REGULATORS

Hopefully you didn’t sleep in that haystack for too long and you’ve mustered up enough strength to join me for my second blog post.  Entry dos will include my thoughts and attitude towards government intervention as it pertains to the environment, along with some Interesting Insight on Instruments Implemented (check out that alliteration) to carry out these policies.  I don’t know about you, but my hands are getting hot touching my keyboard---if you know what I mean…echhem.

            There are American citizens who associate with particular political parties that pride themselves in an ideology where the government has no power to tell its population what it can and cannot do to the environment.  Their philosophy tends to mimic that of something a tween would say to another tween, “You can’t tell me what to do/I don’t have to listen to you.”  Lets take a step back from this ever-so-common adolescent exchange and think about all the times our “terrible” American government has told institutions or us what to do regarding environmental matters (and let me hint—it hasn’t turned out so badly).   

            We can look at the government from two different levels: federal and local.  First, on a federal level our government has established numerous environmental agencies such as the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) whose mission is clearly stated as, “to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment -- air, water and land -- upon which life depends.”  The EPA has been solely responsible for creating policy such as the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, which in laments terms, ensures safe drinking water for all Americans.  The act tests bodies of water for toxic substances and requires that all contaminants present in water must be made aware to the public.  I don’t know about you but when I fill a cup up with tap water, I take comfort in knowing I’m not going to croak because there are toxic chemicals in my aqua.  If government had not set these regulations your next sip could contain a hefty amount of lead—yum.  

Next, we take environmental regulation to the local level.  This can be seen in instances where local municipalities set aside plots of land for preservation—maybe through zoning ordinances? (local parks).  These local parks in turn can put money into town resident’s pockets by increasing property values.  Sounds nice now, ay?  

To sum up, I do feel that there are particular instances where the government should intervene with the environment.  Most environmental issues that present problems are not the direct result of one instance—they are the result of instances.  Rivers run through states, pollution crosses state lines.  There is a bigger picture here people.  Our government looks after it’s citizens and if that means laying down the law when it comes to environmental protection then I’m ok with it—well maybe sometimes….

Lets start a chant—market-based instruments, market-based instruments, market-based instruments.  I feel that if the government wants to implement environmental policy they must put market-based instruments into use.  One example of an MBI is a tradable permit to pollute.  To keep you interested, ill try to make this as simple as possible.  The government puts a cap on how much a certain company can pollute with potential fines for over-pollution.  Each company has a pollutant ration and after their ration runs out they must turn to other companies and buy their “unused pollution.”  What the government hopes this particular MBI will do is put a cap on the amount of pollution allowed and that the potential monetary fines will translate to less pollution.  If pollution is going to happen regardless why not monitor it? 

On the contrary some feel that these MBIs are just giving corporations a license to pollute and that we should rely more on traditional government regulation.  Yes, this seems like a good idea but don’t you think this stance seems to be a little TOO rigid.  With MBIs, the government is creating an artificial market for pollution. With government regulations, taxes come into play and the taxpayer winds up with the brunt of the burden. 

I think my preferred method of intervention correlates relatively closely with my political ideology.  I tend to think along the lines of an economist and that the market will balance all issues out.  These MBIs that I speak about, create the market needed to sustain our environments well being.  Frequent updating would be required but I do feel optimistic that this is our best shot at realistic regulation. 

Sorry for this post’s dryness…if you don’t like it go sleep in haystack.