too much regulation. The report notes the exodus of businesses from the state due to environmental overregulation and the negative impact on job creation that logically follows. The next thing to fall is tax income for the state, which results is spending deficits when politicians won't stop spending.

One would think that with a warning sign the size of the state of California, that Washington and the Obama administration would at least consider the possiblity that overregulation will significantly hamper our ability to compete in the global marketplace. This doesn't seem to be the case. Instead, EPA head Lisa Jackson has indicated in an interview with Forbes online that her agency will increase the regulatory pressure on American businesses. She states:

I think it's fair to say that, yes, we will be putting out more rules.

She goes on to laud an activist role for the agency,

I would definitely describe it as an active EPA. And proactive. "Activist" calls to mind the idea that we only have one point of view. What I've said is that we have to be driven by science and the law. The laws that we have in this country to govern environmental matters are extremely powerful, and in many cases just need to be used and used consistently. Maybe progressive would be a word I feel more comfortable with.

If Ms. Jackson were at all driven by science, she'd know that ClimatedGate has blown an enormous hole in the theory of man-made "climate change". If she were at all sincere, she's be hesitant to push for more and more restrictive regulations in light of the CRU emails showing a deliberate effort by "climate scientists" to omit and manipulate climate data to twist the outcome into something less than the truth.

It's this blog's opinion that we've been very effective with the environmental regulations we've put in place over the years.

It's time for us to consider a moratorium on any new environmental regulations for a minimum of three years and a reduction in the funding of the EPA.

Our ability to compete with the rest of the world depend upon it.