Environmental Outlook: Battle Over the EPA
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-09-06/environmental-outlook-battle-over-epa
In 1969, untreated industrial waste burst into flames on Cleveland's Cuyahoga river. It ignited not just the river, but a burgeoning environmental movement. The following year, President Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency. Twenty years later with similar bipartisan support, America's environmental laws were strengthened even more through far-reaching amendments to the Clean Air Act. Now, that kind of broad political backing for the EPA and its mission seems to have all but dried up. As part of our Environmental Outlook series we discuss why the agency and its mission have become so politicized.
Guests
Jeff Holmstead
former assistant administrator for air and radiation at the Environmental Protection Agency (2001-05); now heads the environmental strategy section at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP.
Frances Beinecke
president, Natural Resources Defense Council; former member of the National Oil Spill Commission.
David Conover
senior vice-president, Bipartisan Policy Center; formerly at the Department of Energy as director of the agency's climate change technology program and as principal deputy assistant secretary for policy and international affairs; former staff director and chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Robin Bravender
environment reporter, Politico.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Business prefers simplicity. The simplest, most efficient & most fair way to manage environmental impacts is to charge a fee to industry when adverse impacts are created. The fee charged for pollution or for the taking of natural resources would be a way that industries could account for economic externalities. In a democratic society, the most rational policy would be to set fees such that industries have enough incentive to avoid pollution and to use natural resources efficiently.
We will know whether industries do in fact have sufficient incentive to avoid fouling the environment and to conserve resources when a random-sample survey shows that most people feel that there is not too much pollution or taking of resources.
When environmental impacts caused by human society at large do not exceed what most people feel is acceptable, then we can say we live in a democracy. Control of environmental impacts is a basic function of government. Only when we make limits on these impacts as close to what the average opinion of the people says they should be can we say that the basic human right to share in deciding such limits is being respected in reality.
This is a fundamental human right. Natural law requires that basic rights be respected and carried out
Related to this basic right is our collective duty to use our systems of governance to assure this right is respected
If we charge a fee as a mechanism to influence the actions of industry in relation to the commons property or larger environment, we will notice that a large sum of money will accrue. This will be a monetary representation of the wealth of the commons. The proceeds of the pollution fees and natural resource user-fees should be shared equally among all people—to each an equal amount
Respect of this basic human right to share in deciding limits to our impacts on the environment will mean an end to extreme poverty AND a potentially sustainable civilization
http://gaiabrain.blogspot.com
Why did EPA "become" politicized? Seriously? EPA didn't "become" politicized. It's in the same bathtub with a drowning government -- and we all know who put it there.
Diane, the very essence and power of your show is being destroyed, as you move from asking vital, revealing questions, to asking absurd, rhetorical questions.
Ask more honestly, given what you (and your guests, and most of your listeners) know to be perfectly true already:
"Why are we allowing right wing extremists to undermine an agency like EPA -- one that puts the health of the average person, our natural resources, and even life on Earth, above that of the corporate bottom line?"
See how your "neutral" question evades the issue, by a focus on "propriety" rather than on facts? See how your old-school "niceness" wastes your OWN air time, and that of your listeners? See how asking the question more honestly leads to a more useful discussion?
The people ruining our society, our economy, our democracy, and our environment are NOT playing nice. All the while, you happily skirt around their machinations, deflecting the discussion from their true intent, and their true masters. That's beneath you. You're better than that.
Please skip the rhetorical question. Have some balls. Begin your show by forcefully condemning the GOP assault already fully under way against EPA, all it stands for, and all it has accomplished. That might lead somewhere important.
Honestly, Diane: you need to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything...
Wouldn't the work to clean up the ozone create new jobs?
Smokescreen - this is what We-the-People have to live with, the government does not want to step up to the plate and make the regulations needed.
EPA is being dismantled - the wall street illusion is still unregulated - the new consumer protection agency was disemboweled before it even got started.
