Obama cited one of his executive orders from earlier this year that requires environmental regulations to be "based on the best available science". This was an attempt to discredit the EPA's scientific rationale for trying to impose stricter ozone regulations, but claiming that research conducted over the last five years is somehow inadequate or outdated is preposterous, and he should be ashamed for disguising his political weakness as a call for academic integrity. Propping up hack science in the public sphere has been a right-wing tactic for as long as I've been paying attention to politics - from family planning, to environmental policy to marriage equality. Barack Obama, welcome to the Tea Party.
Perhaps President Obama knows something the public does not, and the toxic industrial emissions that contributed to thousands and thousands of premature deaths just five short years ago - not to mention innumerable respiratory, cardiovascular and childhood development problems - has reconsidered its position on being harmful. How thoughtful!
Taking that into consideration, I guess this 1999 report is now outdated and irrelevant, as well, the one that says "Ozone [which the EPA's recent proposals were aimed at reducing], when it occurs at ground level, presents a serious air quality problem in many parts of the United States. When inhaled—even at very low levels—ozone can cause a number of respiratory health effects". That's great news! Because back in 1999, ozone was proven to have adverse effects on young people, old people, people with asthma and other respiratory diseases, adults who spend a significant amount of time outdoors and some completely random healthy people. Since that includes almost everyone on the planet, I guess all we can do is thank God that smog 12 years later is no longer dangerous. Let's try not to breathe a collective sigh of relief, though, just...well...it might still be kind of risky.
Obama even tried to argue that the new regulations would further impede businesses trying to crawl out of the recession, and that it would discourage employment growth. For a second, I thought Christine O'Donnell or some other Tea Party magician had put a mind control spell on poor old Barack:
I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover. With that in mind, and after careful consideration, I have requested that Administrator Jackson withdraw the draft Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards at this time.
At its core, the notion that environmental regulations hinder economic growth is bullshit. In the United States, there is almost zero empirical evidence that suggests environmental regulations reduce the international competitiveness of our domestically-manufactured goods [1]. As for economic growth and jobs creation, common sense should tell us that stricter regulations spur innovation. Requiring manufacturers to invest in cleaner technologies further diversifies the economy, creating MORE JOBS in a sector that has previously been all but ignored in the US. Opposing environmental regulations and supporting the theory of free market economics are not the same thing. On the contrary, it demonstrates a clear lack of faith in the strength and sustainability of the American economy.
Alas, if common sense fails us, we can turn to Paul Krugman for a cogent explanation:
And now you can see why tighter ozone regulation would actually have created jobs: it would have forced firms to spend on upgrading or replacing equipment, helping to boost demand. Yes, it would have cost money — but that’s the point! And with corporations sitting on lots of idle cash, the money spent would not, to any significant extent, come at the expense of other investment.
The federal government has a responsibility to implement legislation that protects our nation's business interests, but its responsibility to protect the physical health and well-being of American citizens supersedes it. A government that knowingly and willingly sacrifices the safety of its constituency for the sake of big businesses is demonstrative of a political system that has failed.
Obama seems less and less environmentally conscious every day. He has been dishearteningly quiet on energy and environmental issues since he was elected (which is even more dangerous in a country where the government allows public schools to ignore climate change in the science curriculum), his response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was lackluster, and he has allowed "conservatives" to chip away at the EPA's authority. He also seems increasingly incapable of fending off Republican/Tea Party attacks, and regardless of their absurdity and childishness, the attacks seem to be working.
It's important to have passionate people in Washington, and I think Barack Obama really is trying to do great things. But, if a leader is incapacitated because he's let a terrormongering fringe of the Republican Party paint him as weak and ineffectual, then he is, in fact, weak and ineffectual.
If you can't do your job, it doesn't matter how good of a person you are. You need to get out and let somebody in who can stand up to the idiots.
-----------------------------------------
[1] Jaffe, Adam B., Steven R. Peterson, Paul R. Portney, Robert N. Stavins. "Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?" Economics of the Environment, Selected Readings (Fifth Edition), ed. Robert N. Stavins. Norton: New York, 2005.
No comments:
Post a Comment