As for creating straw men, I was in part thinking of a comment on this page:

The problem is most “environmentalists” leaders are lying peices of shit. They are frauds, criminals, hucksters and care more about money, power, and self-agrandisement then the earth.

etc.

A brief comment again on the article in question. One–what is the vocational specialty of the author? Is s/he adequately trained to assess the environmental issues related to the products being discussed?

Is a bureaucrat? Are you, for that matter?

We either have complete and utter socialist/communist/marxist/totalitarian offensive destructive oppressive hellish inept evil criminal self-serving regulation or we have libertarian Ayn Randish Koch-whore anti-human anti-social corporate greed toxic grab-your-planet non-regulation.

Are you trying to make the point against false dilemmas by positing strawmans? Tsk, tsk…

A brief comment again on the article in question. One–what is the vocational specialty of the author? Is s/he adequately trained to assess the environmental issues related to the products being discussed? This is not an idle issue. Also–one of the primary criteria for disqualifying experts is that they have a vested interest in outcomes, the obvious issue of conflict of interest. This is why the collusion of some academics with some pharmaceutical companies is so dangerous. It’s also why the academy must be free of direct corporate influence. I don’t see how libertarians have any means of dealing with conflict of interest. In fact, that IS their charge against regulators, but as they say, “Hello, pot!” Also — Another seeming oversight of this author is the idea that by restricting the number of large tractors produced, jobs are lost. Question: do the smaller tractors grow on trees? I get the impression that this sort of article is a brand of anti-regulatory pornography, designed to titillate entrenched believers.

I would say that the biggest problem that we face as a society is this rhetorical idea of the “false dilemma,” a classic logical fallacy, and something fiercely exacerbated by the internet, which allows, in Bruce Cockburn’s words, “every psychopath to have his own magazine,” left or right. We either have complete and utter socialist/communist/marxist/totalitarian offensive destructive oppressive hellish inept evil criminal self-serving regulation or we have libertarian Ayn Randish Koch-whore anti-human anti-social corporate greed toxic grab-your-planet non-regulation. These are said to be our choices. What good can come of such foolishness?

I agree with you about the problems of “incumbency,” The problem with so many intellectual endeavors is that they represent the profound thinking of a few brilliant people, and the rest of us just mine the ideas for a living, not sufficiently gifted to effectively evaluate them. I’m always reminded of what John Wooden once said when asked if he was worried that his UCLA basketball team of freshmen and sophomores was facing a much more seasoned team in the NCAA finals. Wooden said: “Experience is no substitute for talent.” But I don’t see John Galt standing there, I see Albert Einstein. And look what we did with HIS ideas.

If that is what “free enterprise” accepts as the norm then give me socialism.

You get your wish:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/why-socialism-causes-pollution/

“The Soviet government’s imperatives for economic growth, combined with communal ownership of virtually all property and resources, caused tremendous environmental damage. According to economist Marshall Goldman, who studied and traveled extensively in the Soviet Union, “The attitude that nature is there to be exploited by man is the very essence of the Soviet production ethic.”

A typical example of the environmental damage caused by the Soviet economic system is the exploitation of the Black Sea. To comply with five-year plans for housing and building construction, gravel, sand, and trees around the beaches were used for decades as construction materials. Because there is no private property, “no value is attached to the gravel along the seashore. Since, in effect, it is free, the contractors haul it away. This practice caused massive beach erosion which reduced the Black Sea coast by 50 percent between 1920 and 1960. Eventually, hotels, hospitals, and of all things, a military sanitarium collapsed into the sea as the shore line gave way. Frequent landslides–as many as 300 per year–have been reported.

Water pollution is catastrophic. Effluent from a chemical plant killed almost all the fish in the Oka River in 1965, and similar fish kills have occurred in the Volga, Ob, Yenesei, Ural, and Northern Dvina rivers. Most Russian factories discharge their waste without cleaning it at all. Mines, oil wells, and ships freely dump waste and ballast into any available body of water, since it is all one big (and tragic) “commons.”

Only six of the 20 main cities in Moldavia had a sewer system by the late 1960s, and only two of those cities made any effort to treat the sewage. Conditions are far more primitive in the countryside. “

first, because the author patently does believe that government employees can work in concert to thwart private initiative and harm private interests. second, while the author wishes to convince people of the possibility of organized retribution in this case, he is ready to join the government’s chorus line regarding others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K5M0xtxQVQ

Governments are given the authority to punish evildoers
BUT America has an immoral government. And this government is the greatest cause of all evil.

My question is what can we do to stop it

Soot represents inefficiencies. Excessive soot causes maintenance issues. Its’s 98% carbon and will cake surfaces and get into the oil. Lots of carbon build up in the oil reduces it’s effectiveness which shortens the life of the engine. Truck owners would fiddle with the injection to improve performance, but that would cause the black smoke. However, modern turbo engines and computerized fuel injection can be used to improve performance of motors and improve efficiency… saving money, hardware, and getting better performance. That ‘black smoke’ to a business owner is just money being burned.

Plus the soot itself is largely harmless. It’s the gasses you don’t see that are the dangerous stuff and regulations attacking ‘black smoke’ are attacking a mostly cosmetic issue. For the work they are doing those big diesels are far more environmentally friendly then gasoline engines. Forcing these guys to use gasoline engines or forcing them to unload their trucks and load up gasoline trucks to take their goods into town would be a disaster.