Good riddance, Lisa Jackson
Lisa Jackson is an object lesson in the manifest dangers of Leviathanism.
Ms. Jackson, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is resigning in the new year. She took the reputation of the long-thuggish EPA to new lows, foisting new, damaging and ideologically based regulations on the nation, often by dictatorial fiat, with little transparency (think of her secret email accounts) and with no basis in science.
Jackson's mission never was to protect or to better the environment but to use environmental regulations to reorder, if not browbeat, American society into the service of the state through the creation of a national industrial policy that, as history has repeatedly shown, implodes under its own hubris.
Think of Jackson's mission to destroy the coal industry and coal-fired electric utilities while rewarding bogus “green” energy. Think of new vehicle mileage standards designed to reward other government cronies.
And Jackson's “legacy” might be even worse if a still-to-come EPA study of fracking in oil and natural gas extraction proves to be the hatchet job many expect it to be.
The massive-cost-to-little-benefits mantra of Jackson's EPA played no small role in retarding economic activity and, with the cudgel of punitive actions held ever high, it injected the kind of perpetual uncertainty that sends a loud and clear message of “Why bother?” to investors and entrepreneurs.
Here's to never seeing the likes of a Lisa Jackson at the EPA again. Sadly, however, we know we will.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Sunday pops
- The solar problem: Subsidized inefficiency
- Pipeline pap: The real agenda
- The Box
- The ‘green’ ruse: Germany’s poor ‘model’
- Saturday essay: Waltz of the robins
- Myopic automakers should embrace today’s high-tech gearheads, not attempt to stifle their innovations
- Fast & Furious: Still unresolved
- U.N. Watch: Turtle Bay economics
- The Thursday wrap
- Volunteers’ contributions: Growing flowers & more in Connellsville