What is the carbon footprint for the US MSD program?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

. . but when considered in isolation a true eco-warrior will swear they would never increase engine emissions and at the same time would never increase water pollution but short of simply going on hunger strike you don't have that option. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend or you can face the fact that every action has both positive and negative results.

Exactly!

At least someone understood what the OP was getting at

[SecondBase]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Someone made a good point about starting the engine and running it for 1/2 hr just to go over to the pump out and back. That's 100% burn only for dumping.

Jamhass made the point about 100% of the boat's fuel for pump-only trips and that should be worked into the model.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I actually read the study -- it does NOT say that these infections are caused by boaters. The "recreational use" referred to means recreational SWIMMERS who GET infected while swimming in water polluted predominantly by municipal sewage systems and, interestingly, other swimmers.

That study has exactly zero to do with what we are discussing.

Sorry, I was referring to it being included in this thread, not that the original paper was suggesting it was boaters.

Most people won't go read the original paper, so when someone says untold masses will die a grisly death due to waste disposal in a thread about boat based waste disposal, there is an implied (but wrong) implication that the masses of dead are due to boaters disposing of their waste in the water.

It's a common issue in these types of discussions. Many times it's just perpetuating a chain of mis-use of the information. For example, if no one questioned it's use in this thread, it would be easy for 3rd party to innocently pick it up and use it in a later discussion without sourcing. If it continues long enough it becomes accepted "fact"...kind of like "every little bit helps".

If you really want to do good, contact your local politicians and encourage them to institute "efficient" environmental policies not the most emotionally satisfying (both sides in the USA are guilty, so it's not a Dem/Rep issue).

Warning Thread Drift: I saw an interesting study recently about electrical grids. It calculated the benefit/cost ratio for solar & wind power (the darlings of the eco-movement at the moment). It then compared very simple and mundane conservation efforts for comparison. It wasn't even close. The simple switch away from incandescent lights reduced power consumption by 3 times as much as all the solar/wind power currently in place produce for 1/10th the cost. Better building insulation, timers on appliances and other very simple and mundane changes all beat out, solar/wind by several times over. But it's hard to sell them as a "gee whiz" magic bullet like solar/wind.

[SecondBase]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I actually read the study -- it does NOT say that these infections are caused by boaters. The "recreational use" referred to means recreational SWIMMERS who GET infected while swimming in water polluted predominantly by municipal sewage systems and, interestingly, other swimmers.

That study has exactly zero to do with what we are discussing.

Right. The only useable bit I saw from the off topic study was their water-distance sampling methodology made sense for what they were studying and might be reusable.

Likewise might we look back in time and expect to identify a corresponding drop in infection rates upon the start date of the MSD program? If no change, well there's another data point.

Again we respect (and share) the "yuck-aesthetic" point of view and are not seeking to eliminate tanks or discharge near swimmers. It may simply be that the policy impetus at the time was the yuck-aesthetic & desire to regulate, no peer reviewable science to be found.

Cotton's last point - yeah can't debate that one. Hmm.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I think you and many others have missed the nuance of the OP's idea, which I think is impressive and possibly useful.

If I could try to formulate it myself, in a slightly different way --

1. We are regulated as if the burden of the regulations don't matter -- as if there is not cost to comply.

2. And we are regulated without any consideration of the actual harmfulness of discharges offshore -- say 5 cables offshore, or in any case, 1 mile offshore, which I think everyone agrees about.

3. The rationale is the really stupid "every little bit helps".

4. The OP's idea basically turns the "every little bit helps" argument against the regulators -- if "every little bit helps" with sewage (even if "little bit" in this case is absolutely zero!!), then how about with carbon emissions? Sure it's a small number, but IT'S NOT ZERO.

This might shake the intellectually lazy "every little bit helps crowd" out of their lazy complacency, because now they are forced to actually think about the actual harm of discharging a mile offshore vs. carbon emissions, both very small, but in one case, zero, and in the other, NOT ZERO. And the OP found an instrument -- the Environmental Impact Statement process -- to push it forward.

I'm with you so far - regulations should be reviewed for the true impact of compliance - but you've made assertions that are as simplistic as me dismissing the idea that current CWA compliance has a significant carbon burden.

