I have been both a scientist and a lawyer. This is typical of what happens when we adopt a deregulate philosphy. For years, the EPA is underfunded, understaffed, and staffed by corporate cronies. Adopting a policy of non-enforcement, is that same as de-regulating. We will see the same thing happen to the enviroment that happened to the mortgage market.
The term ecnomists use is "externalities." Externalities are things, produced or used by a corporation - such as pollution, sick and dead people, schools and roads, that if a corporation had to pay for, it would lose profits. The strategy of corporations is to pass externalities off onto someone else, usually you and me. Corporation use our roads and educated workforce, but seek huge tax reductions. When corporations pollute, like in Texas, they seek laws making that tax the public for the pollution. When corporations lend irresonpsiblly, they seek federal bailouts.
Dead honeybees (and whatever fallout this will have on the environment) and proper testing of the Bayer pesticide are just another externality that you and me will have its pay for. The lobbyists will make sure that our courts and congressmen will not make Bayer liable. For instance, our Supreme Court is busy passing laws that cut down on deterents for such conduct.
One such deterent is punitive damages. Punitive damages are put in place to recoup the profits that corporations recieved from not having to pay for the externalities. in a civil suit; our highest court in the the Exxon Valdez case made certain that Exxon would benefit from never having to pay for the externality of the contaminated Alaskan coastline by stripping the punitive damages award bare.
Another is the treble damage provision in the EPA rules. However, one only has to look at General Electric and its dumping of PCB's into the Hudson to understand that the decision to allow a corporation to pollute with impunity is political. Because of politics the dredging of the Hudson by GE was delayed for years. GE fought it tooth and nail, and used every last political connection it had to avoid the clean up.
I am sure Bayer found that the pesticide was safe for humans to. I would not mind seeing the data, if its like the bee dats, we could be in some serious trouble. But, I am sure Bayer would not value profits over human lives.
PRWatch should take a close look at the PR tactics of the AGW crowd. They do a great disservice for anybody serious about understanding the impact of C02 driven climate change. Ever recall a movement so apt to fritter away its privilege of mainstream acceptance simply by the way they respond to adverse information?
East Anglia's CRU hired a PR firm shortly after their emails were accessed or hacked and released to the public. This is an unusual move by an organization who's science should hold up to public scrutiny on its own.
Look at the "Blue Ribbon Panels" used to exonerate the scientists involved with the email scandal. Look familiar? 3rd party technique - the same type of panel used to exonerate researchers involved with G.D. Searle, aspartame, and the Bressler Report.
Primary question: Why do they insist on using the data called into question by the email scandal? Instead of polishing the turd that is East Anglia, why not walk away from the stench and renew the study, sans Mann and company?
If PRWatch is serious about examining how the public is duped by PR, AGW PR should not escape scrutiny.
I agree with everything said, but one crucial point : that this isn't free market capitalism. In a hyper-individualistic (almost Ayn Randian) society, where government, and pretty much any institution that used to be called "public" is now the enemy of individual liberty, where corporations - entirely free of democratic oversight - get to behave, and even have the rights of individuals, virtually without restraint, what you get is perfect laissez faire capitalism. Where actors no longer feel the fabric of society, their obligations to others around them, "there is no society" as mrs. thatcher famously remarked. Welcome to the original American dream.
When the subject of 'toxic sludge' comes up, a number of thoughts come to mind. Amidst same can be some comparatives if you will and I would readily compare Alice Waters of and by her beyond imperious, pretentious, wholly conceited, narcissistic and beyond ruthless and self-serving persona to be nothing short of human toxic sludge. At a minimum.
Talk to anyone who is clearly real and down-to-earth in the Bay Area alone involved in the restaurant trade and you will never get a single compliment regarding Waters, to the contrary........., you'll get an earful of appropriate invective.
Waters has always been the pretentious fraud, the ignorant dilettante who has, in addition to her mirror, mirror on the wall shameless and arrogant self promotion seen food as something esoteric and eclectic, not real. And it shows. Tragic that so many hopped on her bandwagon and follow her hand to mouth. Personally, when I'm hungry, I grab what's there or go someplace where everyone, from ownership on out is firmly planted on the ground, not some pathetic me, myself and I high wire act that is, to be sure, beyond toxic on every level.
Ron Paul isn't running for an 11th term for congress because he is putting all his attention and focus on the presidential candidacy. He doesn't get any press because the media are a large part of the establishment; they don't want Paul to challenge them and the Hill's "business" dealings. I am voting for Ron Paul. I think he will fight to the end this time. It is important people focus on Truth and not the "emotional barbs" thrown about by candidates. Truth is our only defense to the evil on the Hill. Downright ugly...Evil.
I have been both a scientist and a lawyer. This is typical of what happens when we adopt a deregulate philosphy. For years, the EPA is underfunded, understaffed, and staffed by corporate cronies. Adopting a policy of non-enforcement, is that same as de-regulating. We will see the same thing happen to the enviroment that happened to the mortgage market.
The term ecnomists use is "externalities." Externalities are things, produced or used by a corporation - such as pollution, sick and dead people, schools and roads, that if a corporation had to pay for, it would lose profits. The strategy of corporations is to pass externalities off onto someone else, usually you and me. Corporation use our roads and educated workforce, but seek huge tax reductions. When corporations pollute, like in Texas, they seek laws making that tax the public for the pollution. When corporations lend irresonpsiblly, they seek federal bailouts.
Dead honeybees (and whatever fallout this will have on the environment) and proper testing of the Bayer pesticide are just another externality that you and me will have its pay for. The lobbyists will make sure that our courts and congressmen will not make Bayer liable. For instance, our Supreme Court is busy passing laws that cut down on deterents for such conduct.
One such deterent is punitive damages. Punitive damages are put in place to recoup the profits that corporations recieved from not having to pay for the externalities. in a civil suit; our highest court in the the Exxon Valdez case made certain that Exxon would benefit from never having to pay for the externality of the contaminated Alaskan coastline by stripping the punitive damages award bare.
Another is the treble damage provision in the EPA rules. However, one only has to look at General Electric and its dumping of PCB's into the Hudson to understand that the decision to allow a corporation to pollute with impunity is political. Because of politics the dredging of the Hudson by GE was delayed for years. GE fought it tooth and nail, and used every last political connection it had to avoid the clean up.
I am sure Bayer found that the pesticide was safe for humans to. I would not mind seeing the data, if its like the bee dats, we could be in some serious trouble. But, I am sure Bayer would not value profits over human lives.
PRWatch should take a close look at the PR tactics of the AGW crowd. They do a great disservice for anybody serious about understanding the impact of C02 driven climate change. Ever recall a movement so apt to fritter away its privilege of mainstream acceptance simply by the way they respond to adverse information?
http://weeklyintercept.blogspot.com/2011/08/environmental-group-uses-racism-to.html
East Anglia's CRU hired a PR firm shortly after their emails were accessed or hacked and released to the public. This is an unusual move by an organization who's science should hold up to public scrutiny on its own.
Look at the "Blue Ribbon Panels" used to exonerate the scientists involved with the email scandal. Look familiar? 3rd party technique - the same type of panel used to exonerate researchers involved with G.D. Searle, aspartame, and the Bressler Report.
Primary question: Why do they insist on using the data called into question by the email scandal? Instead of polishing the turd that is East Anglia, why not walk away from the stench and renew the study, sans Mann and company?
If PRWatch is serious about examining how the public is duped by PR, AGW PR should not escape scrutiny.
Pages