This is not to do with finances at all - it is strictly political.
Here's a question, why does the president bow down to the demands of the political 'other side' in every issue that comes to the forefront?
While jobs are being forced out of the country by the department of justice (Gibson guitar company) the elected officials are screaming about creating jobs.
None of this has anything to do with reality.
So sad but mayhaps we need to rethink if we are a democracy or if we are a capitocracy - only the wealthy are allowed to remain prosperous.
Diane,
Don't let anyone tell you reducing this kind of regulation helps jobs right now.
Our problem is largely companies not spending their cash hoard. Regulation that forces investment spending would help a lot. Spending leads to jobs and growth.
Not forcing spending is to choose more stagnation.
The times are topsy turvey. This kind of thing works now.
I don't see how this decision could be politically advantageous for President Obama, since it will clearly upset his base, and even probably the country's moderates. I hope it is made solely on the basis of economic recovery. I hope he plans to revive the new limits when the country finally recovers from this recession.
everyone talks about costs but what about the BENEFITS. There are monetary benefits to health also. And EPA has consistently shown that the BENEFITS to air quality rules outweigh the costs.
How does reducing clean air standards help the economy? First, regulations create a whole industry selling goods and services that help companies comply. Jobs! Secondly, you think you'll attract a lot of companies to your city if the people are sick from all the smog? Where is the long-term perspective? Thirdly, get rid of the EPA you'll put thousands of EPA employees out of work!
Private sector is historically irresponsible to the overall health of the citizens and were better responsive with regulations. How can one speculate that the prevention and regulation of pollutants would not be cost effective when history shows the lack of certan diseases were not evident before
pollutants were introduced in the environment.
john in danvers wrote:
"Our problem is largely companies not spending their cash hoard. Regulation that forces investment spending would help a lot. Spending leads to jobs and growth.
Not forcing spending is to choose more stagnation. "
Here's an idea john ... why doesn't the government just TAKE the money and do with it what it wants? That should solve the problem of companies sitting on all that cash, right?! What right do they have to do that?! And chances are, if they are forced to invest it, they're not going to invest it the way YOU want anyway. So let's just save a step, take the money and let the government "invest" it the way it wants!
Maxine Waters, 2007
""Then, this 'liberal will be all about 'socialize' [sic]...er, ah ... basically, ... about the government taking over and running your companies!"
So is that fee assessed after the adverse health effects are felt by people or after the direct relationship is actually proven? The cigarette companies still maintain that their product doesn't cause cancer. Nice try, but impratical in the real world.
The EPA should not get their noses in a snit, they should inform, advise and suggest, NOT enforce and demand. They have just as many stupid and non-sense ideas as they have good ones. We all have to compensate and co-operate, they can too.
One example of an EPA success has been its efforts to reduce diesel emissions. In response to EPA regulations, we have new heavy duty diesel trucks and buses today that are virtually emissions free.
While older diesel vehicles and equipment have higher emissions, EPA's National Clean Diesel Campaign has been an extraordinarily successful voluntary program that provides $13 in economic benefits for every $1 spent on diesel retrofits.
Diesel retrofits are helping to reduce PM and NOx emissions in a cost effective manner. Although ozone standards are not being changed, pollutants contributing to high ozone days could be reduced by making a small, cost-effective investment in the Diesel Emissions Reduction Program.
The House has committed $50 million. Environmentalists and industry representatives are working to increase this investment in the program.
Dawn Fenton
Dear Guests and Diane,
While on Facebook, I read a comment made as to how the democrats are gung-ho at making the United States another Europe.
Why are both parties so short sited?
Where are the new ideas? Why can't both political parties create laws that protect both employers and employees.
I don't hear any new ideas only judgements and criticisms.
there seems to be a vacuum politically where nothing is created. I think President Obama would ideally like to see some creative answers to our problems. Not the same old rhetoric.
I love your show. Thank you!
Melanie from Gainesville, FL. The Butterfly community.
