He thought it read Teens.
The final paragraph is pretty telling, imo. Easy to pledge to, easy for the public to forget as there is no hard action pledged.
Related; I wonder if the 1.2 trillion trees needed refers to fully mature trees? If so, that’s a fuckton of area. If you’ve ever seen an old growth forest in the PNW, they are not nearly as dense as second or 3rd growth in logged areas.
if only you used your powers for good…
TBH I was just more shocked at the 180. The man is definitely unpredictable.
Seems like an easy pr move. Who doesn’t like more trees? Especially if no action needs to be taken.
At least he seems to be agreeing climate change isn’t a hoax.
I don’t think anyone is anti regulation. The issue lies in reactionary regulations based on emotion versus science. The current system tends to overburden the already under-resourced regulatory bodies, and as a result many thoughtful and critical projects sit on piles in an office for years, often decades.
Streamlining the regulatory process will allow the US to compete in real-time and act upon market demands.
On a global scale, commodities are finding their way to demand centers, and US producers are far more cognizant of environmental effects than many other producing sovereignties.
Capital drives innovation, And ultimately the market determines winners and losers. The market is currently demanding responsibly produced energy sources, and American companies are providing. The freed up capital from a streamlined regulatory environment can then be allocated into innovations that satiates the market place’s shifting appetites.
Libertarians will have your head for this one
Excellent post and insignts, @TX_iron…
(I actually have suffered with a project that was derailed by the Army Corps of Engineers because of having to meet some criteria of “The Waterways of the U.S.” for a project that was no where near any visible waters…but I digress…).
What you pointed out (and what I suffered from) sounds more like bureaucracy… not a Liberal/Conservative issue.
Thoughts?
I think this is a really important call-out irt regulations. Your average every day man isn’t likely to feel a regulation itself nearly as much as the bureaucracy created by said regulation.
It also gives us a direct lever to tinker with. Like a regulation but it doesn’t play out well? Change the bureaucracy. Don’t like a regulation? Change the regulation.
There is a lot of value in Federal environmental protections as it applies to water. An easy example is loose regulations in an upstream state have a very significant impact on the downstream states.
As a land use civil engineer, rolling back protections makes my life easier. But I also see plenty of unscrupulous developers that will take advantage of this change and put a fat dent into the work people have done over the past 20 years to restore stream and wetland habitat. A reaction could be to severely limit density around these areas, or change zoning to disallow pollution dense development.
It’s gonna suck hard for downstream arid states like NV, AZ and socal.
Makes sense, @Californiagrown…
Ha, funny you say that - that’s an agency I was thinking of while writing. All due respect to the hardworking people of the USACE, but their allocated funds are a drop in the bucket compared to the overall scope of work, and I don’t think being buried in the department of defense does a lot for agility.
Agreed. That being said, I think we’re seeing bureaucracy being used as a political weapon to pick winners and losers. (EDIT: which may be a bit off topic)
Bureaucracy can be good. It slows the process down which allows for public comment, review and allows code and regulation time to react to issues. Fast, unchecked development creates soooooo many problems. Slowing the process down is aggravating, but can be necessary to mitigate many bad side effects.
I guess I see it from both sides. I’m an environmentalist at heart, my fiance is an environmental lawyer, and my livelihood is directly affected and made harder (more in demand?) by, at times, seemingly arbitrary and stupid regulations. “Fish passable stream” has an awfully wide definition haha. But, personally, I’d much rather err on the side of fish and trees… But I’ve built my personal life around the natural world and live in an area of world class natural beauty so it’s a large priority to me.
ABSOLUTELY!
Even though they can be a VERY frustrating agency to deal with; funds-resources for all they are expected to oversee is insane,
Another thing to remember is that many regs are not meant to just protect waterways/habitat… They are intended to RESTORE them to the way they were prior to white folks coming in and mucking everything up.
So, what has been a clogged ditch and culvert since 1950, was once a tributary stream that could have been spawning habitat. If every project along that ditch/stream meets the strict code for the next 60 years, eventually, that stream gets restored at minimal cost to each individual. But, in the short term it looks like you’re throwing a bunch of money at a clogged drainage ditch.
I think this is critical. The average guy is likely going to run up against the BLS or some other bureaucracy and will subsequently feel very justified frustration and anger. Then they will take that and ascribe it to climate change regs rather than the suffocating, idiotic bureaucracy.
IMHO this is where many ppl start to become climate change “deniers” (I have always hated that term. It’s not scientific, it’s a PR term). You take a salt-of-the-earth person and tell them they can’t do something with their land for unmentionable reasons, and they’re likely to tell you to go fuck yourself. They’ll probably obey but only because they don’t want the legal trouble, and then they will associate their legitimately terrible experience with climate change regulations instead of the actual culprit… nonsensical and unreasoning bureaucracy.
See, this is where I am, but on an opposite bank. The only difference is that I have an innate hatred of bureaucracy and hypocrisy, which often draws me into conflict with the climate centered environmentalists. But it’s not because I see the environment as unimportant–on the contrary I see John Muir and Emerson as somewhat personal heros, and taking care of the environment as an act of good stewardship so that I can enjoy climbing rocks and cliffs and mountains (and my relatives hunting game) and one day pass that love on. I would rather err on the side of fish and trees as well.
However I despise many things that have transpired in the climate “battles”, and I have a decidedly “get the fuck out of my life” attitude because I dislike being told what to do by someone who doesn’t have the first clue what it takes to do that. I see this from both sides, and as a result I find myself in uncomfortable territory much of the time for one reason or another.
Edited to fix autocorrect