I'm more interested in what's really bugging you and 2B about the current dumping laws... and you have gone on to do so, so thanks.

In reality -- discharging one mile offshore is ZERO harm, but hauling sewage to three miles out has more than zero ecological harm, so it's a damned strong argument.

I'm not on an ocean coast, so I don't know with certainty, but I have a hard time imagining anyone deliberately heading out 3 miles just to have a poop. Somebody going out to 3 miles to EMPTY their holding tank... do people really do this, instead of just paying for a pump-out?

As to making it 3 miles vs 1 (or 0.5) just to make it easier to enforce . . . yikes. That's the logic of real oppression. "You are doing something absolutely harmless, objectively speaking, but I am going to fine you or apply criminal sanctions, because by criminalizing a broad swatch of harmless activity, it makes me easier to whack you." Really.

We are talking about putting poop in the ocean, not free speech here so perhaps you could replace the word "oppression" with "inconvenience"? We all know that you sign a road at 55 mph in the hopes that most people won't go faster than 65 or 70. The law is to always stop at a stop sign or red light, even if it's 4 AM and you can see that you're the only car for miles. Etc Etc.

I don't think you've considered how people would behave if the dump limit was 1 mile instead of 3 miles.

Anyway, 3 miles versus 1 (or 0.5) mile can make a big difference to someone living at anchor or on a small dock without pumpout facilities. To get three miles out, pump out, then return, will be more than an hour and maybe a couple of hours with the reanchoring, negotiating channels, etc., which may be required. Let me state a counterargument why this is a bad idea -- such a policy makes it much more likely that the person at anchor will just dump his tank on the spot, where it is really harmful to do so, rather than pulling up the anchor and going a bit offshore, where it is completely harmless.

First, there are MANY more day-boaters, weekend jaunters and coastal cruisers than stationary liveaboards without access to pumpout, so regulation has to deal with the most prevalent cases, not the edge cases.

And you have to consider what people would do in both cases... in the 3-mile case, I'd expect the majority of people to simply leave the overboard discharge off because they seldom venture out that far, which increases the likelihood that they won't ever accidentally or deliberately discharge ever, including dockside or at anchor.

Whereas if the limit was 1 mile, more people would be inclined to think about flipping the valve... which means more would probably forget and end up discharging near shore.

The goal is the simplest regulation that produces the greatest overall benefit.

Finally - if your goal is truly to have the smallest carbon footprint, um, well... recreational boating is discretionary. We've already all agreed that having our boating pleasure is worth the additional carbon output, so getting at all worked up about what amounts to < 1% of that load so that our shoreline, anchorages, marinas and waterways stay cleaner is, to me, pointless.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I see it as the opposite. Let's say you are on a 10mile wide bay (a common situation). If you make it difficult to do the right thing, the majority of people will do the wrong thing (Do you have any idea the percentage of drivers who violate a 25mph speed limit on a major arterial? I give you a clue, it's a lot easier to count the drivers following the limit.)

I've already addressed that - it reinforces my point that you regulate for X, and hope that most people do no more than X + 10%.

- If it's a no discharge zone (most large bays are), it may be 4-5hrs round trip to get out to the open ocean and 3 mile limit. Reality is most won't do a 4-5hr run once a week just to dump. That leaves the choice of 5 mins late night and let the tide wash it away from the marina or spend an hour getting the boat ready, motoring over to the pump out, hoping it is actually working properly, than motoring back. Not surprising that a lot of people choose the late night option in an actually problematic area.

- On the other hand if it's a more realistic 1mile rule and large bodies of water are fair game, I suspect you will get much better compliance as people can take the boat out once a week for a short 1hr sunset cruise and dump.

As someone else said, it really is a political decision not a fact based decision.

... and then there's reality. You say 1 mile, then someone may go out half a mile and let fly. You say 3 mile, then someone may go out to 1.5 or 2 miles.

A 3-mile limit will create more demand for pumpouts, clearly. Could even be part of the regulations: any marina with a capacity for more than X boats must have a working pumpout. No different than requiring restaurants to have washrooms.

