Travels of the Liberty Blogger
abolishing the EPA.
The problem with US environmental protection policy is an insistence on top-down regulatory solutions.
Only bottom-up solutions would work well for environmental protection. The individual has to be engaged and empowered. The costs of pollution needs to be worked into the cost of commerce. The private marketplace does not do this on its own. Look at the terrible state of the world's oceans today to see what an absence of all intervention results in.
Making the private marketplace pay for environmental cleanup bonds would be the kind of method favored in a truly free country. There would then be huge private money to clean up the mess quickly at industry's expense with the responsible company for the accident never in control of the cleanup or investigation of the accident.
And the role of the government would all but disappear under such a policy, along with government's obvious inability to truly protect the environment.
That is how industry money for environmental protection should be directed instead of for bribing politicians and corrupting federal bureaucrats, as our present federal system seems to require.
But it is simply irresponsible grandstanding by federal candidates to say the country should abolish the EPA while proposing no alternate way to protect the environment.
Vote Yes on
Ballot Measure One (Reply to Rep Don Young’s column)
Vote Yes on
Ballot Measure One (Reply to Governor Parnell’s column)
Here is some real evidence. Norway at a recent peak received 78% of net oil production revenues. Even war-torn Iraq managed to negotiate an 80% share of its oil production recently. In Alaska, ACES may have raised our take to 65% assuming oil stays at $100/barrel. The deep-Red SB-21 yanks our take back to 53%, mostly by far benefitting oil company profits on oil that is already going to be pumped anyway. That is the biggest part of the SB-21 "giveaway".
Exxon, BP and Conoco are not in need of a mega-billion dollar gift from Alaskans nor deserving of one. They can buy all of the television air time. What cannot be bought is the truth concerning what is best for Alaskans.
Among three unknown candidates on a ballot, if one name is mainstream and the other two names are less than usual, the mainstream name wins with a good majority.
Walker - Fish - Kohlhaas
This simple ploy, a real person with a fake candidacy and a good sounding name, has sunk many primary contenders with an unusual last name. Recently, Republicans won a Democrat congressional primary with a fake candidacy.
And Walker was the very perfect name to use in this primary as a fake candidacy because it had two good reasons to do so, the name itself and Bill Walker in the campaign but not on the primary ballot. It is way too coincidental for me.
Given Thom Walker's recent change in party registration, this appears to have happened based on present evidence.
If Thom Walker never does explain himself, it seems one of the Dan Sullivans on the ballot has a Richard Nixon/Dick Cheney beast somewhere below his mild approach in public appearances.