What Is A More Effective Polution Regulator - A Quarter Million EPA Agents Or Property Rights?

The EPA recently announced that it requires an additional 230,000 agents to enforce total control over all productive activity in the United States. The EPA needs the to agents in order to process the millions of permission slips that will be required under its new regulations for producers to produce goods and services that expel CO2 in the process of production.

Of course, those quarter million agents will cost billions to fund and they will be responsible for wiping out billions in productive jobs that produce energy and goods for consumers, which leads me to my next question.

Which would be a more effective regulator of pollution - strong property rights or a quarter million EPA regulators?

If people were simply not allowed to pollute other people's property at all, would any permission slips or regulators be necessary?

If I could sue my neighbor for polluting my property, wouldn't that suffice to prevent any future pollution?

Why is an army of regulators necessary?


Economist Walter Block explains why strong property rights and the free market are the most effective pollution controls a society can have:

sure get rid of the epa and let property owners handle it what a laugh.

so when this happens the big corporations buy up all the land around you pump chemicals in the ground cause they own the land then 10-20 years later when ur grand children are born with 4 arms u try to sue a company that has more money than god for lawyers and they filed bankruptcy 5 years ago u get nothing but a baby with 4 arms real smart and if they didnt file bankruptcy u might get some money if ur really really lucky 20 year later

reply to post by mnemeth1


I didn't watch the video as I am on my phone, but I work in air pollution so I do have some insight.

Pollution is more than just visible "soot" coming across property lines. There are so many invisible pollutants that I cant name all of them. Air monitors have to be set up and maintained. Even then they dont encompass all pollutants. We monitor for pm10, pm2.5, sox, nox, etc. continuously. We just got some money to monitor for voc's, metals, and PAH's. That is very expensive. We calculate some if those for each facility by emmission factors and production data.

Theres alot more involved but that gives you an idea. The public are our eyes also. We inspect every air complaint. Even open burning of leaves. I have good relationships with most of my facilities. Alot will call and tell me if they are having problems with emissions. Its a fine line of woking with facilities and enforcement action.

Air quality has improved dramatically because of the EPA & local agencies. Do I agree with every new reg?....No I do think someone has to police it, but we could scale back the force some.

Originally posted by pez1975
sure get rid of the epa and let property owners handle it what a laugh.

so when this happens the big corporations buy up all the land around you pump chemicals in the ground cause they own the land then 10-20 years later when ur grand children are born with 4 arms u try to sue a company that has more money than god for lawyers and they filed bankruptcy 5 years ago u get nothing but a baby with 4 arms real smart and if they didnt file bankruptcy u might get some money if ur really really lucky 20 year later

edit on 27-9-2011 by pez1975 because: (no reason given)

If they pollute my land, I would sue them.

So... what's your point?

You act like juries never award damages against huge corporations today. Of course, juries award damages against large corporations all the time. So that argument is patently ridiculous.

Civil lawyers often take cases for free, taking payment only if they win. In fact many high profile attorneys make their living exclusively by suing large corporations for damages while only collecting a fee if they win the case.

In fact my friends parents are involved in a class action civil suit against a drug manufacturer right now, and it didn't cost them a dime out of pocket.

reply to post by KidOK


If people were allowed to sue for air pollution damage, this would resolve the issue rather quickly.

If I can prove that some corporation is causing damage to my property by emitting polluted air, I should have the right to sue them for this.

The EPA is not necessary to make this happen.

In fact the EPA makes it impossible for normal people to sue for damages because if the corporation can prove they are within EPA guidelines, then they can damage everyone around them all they want and not face any real risk of losing a lawsuit.

The EPA protects polluters.

First off, a youtube video is not a source.

Second of all, I worked for a very large environmental laboratory, if you saw what I saw, especially toxic chemicals showing up in schools, you would think twice about pollution control.

Thirdly, there is no way civilians could ever manage their own pollution. you really want uneducated people making guesses about what is causing the cancer in the neighborhood?

Fourth, you think corporations report everything? there is the pollution you know about, and the pollution and toxic chemicals you don't. Without people regulating them, they get away with murder and do.

Last, Now all sources of pollution are new. I was a well water tester for a living. You would be surprised what suddenly shows up in the water supply 40 years later.

There was a proposal to make hay a pollutant.

So here along the NC/VA line, all these folks that have hay stored under shelter for sale and for their livestock are polluters?

Can you imagine an EPA agent telling me I need to get rid of my hay....or that my hog pen is an enviromental hazard..I have 2 hogs for breeding piglets and producing meat for my family.

A few decades ago, people here used to shoot "revenuers" trying to find moonshine stills. I guess the next progression will be to shoot EPA agents for trying to find hay barns and pig pens.

I have been doing things on my land for over 10 years and I love the land. I would not do anything to harm it, as it sustains my family, rovides income, and is my home. We do not use pesticides, insecticides, or herbicides. Everything is natural and we waste nothing...

But I will not tolerate an EPA agent snooping around my farm and regulating what I can and can't do....

See, it is just these kind of things that will provoke a revolution...not occupying Wall Street...but invading Main Street.

The British did what they wanted to in Boston because folks looked at it as being somewhere else...just like folks in NC look at New York City. BUT, let them start doing things in the little towns like Concord, Lexington, and then Farmville or Greenville...then it hits everyone equally and the head lines come home...

Viva Le Revolution.....

reply to post by mnemeth1


At what point do u consider it damage to property? I pollute my neighbors land everytime I drive by it bc of my car exhaust. Bbq restraunts give off pollution from their smoker. Everytime you eat BBQ or chargriiled meat or bunt toast you are exposed to more PAH's than what is in ambient air. That new car smell?....its formaldehyde. Most people dont realize indoor air and common everyday processes/items are more of a problem than outdoor air.

reply to post by mnemeth1


230K additional EPA agents? Wow. Perhaps that is enough to regulate the methane that Americans exit out of their backside on a daily basis?

Okay I'm being facetious. But like so many other governmental good idea fairies the unintended consequences will follow soon enough.

Great question and great thread. Oh, and I'm for property rights with regulatory oversight on companies that "actually" produce or use HAZMAT. I'm confident that does not require an additional 230K EPA agents.

Edit for clarity: Companies that use or produce HAZMAT "at a specified threshold per unit of time." Naturally, that threshold should be practical and not trivial.

Originally posted by KidOK
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

At what point do u consider it damage to property?

A good question, and one that is simple to answer.

The burden of proof lies with the accuser.

So if I can demonstrate to a jury that you in fact caused damage to my property that I should be compensated for, then that is the point at which it is considered damage.

Such a system only works in a "loser pays" court system, which most countries besides the US have. So if I sue you and lose, I have to pay YOUR court costs on top of mine. This market function naturally limits court cases to only those cases in which the plaintiff has a reasonable chance of winning.