Do you work for the federal government, a state government or serve as a vendor/consultant to them?
You are really defending the status quo of these clymers paid with our tax $'s.
Politicizing the bureaucracy is no way to improve accountability which apparently is what you seek. It works the other way. It would increase dead wood and reduce the ability to fire for other than political reasons.
What Should be Done?
Emissions trading proposed by the Administration is simply a "hidden" tax that ultimately falls on the consumer and discourages spending. Each consumer is impoverished a small amount while emissions are forcibly reduced.
Is this what we really want? I think not. Rather, it might be wiser to allow people to keep their money. Many will invest their funds in technologies that will produce substantial energy at reduced cost. Some of these will produce few if any greenhouse emissions.
The lessons of technological history are clear. Each century brings about changes that are simply unanticipated but revolutionary. 100 years ago, senior scientists and public officials worried that America would be deforested by the 1920s and that disease would be rampant in urban areas because of the alarming increase in horse traffic. Amidst all this concern, the automobile and the fossil fuel-powered economy were soon to appear. Its development was driven less by concern for the environment than it was by the profit motive. Those who saw this opportunity did well. If there was a substantial horse tax, there would have been less to invest.
A similar argument could be made for nearly 200 years ago. In the early years of the 19th century, the U.S. government fretted over nascent Manifest Destiny. If it had gathered a team of "top scientists" to recommend how to move goods and people across this vast nation, they would doubtless recommended a substantial and very expensive network of barge canals. Fortunately, there was no massive tax levied to make this happen. But if there were, it would have taken place just as the steam engine and fixed rail transit were being invented.
As we debate this issue and what to do, there are probably 10,000 people tinkering and thinking about fuel cells, hydrogen power, and undreamed-of exotica that will displace our current energy system. Let’s save our citizens’ money. Let’s allow them to invest in the future, take the risks and reap the rewards. Better to do that than tax them to solve a problem that is not all that emergent, and one that will nonetheless resolve itself faster if only we would get out of the way.
Testimony of Patrick J. Michaels
Professor of Environmental Sciences University of Virginia
And Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute
before the
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science
United States House of Representatives
November 6, 1997
Why spend taxpayers dollars to combat a non-existent problem? IMO The only answer is job security.