The End of the Environmental Era?

Go read this article: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100503/parenti.

The EPA represents one of the better examples of federal oversight and regulation over a matter of interstate commerce. The federal legislation that creates the EPA permits states, if they so elect, to create their own state-wide environmental protection agencies, and to regulate environmental concerns in their jurisdiction, so long as they standards are equal to or exceed the regulations of the federal EPA. Consequently, the EPA simply sets up benchmarks for state agencies to follow, investigate polluters that may pollute in two states or more, and enforce the laws in areas where a state EPA may decline to do so, or where a state EPA does not exist.

Sounds pretty simple to me. It's a good example of the federal government using its power in a limited fashion. It could have simply regulated every state; instead, the legislation respects the ability of the state to police activities within its own jurisdiction. Imagine if the SEC, the DOC, and the ATF worked in a similar fashion.

Instead, the Democrats (with Republican support) are proposing bills that would consolidate more power into the federal EPA, and strip the ability to regulate greenhouse emission gases from many sources from the state EPAs. If that isn't outrageous enough, the proposal to have all 100% of licenses in the new cap-and-trade system auctioned off has been reduced to only 15%, and the new Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill may reduce that amount to 0%. The licenses not auctioned off will merely be given away.

I have argued at length with many folks about how the cap-and-trade bill is an utter failure. I've heard many arguments as to its strength: (1) that it will provide revenue to the federal government to enforce laws; (2) that it will allow the market to determine the right to pollute, and provide a hard cap that cannot be exceeded; (3) that it will encourage private industry to innovate and create more environmentally-friendly technology in order to avoid the fine of polluting beyond one's limit.

All of it is bullshit.

(1) The federal government does not to the lion's share of regulating its own EPA's regulations. That would fall to the state EPAs. There's no provision in the legislation provided which forces the federal government to give money raised to the state EPAs.

(2) The market encourages monopolistic behavior, and it will happen again. Larger companies will outbid smaller companies for the right to pollute. Smaller companies will face fines to continue business, and will likely shut down. The larger companies win; the larger companies continue to pollute.

(3) Setting up tighter regulations and enforcement will also force companies to innovate and develop environmentally-friendly technology. The reason why it has not happened as of late is because the EPAs have been collectively stripped of resources. It's hard to enforce the laws when you do not have the money to conduct a proper investigation.

Much like what happened in the lending industry, the environmental protections that were fought for by environmentalists and conservationists before the new generation of politicians are being stripped away. The cap-and-trade system is a monopolistic system that will do far more damage to the environment than it will save. It is a ridiculous premise to believe that private industry will magically make carbon-emission problems a memory when they have consistently taken an adversarial position against past environmental measures. In my opinion, anyone who honestly believes that a cap-and-trade system will work is either unbelievably naive or willfully ignorant.

The federal government should enforce the laws they already have. Make the corporations pay for destroying our environment. Shut them down if they cannot comply with regulations that can be met easily. Stop listening to their bitching and whining. The best and brightest companies will emerge ahead of the pack.

That's how capitalism works.