A guest post:
There’s been recent action to drastically reduce the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budget. This movement is sparking debate about defining a proper policy and funding balance involving three factors: the importance of the possible health risks of too lax a policy; the reduced gas prices, higher business earnings, and private sector hiring stimulus effects that could accompany reduced regulation; and the agency revenue requirements of too extensive a regulatory effort.
A third of the EPA’s 2010 budget could be cut.
This could lead to a strong reduction on some of the EPA’s major in-house initiatives such as the Clean Air Act, as well as overseeing many energy practices. EPA staff anticipates heightened health risks as a result of budgeting compromise, while supporters of the budget cuts are looking for increased employment and lower gas prices.
There’s been recent action to drastically reduce the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budget. This movement is sparking debate about defining a proper policy and funding balance involving three factors: the importance of the possible health risks of too lax a policy; the reduced gas prices, higher business earnings, and private sector hiring stimulus effects that could accompany reduced regulation; and the agency revenue requirements of too extensive a regulatory effort.
A third of the EPA’s 2010 budget could be cut.
This could lead to a strong reduction on some of the EPA’s major in-house initiatives such as the Clean Air Act, as well as overseeing many energy practices. EPA staff anticipates heightened health risks as a result of budgeting compromise, while supporters of the budget cuts are looking for increased employment and lower gas prices.
One of the major reasons for the budget cuts involve increased controversy over whether EPA regulations are costing businesses large amounts of revenue. Many business leaders are highly outspoken in claiming over-regulation costs them too much. A major issue many business owners have with the EPA involves the scope of its ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from plants, factories, and refineries.
With more freedom over the amount of emissions by these businesses, owners would likely see an increase in revenue, as well as more jobs within these individual profiting companies. Supporters of the cuts question whether these emissions are involved in polluting the environment at all. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who is a large skeptic of global warming, introduced the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, which would prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse emissions. Inhofe went on to claim that "This bill puts Congress in charge of deciding our nation's climate change policy, not EPA bureaucrats."
While gas prices may decline and private sector employment may increase as a result of budget cuts, the EPA’s outlook on the possible health risks aren’t to be taken lightly. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson anticipates major health risks resulting from budget cuts, saying "the standards that EPA is set to establish for harmful air pollutants from smokestacks and tailpipes would remain missing."
If the budget were to be cut by a third and the EPA lost its full amount of resources, the risk of increased air pollution could certainly be at stake. Pollution and air quality remain two of the main focuses for the EPA at this time. An increase in bad air quality and more pollution could accompany an upswing in health dangers like mesothelioma, respiratory problems, asthma and other health problems. Lives could also be at risk. For example, mesothelioma life expectancy averages around a year following initial diagnosis.
Any proposed budget cuts should have an ultimate goal of bringing net benefits to the citizens. After studying the background, benefits and stance of each side of the budget cut arguments, it’s definitely an issue that has checks and balances. While reduced gas prices and employment are certainly matters of major importance in this country right now, the possible long term health risks of these budget cuts should also be carefully evaluated.
____________________________
The foregoing was a guest post highlighting the uncertainty and pressures at play when balancing policy-making between a regulatory prerogative toward risk aversion, and complaints of industrialists of facing too much red tape. Budget control rests with Congress, and is one way to shift the balance between regulators and those regulated. Whatever your opinions of the Obama administration, the Whitehouse realizes that process streamlining and paperwork reduction is a goal, with the President expressing broad policy thinking while OMB is the major administration voice over nuts-and-bolts budget detail.
Without suggesting where policy lines might optimally be drawn, Nick Scott wrote the above guest editorial, highlighting the situation.
Nick is a health, safety, and political advocate with a passion for environmental conservation. Nick recently finished his undergraduate studies at the University of South Florida with a degree in English. He is an aspiring writer and one day hopes to be a journalist.
Nick Scott can be reached at: nscott.qa@gmail.com
_________________
One of the major difficulties we face is how resilient our world is, and what we should be doing to it. There is debate and scientific uncertainty over how fragile or robust the eco-system is to the disruption at present levels of human activity. We are in excess of historical population and resource use levels, within a finite world, with exhaustible natural resources but with renewable and recycling options. Wise resource usage rates and wise population control are hot button issues with those wanting to exploit resources in ways yielding great short term wealth and comfort rather than to conserve; and those not wanting to acknowledge that the population bomb continues ticking and needs to be faced. Those ongoing issues go well beyond the present fiscal and immediate regulatory policy debate that Nick Scott's post had as a focus. Yet they are always with us.