Chapter 2 Sample

[ Home ]

Protecting the Environment - Minus People

"Some 28 homes in California needlessly burned down because the owners
could not create a firebreak by plowing their yards. Authorities said that
would have disrupted the habitat of the endangered kangaroo rat.
It doesn't matter that rats were burned up, too." --- byline from article by
Philip K. Howard excerpted from his book: The Death of Common Sense,
condensed in January 30, 1995 issue of U.S. News & World Report

 

Environmental Protection Legislative and related S & R Terrorism

The next few examples to be covered can be considered under the above rubric. So I wanted to proceed with a separate chapter for this section of Legal Nerd Examples. Obviously, the S & R in the above subtitle refers to: stupid and ridiculous.

S & R Legal Nerd Example #20

Right after the California Riverside and Laguna Canyon fires in late 1992 Orange County newspapers reported the case of the embittered homeowner who said he might have been able to prevent the fire damage and destruction of his property had he been allowed to clear the brush back further away from his house. But government officials would not let him clear brush away from his property because the property was located on the protected habitat of an endangered species --- a field mouse, or ground squirrel. Take your pick, in either event, the government environmental bureaucrats thought the mouse/squirrel was more important than the homeowners property rights and personal safety.

Both kangaroo rats and Mojave ground squirrels were among the protected rodent species. The rats were blamed for some home burnings in the Riverside and Laguna Canyon fires according to a letter reported in the Washington Post September 6, 1994.

Then there was the related case of the farmer whose tractor was confiscated after it was determined that he had accidentally run over a protected Mojave ground squirrel while driving the tractor on his own land in northern California. Newspapers and radio news reports carried this story early in 1994.

Apparently, it is better to be a rat or squirrel in California than a human being property owner on or near their natural habitats. I don't know about you but to me this smacks of environmental wackoism. And the rules, laws, and regulations which put these animals over the common sense rights of people, human beings, clearly violate any tests of reasonableness among normal thinking individuals. Put it to a democratic majority vote, and I'll bet most people will pick the people over the rats and squirrels, rather than the other way around. It's another legalistic bit of crap whereby UP is DOWN and DOWN is UP.

As most Americans know the Environmental Protection Agency and other similar minded legislative officials and groups have long been pressuring the automobile industry to produce cars which are cleaner and safer. Among the laws and regulations they have mandated is an effort to convert a certain percentage of vehicles over to alternative fuels and/or construction from other components which may be deemed to be more environmentally correct.

Mind you, I chose the word environmentally correct over other words such as safer or better for the environment --- this was on purpose. The word safer must be qualified with the question: safer for who? or what? As to whether or not a particular mandated action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or other similar bureaucratic, legislative "protect-the-environment-minded" action is, indeed, better for the environment remains to be seen. Some of the examples I have chosen to include here in this section raise serious doubts and concerns in this area as to whether or not they are indeed better for the environment (and humans). It just may be that many of these so-called "better for the environment" mandates and laws actually make things worse for the society, its individuals, and probably ultimately for the environment, too.

S & R Legal Nerd Example #21

The Los Angeles Times reported on 6/4/94 that Ford Motor Company had to ground its fleet of electric vans the day before after one of the vans batteries burst into flames while being recharged at a California Air Resources Board facility in El Monte. The fire in the Ecostar was the second to occur in the last month. The sodium-sulfur, electrical batteries were chosen for their range and acceleration, but safety has been a constant concern as it was reported that the batteries must be kept at a constant 600 degrees Fahrenheit. It was further reported that Ford has some 34 Ecostars being tested by a dozen customers nationally, mostly utilities.

I don't know, I'm not an automotive expert, but it seems to me the necessity to have to safely and conveniently maintain these batteries at such a high temperature is a little unrealistic, to say the least.

Of course, as the automotive industry changes over to fueling cars with alternate fuels and materials there is going to have to be a period of testing them; and many times we are going to find out that various substances, materials, and components and parts of these alternative experimental cars don't work, or in fact, are dangerous, or more harmful than what we have already in standard use. Negative outcomes during the experimental testing periods are to be expected. But what my quarrel here with the environmental laws mandating such changes by such and such arbitrary year or time is that the LAW is designating when a scientific outcome is to be COMMERCIALLY VIABLE by such and such year and time, whether or not it makes sense, whether or not it is reasonable, whether or not it is safe (for people, never mind the environment), or whether or not the technology is ready! Foolishly trying to legislate scientific and accompanying dependent commercial outcomes on the basis of legislative fiat regardless of what is realistically possible by some arbitrary legally designated time-limit is out and out stupid and ridiculous, not to mention, grossly unintelligent! When are the EPA bureaucrats and the lawyers going to get it? You can't legislate something to be ready before it is ready --- when the law conflicts with physical reality, physical reality is going to win out whether the law or government bureaucrat likes it or not. And no amount of EPA legislation will ever change this reality. Again folks, I think we have here a clear case of violating the 95% S & R Rule.

S & R Legal Nerd Example #22

Related to the above stupid and ridiculous legislative example, consider the EPA proposal reported 7/24/94 by the San Francisco Examiner. This proposal calls for boaters in high smog areas like California to mandate $400 registration fees if their engines are not high-efficiency models. The only problem is that such high efficiency model motors which meet the EPA guideline standards for reducing air pollution are not yet available to the boat owners (at least when this was reported). Of course, no EPA official would let a minor point like this slow him or her down in their zeal to change society to be more environmentally correct, whether or not it works or is realistic! Give me a break! If this isn't wacky, I don't know what is. How can these boat owners possibly comply if the engines are not available? Any FOOL that would think they could, or legally hold them responsible for not complying with such an exorbitant fee, unrealistically based, should be run out of town as an idiot.

As if, this wasn't bad enough, the story goes on to report that owners of diesel-powered buses, trucks, bulldozers, tractors, and other heavy equipment face similar fees if they don't switch to cleaner burning alternatives. Switch to the alternatives whether or not they are widely available for purchase or not. Right?