The path of least resistance is to trust our environmental regulators, trust the watchdogs, and assume that profit-driven industry is the villain, the fox in the henhouse.
The path of least resistance is to assume that people questioning environmental enforcement are "apologists" who care less about environmental pollution than the enforcement proponents.
Sometimes those assumptions are 100% right. I'm not a carbon climate causality denier, and I'm proud of my 9 years of service as a Massachusetts recycling regulator.
But as a former regulator, I can attest regulators are not always right. Regulatory agency lawyers tend to be more risk-averse than private sector attorneys, for example. Regulators understandably want to hold themselves to "the highest environmental standard". But when there is doubt and uncertainty - an engineering problem for example - the regulator can become obfuscated and defend his own reputation. That is to say, when in doubt, the regulator has to act - in doubt. And saying "yes" or "no" sometimes boils down to the regulator's own insecurities.
And these lead to unintended consequences. #OwnGoal
Let me again state that what the agencies do, for the most part, is great. I'm suggesting an environmental police chief should look at community concerns the way any police chief looks at protest. You can stonewall and deny mistakes, claim 100% effectiveness in your policy. Or you can learn from a mistake and adjust your policy.
The path of least resistance is to assume that people questioning environmental enforcement are "apologists" who care less about environmental pollution than the enforcement proponents.
Sometimes those assumptions are 100% right. I'm not a carbon climate causality denier, and I'm proud of my 9 years of service as a Massachusetts recycling regulator.
But as a former regulator, I can attest regulators are not always right. Regulatory agency lawyers tend to be more risk-averse than private sector attorneys, for example. Regulators understandably want to hold themselves to "the highest environmental standard". But when there is doubt and uncertainty - an engineering problem for example - the regulator can become obfuscated and defend his own reputation. That is to say, when in doubt, the regulator has to act - in doubt. And saying "yes" or "no" sometimes boils down to the regulator's own insecurities.
And these lead to unintended consequences. #OwnGoal
Let me again state that what the agencies do, for the most part, is great. I'm suggesting an environmental police chief should look at community concerns the way any police chief looks at protest. You can stonewall and deny mistakes, claim 100% effectiveness in your policy. Or you can learn from a mistake and adjust your policy.