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I think that was what the original post was doing and he was asking for feedback. The original calculations had some serious issues and it's not an easy calculation. Someone made a good point about starting the engine and running it for 1/2 hr just to go over to the pump out and back. That's 100% burn only for dumping.

Your response on the other hand is just a blanket statement that it is negligible and therefore we should take your word for it. If you don't have the numbers to back it up, logically we must discount your comment.

You and 2B are both asserting indirectly that the carbon footprint effects are not negligable... but neither of you have put forward numbers, so we're all still in wild-ass guess mode. Do you really think the CWA has sufficient potential impact that the cost of an impact study is justified? I thought you'd be against fruitless government expenditure.

Getting to the true numbers is near impossible but when considered in isolation a true eco-warrior [ ] will swear they would never increase engine emissions and at the same time would never increase water pollution but short of simply going on hunger strike you don't have that option. You can bury your head in the sand and pretend or you can face the fact that every action has both positive and negative results.

Nobody has taken that stance here, so you can dismantle that strawman. I'm more interested in what people consider to be a reasonable set-point. I take it that you are for a 1-mile limit, and it's advisory rather than a heavily-enforced regulation.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Warning Thread Drift: I saw an interesting study recently about electrical grids. It calculated the benefit/cost ratio for solar & wind power (the darlings of the eco-movement at the moment). It then compared very simple and mundane conservation efforts for comparison. It wasn't even close. The simple switch away from incandescent lights reduced power consumption by 3 times as much as all the solar/wind power currently in place produce for 1/10th the cost. Better building insulation, timers on appliances and other very simple and mundane changes all beat out, solar/wind by several times over. But it's hard to sell them as a "gee whiz" magic bullet like solar/wind.

Um, in my neck of the woods, conservation and efficiency are big parts of the program. Our insulation requirements in the building codes have increased. We have occasional rebate programs for LED bulbs, and allowances when you trade in an old and inefficient appliance for a new more efficient unit. We have time-of-use rates, which encourage more off-peak use of major appliances like washers/dryers (grids are sized for peak not steady demand, so reduction in peak usage means that a smaller grid is viable for longer)

Solar and wind generation are rapidly dropping in price and will soon match or be less expensive per watt than some conventional sources. Accelerated development was the main goal of the heavy subsidation and promotion of wind/solar, and it's achieved its goal.

So you need both: conservation/efficiency in use AND non-polluting/renewable sources.

The missing link is still energy storage, but researchers and industry are onto this. Watch what Tesla is about to do in Australia. Efficient localized storage will help us get away from having to distribute all power from just a few huge generating stations. If this comes to pass, it means that the power from intermittent sources like wind and solar can be efficiently stored, and the existing power grids will remain viable for decades without requiring huge expansion.

(sorry for prolonging the drift)

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Somebody going out to 3 miles to EMPTY their holding tank... do people really do this, instead of just paying for a pump-out?

Yes. It depends on where you are. To my knowledge there are no pump-outs anywhere in the British Virgin Islands. Many of us will use holding tanks in anchorages and dump between islands. Not everyone of course. *sigh*

Not everyone sails in the First World where pump-outs are readily available.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

Yes. It depends on where you are. To my knowledge there are no pump-outs anywhere in the British Virgin Islands. Many of us will use holding tanks in anchorages and dump between islands. Not everyone of course. *sigh*

Not everyone sails in the First World where pump-outs are readily available.

Ok thanks. (And "ewwww"). One of the reasons I'd like to see MSD regulations with teeth is that popular anchorages, moorings and other shared places are going to be getting more and more users, and careless dumping in those areas will quickly go from the occasional floatie to full-on disgusting, like a campground after a music festival.

Also, fyi, I believe the OP and others are primarily focussing on MSD law as implemented in the US (the Clean Water Act).

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm not on an ocean coast, so I don't know with certainty, but I have a hard time imagining anyone deliberately heading out 3 miles just to have a poop. Somebody going out to 3 miles to EMPTY their holding tank... do people really do this, instead of just paying for a pump-out?

No almost no one does this. They simply wait for night and dump in the marina waters because the rule is so unrealistic, it's not worth bothering. Once you get someone to break a rule, they often break the rule completely.

