The important point is that he was paid to write the argument against them. In theory it would be great to have a sort of team of rivals where intellectual opponents of regulations consult with the agency and push back on excessive or ineffective rules, but this guy doesn't have a principled philosophical objection, he just writes for whoever pays him the most money. We can be pretty certain that the federal government is not the highest bidder for his services, so why is he working at the EPA?
No, quickly is correct. Methane in the atmosphere has a lifespan of about 12 years, if I recall correctly. That means that if you stop emitting it, then the warming effect of atmospheric methane would subside over the course of a decade. This is as compared to CO2, which is a much weaker greenhouse gas, but does not break down naturally over time. Atmospheric CO2 has to be absorbed by natural processes (oceanic absorption, plant photosynthesis, etc) otherwise it exists in the atmosphere effectively forever.
I am not surprised by this, what else does someone in government regulations do? Work in government, the industry, or lobby. It's all a revolving door regardless of political party/ideology, but I get it. It's a narrow field. Regulators under past Administrations are now lobbyists and vice versa.
Lobbyists turning into government regulator is a lot more common then people realize. It is normal regardless of what party occupies the Whitehouse.
This is one of those things were most people don't realize this goes on because it is rarely reported on. Also who is involved in running administrative agencies is largely irrelevant and very boring subject. It isn't like you get to vote for any of them.
Loabyist-as-head-regulator situation is a reflection of how the administrative state actually works and the role that large public corporations play in that administration.
The 'ELI5' explanation is...
Modern politicians are career politicians. Meaning most of them they start off by getting their law degrees and then immediately pursue a political career using whatever connections they have. This means that they have no real experience of the world outside of law and internal bureaucracy of their parties and governments.
This means they are extremely unqualified at regulating any sort of industry. They just don't know anything about 'the real world'. They know nothing about how to make cars, smelt steel, drill for oil or designing light switches.
It is a similar situation for career administrators in the 400+ administrative agencies in the Federal Government. They get degrees in public administrator or in fields related to their regulatory function. Many of the top administrators will have masters and PHDs. But as anybody with experience in the "private sector" there is a very significant gap between what you can learn in a University setting versus what gets applied in actual practice.
So to fill the gap they require the participation of the major corporations in these industries. They help draft legislation, they have representatives in regulatory committees, the provide the information necessary for economic analysis, and so on and so forth.
This, after 80 years of USA history of the modern administrative state, even involves having corporate representatives participate in party politics, sometimes even becoming politicians, and having positions in the agencies that regulate them.
The term for this is "regulatory capture".
There is a trade off for having highly regulated industries. The main one is that by accepting control of the government the government takes on the responsibility of making sure these corporations remain profitable.
The cost of regulatory overhead is very significant and forms a massive barrier of entry for new businesses. So the established corporations are likely the only corporations that are going to exist for some major industries. Once you lose them they are gone forever.
So the more regulation you have the more protective the government needs to be of these businesses and their profits.
Just another day owning the libs, and the planet, and humanity in general. The assault against humanity reason judgement science and the world goes on!
On social media, I've been using the hashtag hostis humani generis. A latin designation usually used in maritime contexts for pirates slave traders and war criminals, for enemies of all mankind. They remind me of The Affront in The Culture series. I suspect the administration like that Affront would gladly take the name. https://theculture.fandom.com/wiki/Affront
The important point is that he was paid to write the argument against them. In theory it would be great to have a sort of team of rivals where intellectual opponents of regulations consult with the agency and push back on excessive or ineffective rules, but this guy doesn't have a principled philosophical objection, he just writes for whoever pays him the most money. We can be pretty certain that the federal government is not the highest bidder for his services, so why is he working at the EPA?
Dude probably has enough money. Now he's after influence and status.
> Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
ok, i was confused for a minute.
> And, given that the gas breaks down relatively quickly, this would have been one of the fastest ways to reduce global warming.
s/quickly/slowly?
No, quickly is correct. Methane in the atmosphere has a lifespan of about 12 years, if I recall correctly. That means that if you stop emitting it, then the warming effect of atmospheric methane would subside over the course of a decade. This is as compared to CO2, which is a much weaker greenhouse gas, but does not break down naturally over time. Atmospheric CO2 has to be absorbed by natural processes (oceanic absorption, plant photosynthesis, etc) otherwise it exists in the atmosphere effectively forever.
I am not surprised by this, what else does someone in government regulations do? Work in government, the industry, or lobby. It's all a revolving door regardless of political party/ideology, but I get it. It's a narrow field. Regulators under past Administrations are now lobbyists and vice versa.
Lobbyists turning into government regulator is a lot more common then people realize. It is normal regardless of what party occupies the Whitehouse.
This is one of those things were most people don't realize this goes on because it is rarely reported on. Also who is involved in running administrative agencies is largely irrelevant and very boring subject. It isn't like you get to vote for any of them.
Loabyist-as-head-regulator situation is a reflection of how the administrative state actually works and the role that large public corporations play in that administration.
The 'ELI5' explanation is...
Modern politicians are career politicians. Meaning most of them they start off by getting their law degrees and then immediately pursue a political career using whatever connections they have. This means that they have no real experience of the world outside of law and internal bureaucracy of their parties and governments.
This means they are extremely unqualified at regulating any sort of industry. They just don't know anything about 'the real world'. They know nothing about how to make cars, smelt steel, drill for oil or designing light switches.
It is a similar situation for career administrators in the 400+ administrative agencies in the Federal Government. They get degrees in public administrator or in fields related to their regulatory function. Many of the top administrators will have masters and PHDs. But as anybody with experience in the "private sector" there is a very significant gap between what you can learn in a University setting versus what gets applied in actual practice.
So to fill the gap they require the participation of the major corporations in these industries. They help draft legislation, they have representatives in regulatory committees, the provide the information necessary for economic analysis, and so on and so forth.
This, after 80 years of USA history of the modern administrative state, even involves having corporate representatives participate in party politics, sometimes even becoming politicians, and having positions in the agencies that regulate them.
The term for this is "regulatory capture".
There is a trade off for having highly regulated industries. The main one is that by accepting control of the government the government takes on the responsibility of making sure these corporations remain profitable.
The cost of regulatory overhead is very significant and forms a massive barrier of entry for new businesses. So the established corporations are likely the only corporations that are going to exist for some major industries. Once you lose them they are gone forever.
So the more regulation you have the more protective the government needs to be of these businesses and their profits.
Just another day owning the libs, and the planet, and humanity in general. The assault against humanity reason judgement science and the world goes on!
On social media, I've been using the hashtag hostis humani generis. A latin designation usually used in maritime contexts for pirates slave traders and war criminals, for enemies of all mankind. They remind me of The Affront in The Culture series. I suspect the administration like that Affront would gladly take the name. https://theculture.fandom.com/wiki/Affront
[dead]