Environmentalism

I'm just going to copy and paste this.... it's a response to something I recently read about an acquaintence feeling that Bush's actions reducing environmental regulations were a very positive thing and that environementalists have gone too far and are causing more harm than good. It's a bit rambling, so bear with me. Sorry that it's more of a direct response than a stand alone piece.

There are a few issues with these points I'd like to address. Generally, I think you'll find that, if anything, environmental regulations are being downgraded rather than "getting out of hand"--as you mentionm, Bush has been "easing back" on standards by repealing crucial pieces of legislation neccessary to the preservation of the American environment left and right. Meanwhile, the international community, including many developing (read "polluting") nations, is willing and eager to look at new solutions that will seek to address these problems and preserve a clean and healthy tomorrow for our children's children. The Kyoto Protocol seeks to create an economically styled system around pollutant issues, specially those adversely affecting greenhouse gases, and therefore, our supply of fresh water and global temperature (Most of the world's fresh water is in the ice caps. They're melting. We lose out on fresh water. Wars start as water becomes more precious than oil. We're already well on this track in places like Africa that become more and more a desert climate by the year). The Kyoto Protocol gives countries a set of bargaining chips that they can trade with others. If they need to pollute, they can bargain and trade around with those in a better position. It's complicated, but it ends up reducing emmissions and causing economic benefit. The problem is that the US has failed to get on board, and we already consume far in excess of our fair share of global resources in terms of just about any measure you can imagine. So right now, this very promising solution (or at least positive progress) to the world's pollution issues is dead in the water. President Bush vetoed it, and essentially nothing can happen, even with most other world powers now on board. Our up front argument is that it's not stringent enough, yet clearly, judging by President Bush's actions, he just doesn't believe in environmental regulations and wants to let us stew in our own juices. But read up on Kyoto if you have an interest. If we ever ratify it, real change could happen.

Second point is a brief one. Yes, parts per million sound incredibly small, but these are incredibly dangerous chemicals. If you look at what things like mercury or lead can do to the body, these "miniscule" differences in regulation make a real difference to national health. Furthermore, in issues where there has been a repeal, there is no real tangible economic benefit to business, yet consumers are invariably harmed. Most of these regulations have been in place for some time, at least the early 1990s, and so businesses have already sunk costs in to developing compliance with healthy alternatives. Dropping these regulations does not free up a sufficient amount of capital to cause real business benefit, but it does cause real consumer harm. Frankly, we have the technology to avoid the use of most of these chemicals, and those that we still need, we have measures with which they can reasonably be disposed. There is no reason to lower regulations once these systems already exist. Now, of course, if regulations continued to INCREASE (they haven't since the Clinton era), sure, some costs would be accrued to reach newer levels of compliance. But a little pain in the short term pays off for everyone in the long term. Businesses are better c orporate citizens, and better corporate citizens have higher customer loyalty, which means more dollars coming in. Customers are happier with the product. And taking a stakeholder view of things, where you address not only the business and the consumer, but everyone affected (the community, the employees, suppliers, the environment), a better environmental partner is almost always a good one, for employee health, community vitality, and long term global benefit. Cleaner is also often more efficient, since efficiency is one of the easiest ways to improve regulatory standing. Take the petroleum industry for example. Better technologies developed over the past 50 years have practically doubled or tripled the amount of usable oil from any given drill site. We used to only be able to recover 10-20% of a drill site, and the rest would pollute or be wasted. Now we are closer to 50-60%. Oil companies retain more oil, consumers experience lower prices, and the environment is cleaner and happier.

So now that we've established that costs do not escalate and add up in a spiraling fashion, let's address the job loss issue. The US has actually not experienced that great of a net job loss. The outsourcing debate has mostly been proganda rhetoric spun by manufacturing business lobbies. Places like Mexico have experienced tremendous job growth, but not explicityly at the expense of the US. It's a shared partnership arrangement where both parties overall benefit. Mexicans get 10 jobs, the US might lose 1 job, but US consumers experience lower prices. Now about that pollution bit. Places like China and Mexico do pollute a LOT. But as for the percentage of commerce conducted with businesses that moved to avoid pollution regulations? You'll find them all on the Texas/Mexican border, and they moved more for labour costs than anything else. The most important part, however, is that the percentage of trade (or jobs) they represent is so neglible it's barely worth even acknowledging. A more efficient, cleaner US company will always beat a polluting, inefficent third world one. We just have to rise to the occassion and can't be lazy. American is one the innovation capital of the world, and we ARE retaining these jobs as we continue to reinvent ourselves in new ways. Some of these new ways will be faster. Some will be cleaner. But it's the value added of America. Sure, there is some pain, especially in the "rust belt" of midwestern manufacturing. But that's not because of the environment. That's because we've lost the innovation game and are losing to more innovative or efficient operations elsewhere. But our consumers still benefit! That's the problem with these global trade issues--what hurts one part of the economy usually helps another part. Unfortunately, the business part has more money and a louder voice, so if they don't like how things are going, you're more likely to hear their side of the story than the consumer side.

The last thing to mention is that, funny enough, dropping these regulations actually HURTS US businesses in several markets. The timber industry is the main example. Bush has slashed regulations on US timber reserves, making it easier to chop lumber. The result? Prices crash and businesses no longer are able to enjoy the profits they were used to, they have to lay off staff, and end up losing out to other markets. So here's an instance where businesses are being hurt by a pro business initiative AND the US is denuded and loses beautiful forest land, which in turn has a tremendous effect on rainfall and the way river system watersheds work. We lose ecosystems, our rivers become more prone to flooding and silt erosion, and timber companies suffer. To what purpose?!

Is any of this selfish? I don't know.... there is the old adage of "NIMBY" (not in my back yard) of those that try to push the pollution around elsewhere. But I think if one looks at this not from the view of the present generation or the self, but rather of the future, and transcend national boundaries to look at the global level, one sees that we have no choice but to regulate and seek preservation. Otherwise, this beautiful planet of green and blue will be little more than a stinking, smoking blob of brown and gray in the near future.