If you make it easy to comply and provide a reasonable supportable logic, people will try to comply. When they make it difficult to comply and it appears to be pointless, they will be more likely not try and comply.

A little more thread dirft but the underlying pattern is very comparable: To take my 25mph speed limit example: your thought was essentially, if you want people to drive no more than 35mph, post it at 25mph. This is something I've studied personally and confirmed with other studies and the results are the exact opposite. It creates a lot of issues and doesn't provide any significant benefit.
- In actuality, the sign has no impact on the average speed. You can post it at 20mph or 200mph, the average speed won't change.
- If you look at the distribution of speeds, it creates a major problem. The safest option is for drivers to travel at roughly the same speed. By artificially lowering the speed limit, this creates a situation where a small percentage try to follow the rule but others see it as so stupid and they get frustrated, they actually go faster (yes, I have the data to back this up). Wide differences in speeds is actually strongly correlated with crashes which is what the speed limits are supposed to help avoid (at least in theory).
- You can drive down the average speed with enhanced enforcement but the minute to back off on enforcement, the speeds go right back up (and none of it helps with crash patterns). If you continue to pursue this, it undermines the police as rather than the public seeing them as a positive service, they are the SOB's who hand out stupid tickets. It also distracts them from meaningful work that actually does improve safety.

So the rules for waste disposal should be made easy and should be made very supportable by the general population. I doubt you would get many people who think it's a good idea to anchor 50yds off a popular swimming beach and dump the tanks. If you make a rule that makes sense, it becomes self enforcing because everyone agrees that it makes sense and serves a purpose. It also makes enforcement not only easier but more effective. Rather than going after someone dumping in a harmless location, they can focus on those actually causing problems. Also, you will get more public support because they are paying for a service that has value and the guys getting tickets are universally in the wrong.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

. . . you've made assertions that are as simplistic as me dismissing the idea that current CWA compliance has a significant carbon burden.

Which I agreed with!

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm more interested in what's really bugging you and 2B about the current dumping laws... and you have gone on to do so, so thanks.

I'm not on an ocean coast, so I don't know with certainty, but I have a hard time imagining anyone deliberately heading out 3 miles just to have a poop. Somebody going out to 3 miles to EMPTY their holding tank... do people really do this, instead of just paying for a pump-out?

Of course. In remote areas, it can be really hard to find a pumpout, plus it can be a real hassle and even expense. My boat was originally built with a holding tank, but no deck pumpout fitting at all! The only way to dump the tank was in the sea with the macerator pump. I had to install the deck fitting myself.

As Valhalla pointed out, 3 miles vs 1 mile can be a really serious burden in many cases depending on islands and shoreline contour -- and can mean a whole lot more than 4 miles of extra motoring.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

We are talking about putting poop in the ocean, not free speech here so perhaps you could replace the word "oppression" with "inconvenience"? We all know that you sign a road at 55 mph in the hopes that most people won't go faster than 65 or 70. The law is to always stop at a stop sign or red light, even if it's 4 AM and you can see that you're the only car for miles. Etc Etc.

I always stop at stop signs and red lights whether it's 04:00 or not. You don't?

Oppression is any misuse of authority to manipulate people's behavior without a good purpose. I'm sticking with it

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I don't think you've considered how people would behave if the dump limit was 1 mile instead of 3 miles.

Of course I have. And here's where I come out on it:

1. People comply with laws much more when they respect them -- when they perceive them to be reasonable.

2. People comply with laws much more when there are not unreasonable barriers to compliance. If you're illegal already pumping out a mile out, then it's easy to say screw it and ignore the law altogether.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

First, there are MANY more day-boaters, weekend jaunters and coastal cruisers than stationary liveaboards without access to pumpout, so regulation has to deal with the most prevalent cases, not the edge cases.

All the more is it unreasonable to require such boats to go 3 miles out -- where they don't normally go.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

And you have to consider what people would do in both cases... in the 3-mile case, I'd expect the majority of people to simply leave the overboard discharge off because they seldom venture out that far, which increases the likelihood that they won't ever accidentally or deliberately discharge ever, including dockside or at anchor.