No one has mentioned Paul Krugman's column on this from a couple of days ago ??
Jobs are on everyone's minds, sure. But the issue here is not about "creating jobs" as business would have the discussion cast. It is about profit opportunity and being dishonest about this simply clouds the issue. Doublespeak is not doing us a service here.
Of course the administration's decision is political and foolish. No one examines the economic job production of regulations. Federal government has the responsibility to protect the nation, which must include the people, the resources and the quality of life for all. The emerging markets, China and India specifically , are actively addressing modern, contemporary solutions to environmental degradation. Our old industrial capital investments and governmental infrastructures all need replacement. Federal EPA rules could force the investments needed to replace these antiquities, which means jobs, hundreds of thousands of jobs, while improving our environment. My father, an oil industry executive, always said: "Business never spends unless forced to do so." I have yet to see him disproved. To help our country both the government and business should invest in our national future and environmental regulations can be one means to this assistence.
Why is it better to create jobs than to protect the environment and public health if you pollute the environment and damage public health so much that you no longer have a population healthy enough to work?
Hi Bilbodad, I enjoyed reading this blurb after I read your post.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/the-monster-raving-loony-party/
It's about some of the loony rhetoric concerning energy policies....
Am I the only one who is outraged to hear it said that the courts forced the EPA to change or strengthen its regulations? Why isn't the EPA out front in protecting our environment instead of being forced to do it through the court system? This whole regulatory system seems fundamentally broken.
We need to consider jobs with the EPA. We cannot protect our enviornment and abosorb the related higher costs and then import goods and services from other countries who do not regulate in a similar manner.
We either need to remove the protection or ban the importation of products that are produced in violation of both our EPA and OSHA standards.
This is the most important change we can make. We need protection for our people and environment and we cannot do so if have no jobs.
I live in a town with a Superfund site. The schizophrenic relationship between EPA and the community is unfortunately. The EPA has a responsibility to bring the truth and be more transparent. My experience is that you almost have to be a dentist pulling teeth to really get the this agency to work well with you.
Having said that; I would rather pull teeth than not have teeth to pull. Clean up EPA, empower the regions to do what they are supposed to do without the political BS.
There's ample evidence that our world is running shorter on less-polluting fossil fuels. The dirtier fuels are typically more energy-intensive & $$$ expensive, as you have to drill more and in more difficult places. The economic impact of shifting to dirtier fuels could make cleaner and greener fuels more economically attractive, though less abundant.
At the same time, the fossil industry increasingly fights to reduce air quality regulation, likely for enabling the dirtier fuels. For example, hydro-fracking makes shale gas a cumulatively dirty fuel, and industry is fighting to eliminate or reduce shale drilling air quality reg's. We need to consider a sane, humane perspective.
to lower the number of unemployed people we should lower the amount of people in general, which in turn would do wonders for the environment. People are bad for the environment and the more people we have the more people there are to add to the negative effects of the environment and the economy. I'm not ruthless i'm just a realist. people are killing the planet. we either need to regulate the amount of people or we need to spend a ton of money on NASA so we can find a new planet to live on because this is not working.
To Nexcerpt,
All I read you saying are judgements and no real solutions. I suggest saving your blood pressure and enjoy our natural resources and go for a hike. The light touch works better than the destructive forces you suggest. Conversation is essential to the creating new ideas and working on problems.
"Besides" the humanitarian issues, Nuclear fuels are simply not economic, as they need massive government subsidies, especially to cover insurance & disposal costs. However, we should consider the humanitarian issues first. We can reduce energy use by at least 50% overall, & we need to. Other nations show this is possible, without killing the economy.
The EPA seems to be less a regulating agency than a permitting agency. This is why polluters state that they "want less uncertainty" when they apply for a permit - usually they apply knowing that they will be exceeding the regs but are pushing for an exception, and the uncertainty comes from their constant appeals - not from any uncertain regs.
