Sorry, It Costs Too Much To Be Green
America’s businesses have faced many challenges as they have tried to reduce the environmental harm they have caused. Near the top of the list of challenges is cost. The rules and regulations to get “greener” are often set by the US government, which nearly always require some investment to abide by them. The latest move by industries to dodge compliance is to say it is so expensive that many companies can either lower polluting practices or halt corporate expansion. The implied threat is that jobs and local economies will be hurt.
In a letter to White House Chief of Staff Jeffrey D. Zients, several industry associations, primarily in the agriculture business, mining, and oil exploration and production, wrote: “The undersigned associations urge you to ensure the Environmental Protection Agency maintains existing National Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particulate matter.” New standards being considered by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs would expand the geographic areas currently covered. This, in turn, would cost money. This is something, the associations say, their members do not have
Jobs are at risk, the associations wrote. Companies that would find it “difficult to obtain permits for new factories, facilities, and infrastructure to power economic growth.” In other words, new restrictions would mean companies would need to change how they do business, which, according to their analysis, would be far too expensive.
What motivated the associations to write the White House? According to The New York Times:
“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is about to announce new regulations governing soot — the particles that trucks, farms, factories, wildfires, power plants and dusty roads generate.”
The battle between regulation and industry has gone on for decades. In theory, this battle favors the government and benefits the environment. In practice, even though the view is unfavorable outside the industries that do most of the polluting, investment in compliance with regulations is not free. In other words, the money has to come from somewhere. Does this hurt corporate earnings and the ability of companies to employ current staff or expand? More than anything else, money is at the heart of this debate. Who is telling the truth, and who isn’t?
