Being a Republican, and having opposing views as my parents I have a lot to talk about regarding environmental policy. I do not believe the federal government should be heavily involved in any aspect of a citizen’s life, including environmental issues. I think policy toward the environment should be market based, that is how can we raise real GDP and experience economic growth. Ultimately the goal in American society is to lower taxes; this is done by reductions in government spending.
With that being said, there are exceptions to the rule of less government regulation. Likewise with other aspects of government regulation, congress needs to be able to quickly step in and implement policy in time of environmental crisis. To do this, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970. Its duties are to protect human health and the environment, by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.
Because of the high saliency of environmental issues at the time, the Clean Air Act was passed immediately after the formation of the EPA. This legislation was targeted at reducing the high amount of air pollution and smog in the country. This government regulation has helped enhance human health and promote longer life spans.
While this Clean Air act was necessary, it has been reflected positively by the American society. I would like to argue that this legislation decreased corporate profits and has also led to outsourcing. This in turn, has led to the decrease of American jobs. This occurs because companies have to spend more to prevent breaking pollution laws, and unfortunately, has led many firms to manufacture overseas to cut production costs.
Another example of good government regulation was the passing of The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974. “It was established to protect the quality of drinking water in the U.S. This law focuses on all waters actually or potentially designed for drinking use, whether from above ground or underground sources.” The law set up a minimum standard for the condition of tap water and requires all owners and operators of public water to abide by these set standards. If the government never established this law, the market would not have taken care of the drinking water problem that was prevalent prior to the passing of the act. This is why it IS important for the federal government to step in and protect the American people.
We are a capitalist society. We need to let the market and big business run its course by the use of market based instruments (MBI’s) regarding environmental law. I believe we need to use price or other “economic variables” to provide incentives for polluters to reduce harmful emissions. This means that MBI’s seek to address negative environmental externalities by adding an external cost to production through taxes or charges on pollution heavy goods or services. This gives incentives to firms to pollute less to avoid higher taxes.
I will be the first to admit that MBI’s are not the number one way to protect the environment because it does not place any real restrictions on the use of the environment. It gives incentives for firms to pollute less by imposing taxes on negative externalities. A firm’s goal is to maximize profit and through that process, they will pollute less if they have to pay the government for their waste. This is the best solution to environmental problems because it satisfies the needs of two parties. The first party being the environmentalists because it gives incentives to pollute less, and the second party being the economy because it provides an atmosphere for economic growth and a rise in the living standard.
This approach is different from others regarding environmental policy. Voluntary action is where environmental issues are handled solely if an individual wants to do so. (Actors voluntarily agree to take action). On the other side of the spectrum is regulatory instruments which are “legal, enforceable, command and control type instruments aimed at reaching desired, prescribed environmental quality targets or performance standards by regulating the behavior of individuals and/or firms” (Seik,1996).
I think my attachment to market based incentives fits closely to my Republican political ideology. My thinking will always be on how government can control less, and how the people can take care of their own interests. I think that MBI’s offer a middle ground where the federal government can offer incentives to not pollute, and lets the firms and the market run their course without intervention. As stated previously, exceptions to the lack of government intervention are needed in times of crisis. At this time it is the government’s duty to step in and protect the American people.
No comments:
Post a Comment