I attend many of the hearings that are held concerning these appeals and I cannot remember when one of these appeals was denied.
Unfortunately, the regulations do not specify a cumulative limit on pollution, rather it is a "per pollution source" limitation. So if 4 corporations are emitting the maximum allowed mercury the population that is affected is getting 4 times the allowable dosage. This was verified in our city by a study done by a collaboration of organizations and recognized by the EPA air pollution entity here. This study measured the amount of mercury accumulated on the roof of a building that was not even particularly close to the sources.
To you MelSue 11,
I read Nexcerpt's comment and find your response to be nothing more than an a condescending attempt to suggest allowing the right wing takeover we have been experiencing since 2000 is best dealt with by passively suggesting that they stop.
I suspect you realize that your slap at Nexcerpt for not offering "real solutions" is a ridiculous condemnation of Nexcept's request for more direct and usefull questions (as is your reprimand that "Conversation is essential to the creating new ides..."). Does the request for more pointed and honest questions and pressing for more truthful answers prevent "Conversation" on the subject? Why do you see the request to be more hardlined against hardliners as an opportunity to place Nexcerpt in the position of offering "real solutions" in the space that a blog allows. I cannot speak for her or him so I can't guess if Nexcerpt has ideas/solutions to offer but I will say that I see nothing wrong with Nexcerpt's stating the obvious. I do think that Diane made a few attempts to press for examples from David when he was blathering the republican chant about how new regulation always costs jobs, and I did hear her correct (if too gently) her guests on the point that the republicans are against the EPA and the attempt by her guests to suggest that they don't want to eliminate it/make it more insignificant etc... is false!
I had a question for the show but could not get through so maybe you could answer it for me: "When will it be OK with the republicans and the corporations to go forward with tighter regulations on poluters? Is there a time you can remember that these entities have not thrown fits/paid off politicians and done anything and everything necessary to derail such regulations? I know I probably shouldn't ask you these questions because you are just a blogger, but then I think you were requesting "real solutions" be offered by Nexceprt, who is just a blogger so I thought you wouldn't mind.
I went to Nogales, Sonora, Mexico some time ago to see firsthand the realities of the NAFTA factories on the lives of Mexican and American families, and understand why people would cross the border without documentation.
I received an ancillary education in the benefits of environmental regulation. Where none is required in Mexico, the river is an unattractive sludge of garbage. I was told that chemicals used to be dumped into the river as well, until it was determined that the river was flowing north into Arizona, and dumping was ceased.
Garbage heaps are everywhe, and sadly, this is what people use to make their homes because the government requires no infrastructure for the community, just the factory.
We need to remember the days when our own rivers caught fire, the days of Love Canal, and be grateful. As Al Gore wisely stated in his film, we have two choices: a big bag of gold or a planet. Without a planet, there is no way to enjoy that big bag of gold.
Just so everyone understands where Jeffrey Holmstead is coming from:
"Previously a lobbyist with the firm of Latham & Watkins, Holmstead represented electric utilities trying to fight air pollution restrictions, and he represented the Farm Bureau conglomerate in its fights against pesticide controls. He was a key player in pushing Bush's Clear Skies initiative, which allowed a 520 percent increase in toxic mercury pollution, a 225 percent jump in carbon dioxide pollution (a global warming contaminant), and a delay in the enforcement of smog and soot pollution until 2016. In charge of writing a new rule to limit mercury poisoning of children by electric power plants, Holmstead embraced a watered-down rule that essentially was written by his old lobbying firm of Latham & Watkins..In January 2010 Washington Post journalist, Juliet Eilperin, reported that Holmstead and Roger R. Martella, Jr., "helped craft" the original version of an amendment proposed by Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski which would "bar the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act". Holmstead confirmed that in Sptember 2009 he worked with Murkowski's staff on the wording of the amendment. Holmstead's client list on climate issues includes Southern Company, Duke Energy, Progress Energy and the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council on climate matters."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jeffrey_R._Holmstead