A theme I’ve been trying to find the energy to rant on is the question “if regulators have no respect for regulation, why should I?”. It’s a variant of Instapundit’s view on global warmening — “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who tell me it’s a crisis act like it’s a crisis”. I have felt this way for a long time but haven’t really been able to express it well but maybe it’s time to give it a try.
Up to today is the EPA, which IMHO is the poster boy for this theme. The EPA has simply given up on science, as it has not been producing the results desired. Here we see the underlying point that regulation is based on political goals, not scientific facts, economic results, or public safety. In particular this regards the issue of fracking, which the EPA is desperate to prove unsafe. They have done multiple studies which have failed to prove that so, like the EUlite, they will keep doing studies until they get the “right” result. After all, the EPA already knows the answer, it’s just a matter of tweaking the studies until one makes it a plausible claim.
Unfortunately for the EPA facts are stubborn things and it just hasn’t worked out. The solution, obviously, is to simply give up on the scientific method and not allow any peer review of the latest study. Why should that be needed, since the EPA knows the correct answer and this is all just a formality anyway?
This is where the well regulated economy ends as the emphasis shifts from facts to political success and thereby become divorced from reality.