Saturday, October 01, 2005
Celebrity Replaces Reality
Here's your evidence.
This, in my mind, is the real downside of the increasing politicization of so many things. See, I do not think the issue is political polarization, but politicization itself. Many issues, like say science, were traditionally not issues of public policy, now they are. That fact alone creates the polarization because now people not previously greatly engaged in politics must choose sides because politics has intruded into their lives.
So now an institution that should have nothing to do with politics, must become political -- it must chose a side, and hope it bets on the right side to keep the funds coming.
The question is most fundamental. I will not deny that there are some problems with the environment, but what was/is the correct way to fix them? Is it the path we have taken -- political action -- or might there be a better way?
Consider, I have formed a company dedicated to helping the environment. I work with companies to help them operate in an environmentally sound manner. Why would I do such a thing when I am so clearly on the opposite side of the political spectrum from the "environmentalists?" Because, it is not a political question, its a technical one. I do more to keep "pollution" out of the general environment than you will every know -- someday I may sit down and calculate the tons of pollution I have personally prevented, I'm sure its in the millions.
"But," the other side would argue, "your clients would never hire you if the law was not there to make them." GARBAGE! No one wants to pollute! The resentment is over the fact that the government oversight and intervention drives to cost of dealing with the pollution through the roof. I have yet had a client ask me how they can get away with polluting, but they almost all ask me how to avoid the excessive costs created but regulatory compliance. In this day and age it is not enough not to pollute, you have to maintain several reams of paper to prove you did not pollute to more than a dozen federal, state, and local agencies. I spend more time doing "pollution accountancy" than I do stopping pollution -- sometimes it really honks me off because of how much more I could accomplish if only....
No, in my experience, laws were and are not necessary to stop pollution, just education, Once people know something is bad, it'll take care of itself. You want to protect the environment? Make your case, make it for real (as opposed to presumptions, specious models, and what if's), convince people and it will be protected.
Then perhaps Harvard could pay attention to science more than politics and we would not have messes like this.
Why is the Harvard School of Public Health bestowing its most prestigious award on Erin Brockovich? The dean of the school, Barry Bloom, says that it is "for her efforts on behalf of all of us, and especially the residents of Hinckley, California, whose health was adversely affected by toxic substances dumped by a utility company."The OpinionJournal OpEd goes on to opine that this is likely a move designed to raise money, but bemoans the fact that as many or more potential donors may be dissuaded as persuaded.
That certainly is the movie version (made in 2000) of the case in which California's PG&E utility company paid a $333 million settlement in 1996 after a lawsuit launched by the firm where Ms. Brockovich worked. Then, as now, she claimed that chromium 6 in the local water supply had sickened the inhabitants of Hinckley--even the "bunnies"--with results ranging from nosebleeds to cancer and death.
Yet the dean of the Harvard School of Public Health presumably does not rely solely on Hollywood for factual information about environmental poisoning. And so far the scientific literature reveals no studies that back up claims about the sickening effects of chromium 6 in the water of Hinckley or any other town. Indeed, the infamous lawsuit--which never endured the rigors of a trial--is regarded in serious circles as a classic example of junk science. With this particular award, the Harvard School's reputation for sound science is hovering over the Dumpster.
This, in my mind, is the real downside of the increasing politicization of so many things. See, I do not think the issue is political polarization, but politicization itself. Many issues, like say science, were traditionally not issues of public policy, now they are. That fact alone creates the polarization because now people not previously greatly engaged in politics must choose sides because politics has intruded into their lives.
So now an institution that should have nothing to do with politics, must become political -- it must chose a side, and hope it bets on the right side to keep the funds coming.
The question is most fundamental. I will not deny that there are some problems with the environment, but what was/is the correct way to fix them? Is it the path we have taken -- political action -- or might there be a better way?
Consider, I have formed a company dedicated to helping the environment. I work with companies to help them operate in an environmentally sound manner. Why would I do such a thing when I am so clearly on the opposite side of the political spectrum from the "environmentalists?" Because, it is not a political question, its a technical one. I do more to keep "pollution" out of the general environment than you will every know -- someday I may sit down and calculate the tons of pollution I have personally prevented, I'm sure its in the millions.
"But," the other side would argue, "your clients would never hire you if the law was not there to make them." GARBAGE! No one wants to pollute! The resentment is over the fact that the government oversight and intervention drives to cost of dealing with the pollution through the roof. I have yet had a client ask me how they can get away with polluting, but they almost all ask me how to avoid the excessive costs created but regulatory compliance. In this day and age it is not enough not to pollute, you have to maintain several reams of paper to prove you did not pollute to more than a dozen federal, state, and local agencies. I spend more time doing "pollution accountancy" than I do stopping pollution -- sometimes it really honks me off because of how much more I could accomplish if only....
No, in my experience, laws were and are not necessary to stop pollution, just education, Once people know something is bad, it'll take care of itself. You want to protect the environment? Make your case, make it for real (as opposed to presumptions, specious models, and what if's), convince people and it will be protected.
Then perhaps Harvard could pay attention to science more than politics and we would not have messes like this.