In my opinion, a manipulative point of view. So that would even be good, if it were true, that you have prevented them from discharging altogether versus doing it in a responsible and harmless way? Actually if you make it so hard to comply, they will stop trying altogether to comply, and will leave the discharge OPEN when there's no serious prospect of enforcement (and you cannot physically check everyone all the time). If on the contrary, you are considerate towards the people you are regulating, and give them a reasonable path to compliance, they tend to repay respect with respect and obey. Not mere theory -- I see that here in Scandinavia. In Finland, there are even FLOATING pumpout stations in popular anchorages. No one checks your discharge valves -- there is no "potty police". But everyone sees the point of compliance, has a practical and reasonable path to compliance, and respects the law.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Whereas if the limit was 1 mile, more people would be inclined to think about flipping the valve... which means more would probably forget and end up discharging near shore.

We've discussed this.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The goal is the simplest regulation that produces the greatest overall benefit.

Not just simpler -- but least intrusive, manipulative, and disadvantageous to the people being regulated -- ESPECIALLY if you want people to respect the regulation and comply voluntarily, rather than having to force them to comply with the power of the state.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Finally - if your goal is truly to have the smallest carbon footprint, um, well... recreational boating is discretionary. We've already all agreed that having our boating pleasure is worth the additional carbon output, so getting at all worked up about what amounts to < 1% of that load so that our shoreline, anchorages, marinas and waterways stay cleaner is, to me, pointless.

I think we've agreed that carbon has nothing to do with any of this, other than as an argument that there is a non-zero cost of these regulations.

If the goal is truly to have the smallest carbon footprint, then we had best just all kill ourselves right now and give our bodies as organic compost.

Or at least, learn to sail properly and use the motor less.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

So the rules for waste disposal should be made easy and should be made very supportable by the general population. I doubt you would get many people who think it's a good idea to anchor 50yds off a popular swimming beach and dump the tanks. If you make a rule that makes sense, it becomes self enforcing because everyone agrees that it makes sense and serves a purpose. It also makes enforcement not only easier but more effective. Rather than going after someone dumping in a harmless location, they can focus on those actually causing problems. Also, you will get more public support because they are paying for a service that has value and the guys getting tickets are universally in the wrong.

Understood, thanks.

From an enforcement standpoint... you never catch someone actually dumping. So the only practical way to enforce is to board when the boat is within the prohibited zone and check that valve.

So what should happen when the LEOs board your boat, anchored off that busy popular beach, and your valve is set to dump? You might legitimately claim oh, heck, I had it open when we were offshore, and I've just forgotten to reset. Entirely possible. Or maybe that's just your standard excuse and you never bother to use your holding tank...

(using the generic hypothetical "you", not refering to anyone here)

Your 9-year-old child's friend (or your great uncle Wilbur after a hearty breakfast) will use the facilities when you're at the beach - they don't know anything about valves and MSDs - and now you'r boat has just discharged in a prohibited area.

Practical laws must convey more benefits and as few burdens as possible, and they must be enforceable. The only realistic way to enforce MSD/dumping laws is to check valves as part of the standard routine boat check. yes this will catch up the forgetful innocent as well as the flagrant violator; the only answer to that is to set a limit that makes compliance more likely.

To me, a 1-mile limit would create a higher number of innocent violators, because more of us will routinely be over 1 mile from shore. Whereas, far fewer boaters would be past the 3-mile limit, and therefore fewer boats would be even thinking about switching that valve.

Yes I completely accept that sewage dumped at 1-mile has negligable impact... but the 3 mile limit would keep more people in compliance, and have a lower "bycatch" of well-intentioned people who just forgot.

Also, I expect the vast majority of boat checks would be within 1 mile of shore, so a 3 mile limit means you really have no excuse to have that valve open within 1 mile...

(it's raining and I'm bored at work)

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

No almost no one does this. They simply wait for night and dump in the marina waters because the rule is so unrealistic, it's not worth bothering. Once you get someone to break a rule, they often break the rule completely.

If you make it easy to comply and provide a reasonable supportable logic, people will try to comply. When they make it difficult to comply and it appears to be pointless, they will be more likely not try and comply.

