>Both your examples relate to protecting the habitat for endangered species. I specifically spoke about pollution. Do you have any examples for pollution?

They run hand in hand because the investigation and enforcement agencies work together. Water & air affect habitat which effects species.

However, here's one you may enjoy.
A local site operator has a diesel generator which he moves periodically according to regulations stemming from the Clean Air Act. Upon inspection the lead agency, not the EPA official, "recommends" that the generator be replaced by a permanent power line, at the local operator's expense of course. The operator refuses and continues to operate his generator within the law. During a followup inspection the EPA inspector again sees that the generator has been moved appropriately and informs the operator of such. The inspection report is submitted to the county's lead agency and when the agency report is filed they claim the operator is in violation of the Clean Air Act. There is no violation. The inspector on site said there's no violation. But the report says there is. So, legally there is a violation and now the operator must defend himself in court. This very same "violation" has been previously reported and cleared twice in the past 5 years. Yet he finds himself in "violation" once again. A big problem with environmental regulation is that reported "violations" mean you are considered guiltly and you must prove your innocence. Not the other way around. There is no recourse from harassment because the agencies and the individuals that staff them are immune from prosecution because they're considered to merely be carrying out their duties. Yet, they can write-up whatever they want and that has the force of law behind it.

>I agree completely that big business uses regulation as unfair competitive advantage to squeeze out competition. I love locally grown organics (you knew I would, didn't you :) ).
>
>The only way you can make it profitable to conserve our resources is to make it very, very expensive to do otherwise... and that happens through regulation and fines. If the systems is broken then fix the system. If it's unfixable, throw it away, but replace it with a better one.

That's not the only way and frankly it has made things much worse. Small business, endangered habitat and people's livelyhoods have been literally and figuratively plowed under due to obsessive regulation. The key is to establish straightforward easy-to follow guidelines and punish violations severely. That way small business can still compete and anyone who violates gets hit with hefty fines. The more complicated, the more expensive and then only the big guys ie the guys who can afford to break the rules, will remain. See the US tax code & GE's 2010 filing for an example. ;)

It's like everything else in life, if you incentivize people for doing something they'll be much more inclined to do it.

Take your motor oil. Instead of hiring a series of people to track potential dumpers, use the money to reward people for turning it in. The money's going to be spent one way or another, and if you pay people to do the right thing, more often than not they will. In addition, an ambitious person will immediately see a business opportunity and begin a used motor oil pick-up service. I've seen it done before.

>Corporations with no oversight give us:
>DDT, PCB's, Asbestos, Arsenic, Lead based paint, Endosulfan, Fumitoxin, Rivers that catch on fire, etc., etc.

DDT was estimated by the National Academy of sciencs in 1970 to have saved some 500 million lives it's ban killed untold millions. Thankfully, cooler heads are prevailing and it's being used once again.

See Message #1516534 for a headlining man-made catastrophe caused by environmental policy.

Arsenic. That makes me giggle. I have another local story, taking place right now, involving a big business avoiding arsenic regulations. Let's just say that once again the "rules" do not apply to the big & connected.

>Without the EPA we'd still be getting daily doses of that whole list and many, many unnamed others.
>
>The U.S. without some sort of Environmental Protection Agency is not one I want to live in.

The EPA is corrupt at it's core and needs to be removed & replaced. Return the authority to the states through intra-state agencies focused on conservation through incentives rather than federally mandated advocacy-based regulation and punishment. It would serve us all more effieciently and be better for the environment as well.

If you consider all the pollution since the EPA was created and add in all the loss of habitat through mitigation, not to mention flooding & fire due to onerous environmental regulation do you really believe we've come upon the best solution? Personally, I think we've made things much worse.

