Article brought to you by: Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
Is it morally irresponsible to roll back the EPA?
By Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM)
October 10th, 2011
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
October 10th, 2011
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
A concerted effort by legislators in Congress threatens to roll back environmental regulations by more than a century. Analysts are reporting there have been 159 votes in the past year designed to roll back environmental protections that proponents claim are actually hurting the economy and, some say, ineffective.
WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - Republican legislators are targeting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). According to theses legislators the EPA and much of environmental regulation is preventing the creation of new jobs and economic growth. They claim the regulations are also failing to accomplish their stated goals and/or are unnecessary.
However defenders of the EPA say that if environmental regulations are rolled back, not only would the damage to the environment be significant, but the long-term impacts on the economy would also be harmful. Most importantly, the rollbacks could be harmful to human health.
These members of the GOP are acting in a manner consistent with their distrust of overly federalized government. They have long criticized big government and big government agencies. They have associated big government with inefficiency and waste. In most respects this is probably an accurate assessment. However, when approaching environmental issues, their opponents say there is a lack of prudence and caution in their efforts at roll backs.
According to Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), "Republicans have made an assault on all environmental issues. This is, without doubt, the most anti-environmental Congress in history."
Among the numerous bills presented by Republican lawmakers is the Regulatory Accountability Act. This act would make economic cost the top consideration for all federal regulations.Opponents claim the effect of the Act would be to amend more federal laws in a single stroke than any other act of legislation passed in history.Functionally, opponents maintain, any federal environmental regulation could be ignored if it were shown that ignoring the law is cheaper than abiding by it. The analysis fails to consider State regulations.
The opponents maintain that the unintended consequences of such a law would be astounding in the least. Critics say that it would return the nation to the 1880s as far as environmental regulation is concerned. In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Commission, was formed. Originally, the environmental arm of the commission had very little real power to do anything.
Opponents of the legislation maintain their opposition is not environmental alarmism at work. Rather, that their concerns result from expert analysis, including the president of the National Resource Defense Council. They contend that what they percieve as gutting the EPA, rolling back environmental regulations, and allowing firms to conduct operations with little regard for the environment, is a dangerous, and deadly idea.
They also claim such actions are immoral and the short-term profits will soon be outstripped by the long-term costs. When one considers the environmental damage, the pollution, and the adverse health effects on others, they assert that the long-term costs of doing business at the expense of the environment is very, very high. A firm could generate a substantial profit, and thousands of jobs could be created, but this fact could make people sick and destroy the environment for future generations.
Rather than backtracking on environmental regulation,these opponents contend, the federal government needs to adopt a forward looking stance. There are literally thousands if not millions of jobs waiting to be created in clean industry. Hydrogen, clean automotive technology, even natural gas, all hold tremendous promise not only for their benefits to the environment, but also for our nation's economic future.
Of course, developing these new technologies and methodologies will require massive investment, and research, and time. But if we are unwilling to make those investments then we should not be surprised if short-term profits cost us in the long-term.
© 2011, Catholic Online. Distributed by NEWS CONSORTIUM.
Of course, developing these new technologies and methodologies will require massive investment, and research, and time. But if we are unwilling to make those investments then we should not be surprised if short-term profits cost us in the long-term.
© 2011, Catholic Online. Distributed by NEWS CONSORTIUM.