Who chooses alternatives?

[James Marple <jesl@carolina.net>]

Eileen Jones asks "What's behind the lack of new regs or initiative from Congress?"  I suggest that those we elect are overly sensitive to wishes of the private sector that Congress not do certain of the things we elected it to do. Pushing for tougher air pollution laws before the 'big boys' have sold off their fossil fuel generation stocks at top dollar and bankrupted their corporations (so that the public must pay off 'stranded costs') would be bad news for any politician contemplating re-election.  It would greatly damage their campaign funding and draw politically damaging comment from the many columnists appointed by profiteers who own the major news media.

Everyone who studies air pollution carefully realizes that 'distributed generation' using clean fuel cells, photovoltaics, wind and wave energy will rapidly take over electricity production, making huge generators obsolete and incrementally diminishing the market for oil. Those cursed with cynicism also know the elite crew of robber barons whose dollars persuade us to vote for charismats instead of statemen will direct captive politicians to delay, pervert  and obstruct air pollution laws as long as possible, a 'rear guard' action that allows these master criminals to squeeze every dollar in profit possible from this industry before moving on to their next scam. 

While I agree with Chuck Elkins that "EPA decisions are normally made on the basis of facts and analysis" I am also aware that those who direct this agency must be 'sensitive' to pressures brought to bear on 'friendly' politicians.  The EPA cannot do its job of seeking out and evaluating alternatives properly unless we folks figure out how to elect ordinarily sensible and capable non-professional politicians.  As long as the deck is stacked by incumbents we will not see appropriate bills or initiatives reach the floor of Congress. (Professional politicians will sell no whine until its time.)