>>I'm going to accept your response at face value and trust that you are one of those who have honorable intentions, yet are ignorant of the real-world practices of those who create, investigate and enforce the regulations.
>>
>>Here's a small sample from my personal experience.
>>
>>Valley elderberry longhorn beetle : http://essig.berkeley.edu/endins/desmocer.htm
>>Honorable Intent : To protect a threatened species.
>>Regulation : Since elderberry trees are habitat for a threatened species they are regulated, regardless of whether a single beetle has ever been in them, just in case one happens by.
>>Dishonorable intent : Restriction of private property use
>>Real world effect : Elderberry trees get destroyed or the owner loses the right to use their property on which they reside.
>>
>>Vernal pools : http://ceres.ca.gov/wetlands/whats_new/vernal_sjq.html
>>Honorable Intent : To prohibit activities that could harm or harass threatened or endangered wildlife species or migratory waterfowl
>>So what is a vernal pool in layman's terms : A mudpuddle
>>Dishonorable intent : Restriction of private property use
>>Real world effect : Vernal pools get destroyed or the owner loses the right to use their property on which they reside.
>>
>>The people in positions of power related to the environment have many motivations. There are small collections of honest dogooders with noble intentions, 21ers and outright marxists. Mostly there are a collection of corrupt and professional bureaucrats who do not like anyone who questions their authority. The well connected big guys use the agencies to their advantage and the destruction of the small guys.
>>
>>There is a reason why there are fewer family farms and ranches now than ever yet there are a multitude of ranchers and farmers still working throughout this country. Big business alone cannot destroy the small. They require the symbiotic assistance of governmental authority and regulation.
>>
>>If you want to see history repeat itself in the near future, keep an eye on the organic farming industry. Small organic farms have had a pretty good run by being able to sell locally and charge more for their goods which people are willing to pay, however, big agribusiness is moving in. Soon they will demand more regulation and government will be happy to oblige. When that happens, small farms will have their margins squeezed and will not be able to afford the extra costs of simply doing business and will get priced out and then fold or be bought out. Goodbye small organic farms hello Big Organics.
>>
>>With this statement you've provided a false choice : We MUST protect our environment, even at the cost of regulations and profit.
>>
>>I posit that we should conserve our resources by making it profitable to do so and that this approach would produce vastly more substantial results and transform the current adversarial relationship between private property owners and government into one of mutual respect and cooperation. For those who've dealt with government agencies personally, yes, I realize I'm in fantasyland here, but we should all have unrealistic dreams. It makes the realistic ones seem more doable. ;)
>>
>>>>>I'm a fiscal conservative and believe in small limited government...I'm an environmentalist and think offshore drilling should be permanently banned. The environment should be protected - even at the cost of the economy if necessary.
>>>>
>>>>PMFJI: How do you shore up these two mutually exclusive beliefs?
>>>
>>>Because I don't believe they are mutually exclusive. Just because a particular agency of the government contains thousands or even tens of thousands of staff, doesn't mean the entire government is, in turn, large. The government, as an agency of the people, should preserve the environment, preserve clean water, preserve clean oceans, and keep the land unpoisoned.
>>>
>>>>Modern environmentalism requires the removal of individual property rights and the imposition of overbearing regulation.
>>>
>>>I don't believe this statement to be completely accurate. Environmentalism doesn't remove individual property rights unless you consider the right to pollute to be in the Bill of Rights. Environmentalism certainly affects the ability of an individual to dump chemicals on their private property with impunity. Here's the deal: When the actions of one can affect the health of the many, then the government needs to protect the many from the one. I shouldn't be allowed to dump chemicals on my private property; the chemicals end up in the aquifer and in turn poisons the many. This is why public smoking has been banned in most states; because secondhand smoke negatively affects the health of the many. That is why people are still free to smoke at home or outdoors, because smoking in those locations only affects themselves.
>>>
>>>>That regulation must be provided by a large government of regulators, inspectors, managers, enforcement officers over multiple agencies with wide ranging juristiction.
>>>
>>>It certainly isn't an ideal scenario. In an ideal world nobody would pollute and there would be no need for this government intervention. Unfortunately we live in a world where many people and corporations don't give a damn about the consequences of their actions on others. Personally, I don't dump used motor oil in my backyard. I take it down to the auto parts store for recycling. If my neighbor dumps used motor oil in his backyard he should get a hefty fine from the EPA because his actions directly affect the health of others.
>>>
>>>Corporations have an established track record of poisoning for profit. http://www.epa.gov/superfund/index.htm We MUST protect our environment, even at the cost of regulations and profit.