A little more thread dirft but the underlying pattern is very comparable: To take my 25mph speed limit example: your thought was essentially, if you want people to drive no more than 35mph, post it at 25mph. This is something I've studied personally and confirmed with other studies and the results are the exact opposite. It creates a lot of issues and doesn't provide any significant benefit.
- In actuality, the sign has no impact on the average speed. You can post it at 20mph or 200mph, the average speed won't change.
- If you look at the distribution of speeds, it creates a major problem. The safest option is for drivers to travel at roughly the same speed. By artificially lowering the speed limit, this creates a situation where a small percentage try to follow the rule but others see it as so stupid and they get frustrated, they actually go faster (yes, I have the data to back this up). Wide differences in speeds is actually strongly correlated with crashes which is what the speed limits are supposed to help avoid (at least in theory).
- You can drive down the average speed with enhanced enforcement but the minute to back off on enforcement, the speeds go right back up (and none of it helps with crash patterns). If you continue to pursue this, it undermines the police as rather than the public seeing them as a positive service, they are the SOB's who hand out stupid tickets. It also distracts them from meaningful work that actually does improve safety.

So the rules for waste disposal should be made easy and should be made very supportable by the general population. I doubt you would get many people who think it's a good idea to anchor 50yds off a popular swimming beach and dump the tanks. If you make a rule that makes sense, it becomes self enforcing because everyone agrees that it makes sense and serves a purpose. It also makes enforcement not only easier but more effective. Rather than going after someone dumping in a harmless location, they can focus on those actually causing problems. Also, you will get more public support because they are paying for a service that has value and the guys getting tickets are universally in the wrong.

Very perceptive and right

Criminalize normal reasonable behavior and you force normal law-abiding people into the same community as the scum who dump off beaches, with a common hatred of LEO resources trying to force them to comply.

[Lake-Effect]

Some of your points are addressed already; I'll just touch on these:

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I always stop at stop signs and red lights whether it's 04:00 or not. You don't?

The point there is that it can easily be argued that there's a carbon cost to unnecessary vehicle stops, and if you have full visibility, there's no additional safety to stopping... but we do anyway because it's the law, and most of us know it's a good practice overall.

The same can be said for MSD compliance. Following the letter of the law may not be any more ecologically valid than bending the law (eg 1 mile vs 3 mile), but we see the point and we accept the minor inconvenience and trivially small carbon increase.

All the more is it unreasonable to require [the majority of pleasure] boats to go 3 miles out -- where they don't normally go.

In my opinion, a manipulative point of view. So that would even be good, if it were true, that you have prevented them from discharging altogether versus doing it in a responsible and harmless way?

The practicalities of human nature and enforcement. And we're both being arbitrary here. You're choosing 1 mile because it is still more than enough distance to be ecologically and aesthetically sound. I'm choosing 3 miles because it's a limit that fewer people will reach, therefore fewer well-meaning people will be caught at < 1 mile who have simply forgotten to switch. If the limit is 3, then you know the person you caught at < 1 is more likely to be careless or a wilful violator.

I personally don't have a problem with that resulting in fewer people ever discharging directly, because it also reduces the number of people who will discharge accidentally at beaches etc because they forgot to switch over.

... In Finland, there are even FLOATING pumpout stations in popular anchorages. No one checks your discharge valves -- there is no "potty police". But everyone sees the point of compliance, has a practical and reasonable path to compliance, and respects the law.

Different jurisdictions pursue different solutions. I would much favour the Scandanavian/Finnish approach - there are ample pumpouts and they achieve their goals by a combination of education and provision of adequate facilities. (and i bet there's a requirement for most marinas to have pumpouts)

Do you think the US will ensure, through regulation and public expenditure, that there will be enough pumpouts that compliance (pump instead of dump) will be the norm, and MSD inspections would be unnecessary?

Discuss

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Do you think the US will ensure, through regulation and public expenditure, that there will be enough pumpouts that compliance (pump instead of dump) will be the norm, and MSD inspections would be unnecessary?

Discuss

No. The government is in the business of collecting revenue and expanding itself and not in the business of solving problems.