Again, I believe this article to be very one-sided. I agree in concept that we need to work toward Clean air and Clean waterways, but should it always be through regulation? I feel that the GOP is frustrated with the large increase in regulartion, and therefore more government jobs and more red-tape, and not that they don't care about the environment. I work for a large farm (which often gets a bad name in the U.S> today) who not only follows the regulations set before it, but goes above and beyond to improve the land and soil and waterways. We do soil samples and water samples on a regular basis for example. In my opinion, we are doing more for the environment than many of the small neighboring farms, who don't fall under this regulation since they are so small. Too much regulation kills and restricts business and jobs, too little regulation hurts the environment, so how does this get reconciled? Culture change by positive reinforcement. That is how I see it.
As always Dean thanks for your insightful comments.
Too much red tape is the otherside of this issue. I don't like meaningless beauracratic rules anymore than anyone else. I'm not sure that's what they're talking about in this editorial though. It seems like the issues they're talking about are pretty important.
I'm not exactly sure what culture change by positive reinforcement means. But if it works as an alternative to regulation, I'm all for it. I'd like to see proof that this is working before repealing regulations, however, rather than just deregulating first and trusting on it to pick up the slack.
Too much red-tape can be an issue, for sure, but like you said, too little regulation can open doors for trouble as well. Finding a good balance is the challenge. I currently see more regulation in the pipeline both from a Human Resources standpoint and from an agricultural standpoint. My initial reaction is to shout, "please no more!" It is already a burden as an employer to stay in compliance with so many rules and regulations, let alone adding more. My concern is for future generations. Will there be enough entreprenuers out there in the U.S. to pay for the growing government? I did throw out an ideal idea by suggesting we need to change culture to improve the environment, but honestly, that is how many of us live in my neighborhood. We recycle what we can to reduce trash, we turn off the TV and Lights when we aren't at home. We attempt to plan our trips into town to be efficient in order to save on fuel costs. In opposition to this, I recently heard on the news that some people leave the TV on for their pets, even when the people aren't home. I don't know what the answer is, but I am tired of paying taxes to cover up unwise decisions made by others.
Again, I believe this article to be very one-sided. I agree in concept that we need to work toward Clean air and Clean waterways, but should it always be through regulation? I feel that the GOP is frustrated with the large increase in regulartion, and therefore more government jobs and more red-tape, and not that they don't care about the environment. I work for a large farm (which often gets a bad name in the U.S> today) who not only follows the regulations set before it, but goes above and beyond to improve the land and soil and waterways. We do soil samples and water samples on a regular basis for example. In my opinion, we are doing more for the environment than many of the small neighboring farms, who don't fall under this regulation since they are so small. Too much regulation kills and restricts business and jobs, too little regulation hurts the environment, so how does this get reconciled? Culture change by positive reinforcement. That is how I see it.
ReplyDeleteAs always Dean thanks for your insightful comments.
ReplyDeleteToo much red tape is the otherside of this issue. I don't like meaningless beauracratic rules anymore than anyone else. I'm not sure that's what they're talking about in this editorial though. It seems like the issues they're talking about are pretty important.
I'm not exactly sure what culture change by positive reinforcement means. But if it works as an alternative to regulation, I'm all for it. I'd like to see proof that this is working before repealing regulations, however, rather than just deregulating first and trusting on it to pick up the slack.
Too much red-tape can be an issue, for sure, but like you said, too little regulation can open doors for trouble as well. Finding a good balance is the challenge. I currently see more regulation in the pipeline both from a Human Resources standpoint and from an agricultural standpoint. My initial reaction is to shout, "please no more!" It is already a burden as an employer to stay in compliance with so many rules and regulations, let alone adding more. My concern is for future generations. Will there be enough entreprenuers out there in the U.S. to pay for the growing government? I did throw out an ideal idea by suggesting we need to change culture to improve the environment, but honestly, that is how many of us live in my neighborhood. We recycle what we can to reduce trash, we turn off the TV and Lights when we aren't at home. We attempt to plan our trips into town to be efficient in order to save on fuel costs. In opposition to this, I recently heard on the news that some people leave the TV on for their pets, even when the people aren't home. I don't know what the answer is, but I am tired of paying taxes to cover up unwise decisions made by others.
ReplyDelete