GOP backed deregulation takes aim at environmental protection

According to some estimates, as early as 1.9 million years ago hominids may have had the ability to use fire, allowing them to cook food and stay warm while releasing carbon contained within the woods and grasses they burned. Today, the U.S. alone releases over 5.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the environment annually, almost one-fifth of the global output. Now the Senate is poised for a debate on two bills that seek to halt federal oversight of such emissions.

S.231, proposed by Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), calls for a two-year moratorium on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s regulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. In a more extreme measure, the Upton-Inhofe bill (S.482) would reverse the EPA's scientific findings on the effects of greenhouse gases and stop emissions controls under the Clean Air Act, including regulation of CO₂ emissions from factories, refineries, and utilities. Both measures exclude the deregulation of tailpipe emissions, but nonetheless threaten to further neuter the agency in the face of significant budget cuts.

The EPA only began enforcing such controls in 2009, after the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA has the authority to regulate CO₂ and other greenhouse gases on the basis of its findings that such emissions are detrimental, furthermore finding that the EPA is mandated to do so in order to protect the health and welfare of the public. The Upton-Inhofe bill would discredit and throw out the agency's findings.

Proponents of the bill believe that industrial compliance with regulations is negatively effecting economic performance. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) likens the federal cap and trade program to a national energy tax, while Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) warns that regulatory measures further increase already substantial gas prices. Undoubtably businesses and, by extension, consumers will incur the costs of securing emissions allowances, costs of operating more cleanly to meet standards, and penalties levied by the EPA for over-polluting. Some of these costs were addressed in legislation proposed last year that would have provided businesses with monetary incentives to get cleaner, and consumers with compensation for associated higher energy costs. These costs can still be mitigated to some degree.

While cap and trade adds production challenges to high-emissions companies, it is not the equivalent of a tax. Only companies exuding CO₂ at levels exceeding their prescribed limits are penalized. Companies operating under their limits can benefit by selling their emissions allowances to companies with more unclean practices.

The industries that experience job losses due to regulatory costs are those with the dirtiest emissions profiles. The development of cleaner energy and manufacturing practices will generate jobs in the creation of infrastructure and the implementation of technologies, shifting employment from dirty to clean means of production.

Despite McConnell's claims, regulations will have only a very slight effect on prices at the pump. The cost of crude oil is responsible for up to 70 percent of consumer gas prices, and crude oil prices are set based on demand on the global market, not domestic policy. The other 30 percent is divided up between taxes, refining, and marketing costs, and only a fraction of that is due to the increased cost of compliance.

The most troublesome aspect of the proposed S.482 is the staggering climate denial exhibited by congress. 97-98 percent of climate scientists are convinced that human generated climate change is already occuring, while only 18 percent of Americans believe that the effects of global warming will never happen. So why is there such a disproportionate amount of skepticism in congress? The bill's support from 44 Senators illustrates the degree of political reticence to allow environmental considerations to in any way impede business interests.

The drastic nature of the Upton-Inhofe bill purposefully serves to temper opposition to the Rockefeller bill, which seems comparativley more acceptable to moderates. The rationale behind a moratorium is that it gives industries time to prepare and equip themselves to better operate under regulation. In all probability, industries would not use the time to better prepare for new emissions standards. They will use the time to do what they always do-maximize profits and lobby their butts off. Then maybe in 2014, Republicans will control a Senate majority or the White House, and emissions regulations will be scrapped altogether.

Not everything can or should be deregulated to pave the way for free enterprise. It is still necessary for government to provide important public services that free markets will not. The private sector has no incentive to take on the costs of providing environmental protection on its own, including carbon emissions controls, as was the case before the environmental movement gave rise to regulation in the 1970s.

The fact is that Americans use a relatively huge amount of energy per capita. At some point we have to accept accountability for our consumption habits and the huge amount of resources we demand. The sooner we do so the better off we'll be in the long run. According to analysis by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the costs of environmental conservation and restoration needed to counteract climate change will only get more expensive as we pass the buck further and further into the future, and our capabilities to do so will diminish as well. The burning Cuyahoga River sparked environmentalism in the late '60s and '70s; in the current climate of apathy, it may take a far greater demonstration of the environment's declining health before the issue is confronted soberly.