Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule
My guess is for every one Scott Pruitt thinker in the EPA, there are 1000 who think a blue fisted mexican mole rat's habitat is more important than a business' survival. It's not, and should never be. So if you get a guy in there every 12 or 16 years that resets the balance of ideas, there is good in that.
 |
Here is the problem though. Take an organism such as a naked mole rat. We know they do not get cancer and are researching the genetics to determine why and the possible avenues we can use to prevent cancer. Every single medicine we have comes from naturally occurring compounds researched from species. When we lose biodiversity we lose the opportunity to find those cures and is considered a very significant risk to human health. We have to counter balance the future economic and environmental needs with the current. Unless this company is providing something so fundamental to our existence I would always vote on the side of precaution. Doing so will increase research and design within the company and encourage the development of new technologies that will allow us to extract resources more efficiently and with a smaller footprint. It will also encourages competitors to develop alternatives.
All of that is not to say that the EPA isn't infallible and over stepped their bounds. For what it is worth I think Wheeler will be a satisfactory chief (albeit far too conservative for me). You will still see the rolling back of regulations but I suspect you will see it done with more pragmatism and also a better understanding of the issues and not just deregulation for the sake of deregulation.