BIG PICTURE: We have a proverb in the English language: Too many cooks spoil the broth. Too much of a good thing produces bad results.
Environmental protection is a prime example. Nationally, the US spends $40 billion a year on Energy and the Environment. That’s billion with a B – year after year.
In addition to funding never-ending research into climate change and renewable energy, this pot of money funds the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which protects“human health and the environment.” 14,000 people are on the EPA’s payroll.
The US Food and Drug and Administration (FDA), funded by other sources, similarly says it “works tirelessly to protect the public health.” It monitors and regulates pesticides, herbicides, and all manner of other chemicals. 14,000 people are on its payroll, too.
At the national level alone, therefore, oodles of attention is being paid to human and environmental health. Tens of thousands of government employees devote their professional lives to such matters.
Moving down to the state level, each of the 50 states in the union has one or more branch of government concerned about human health, the environment, or both.
California, for example, has its own Department of Public Health. And its own Environmental Protection Agency. And its own Natural Resources Agency. Between them, these last two
oversee the activities of about 40 state departments, boards, and conservancies whose missions are to protect and restore the state’s natural and environmental resources and to ensure public health and environmental quality. [bold added, source here]
The price tag for all that activity is a further $10 billion a year, borne by California’s taxpayers.
The obvious conclusion is that human and environmental health is well protected in America. This is especially the case in the state of California.
So why would the city of San Francisco need its own, full-blown Department of the Environment? Why is it spending tens of millions annually on matters such as biodiversity, climate change, and “environmental justice”?
I pose these questions after reading the full text of that city’s ordinance-in-progress regarding “single-use food ware plastics, toxins, and litter reduction.”
This is the legislation that will prohibit plastic straws from being sold within city limits. The New York Times reports it passed unanimously last week but will be voted on again this week.
That ordinance also bans takeout food containers made with “Fluorinated chemicals, also known as per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS).”
According to the ordinance, the FDA “has rescinded its approval for use of three such fluorinated chemicals.” Significantly, however, it has not banned the entire category. The national EPA hasn’t done so. Nor has California’s EPA.
But that isn’t good enough for San Francisco, which believes its own cooks should make broth, too.
Human feces and hypodermic needles litter downtown streets. A medical association has decided to hold its annual convention elsewhere due to safety concerns. The New York Times and Fox News agree there’s a ‘homeless crisis.’
But San Francisco’s Department of the Environment has persuaded elected officials to go out on a limb over obscure chemicals in takeout food containers.
TOP TAKEAWAY: Where human and environmental health is concerned, too many publicly-funded cooks are now in the kitchen.
Read more at Big Pic News
I have repeatedly pointed out that every cabinet position in the government repeats every cabinet position and department with every other division. For example, every cabinet position has its own EPA. Go to the Dept. of the Interior website and see all the Bureaus and Offices. Each of those with have their own little environmental department – such as our national parks. I’m not kidding. I looked at this “duplication of services” when Obama was in office. The states then follow that pattern, and it’s copied by counties. It doesn’t surprise me that cities also copy it.
Oh, btw, I just found out that President Trump has not purged all of the climate change references or activity. We’re still apparently wasting money on it. this is from the US Fish and Wildlife site: https://www.fws.gov/home/climatechange/
To understand why San Francisco needs its own EPA it is necessary to understand liberals. Make no mistake about it, San Francisco is governed by liberal extremists.
The standard way liberals try to solve what they perceive to be a problem is to throw tax payer money at it. The office space, hirer level officials, and staff of a San Francisco EPA certainly spends money. Another major way that liberals tackle what they perceive to be a problem is to take freedom away. California’s limitation of what cars can be purchased in the future does just that. If freedom is going to be taken away it is very useful to have a group of unelected unaccountable bureaucrats to impose the regulations. For instance, if San Francisco decided to go beyond California’s 55 gallon per person per day water rationing and drop it to 40 gallons, a city council member might take political hit voting for the measure. If implemented by their EPA, the council members are shielded.
Another use for the city’s EPA would be to keep radical environmentalists employed.
Under Obama the EPA was conducting rigged experiments to justify the regulations they wanted to impose. An example was exposing people with known respiratory problems to ozen. If the city has its own EPA, they could fill the void left by Trumps EPA not doing the same.
Of course, not one of these reasons is justifiable in absolute terms, but to a liberal they make a lot sense.
Incredible that the American economy can grow at 4% despite the leeches in the Swamp. Resilient with or without a leech in the White House.
Cities like San Francisco and Santa Barbara are tackling the easy (non)problems such as banning straws because actually tackling the difficult problems like homelessness, human feces on the sidewalks, etc.
San Fancisco is a example of what America would look like with Open Borders and unlimited imagration and a outlaw Govenor Moonbeam Brown who belongs in prison