Once upon a time the good ol' USA set standards for the rest of the world to live up to ... now our companies are forced to change their behavior in order to live up to the standards of the rest of the world. All of us ought to be embarassed that our position in the world has slipped so dramatically
on our watch, and resolved to do something about it.
Exerpts from the L.A. Times today:
Years ago, when rivers oozed poisons, eagle chicks were dying from DDT in their eggs and aerosol sprays were eating a hole in the Earth's ozone layer, the United States was the world's trailblazer when it came to regulating toxic substances. Regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats controlled the White House, the United States was the acknowledged global pioneer of tough new laws that aimed to safeguard the public from chemicals considered risky. Today, the United States is no longer the vanguard ... Europe is setting environmental standards for international commerce, forcing changes in how industries around the world make plastic, electronics, toys, cosmetics and furniture.
Continued below the fold ...
Lengthy reviews of chemicals, which now dominate U.S. policy, began to evolve under President Reagan and grew in the 1990s. Carl Cranor, an environmental philosophy professor at UC Riverside, said that a conservative groundswell in American politics and a backlash by industries set off "an ideological sea change."
A pivotal year for the EPA was 1991, when a federal appeals court nullified its ban on asbestos. The court ruled that the agency, despite 10 years of research, had failed to prove that asbestos posed an unreasonable risk and had not proved that the public would be inadequately protected by steps short of a ban. Since [1991], the EPA has not banned or restricted any existing industrial chemical under the toxics law, except in a few instances where manufacturers acted voluntarily.
It's fascinating to see Bush's allies argue that other nations have any right to any role in Europe's internal policies, when we so vehemently reject the right of any other nation to even comment on ours:
"There is a protectionist element to this, but it goes beyond Europe trying to protect its own industries or even the health of its public," said Mike Walls, managing director at the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, the nation's largest exporter. "It's a drive to force everyone to conform to their standards -- standards that the rest of the world hasn't weighed in on."
And to hear the right-wing seem to argue that action should NOT be taken as long as "reasonable people disagree":
"John Graham, an economist and senior official of Bush's Office of Management and Budget, which reviews new regulations, has called the notion of a universal precautionary principle "a mythical concept, kind of like a unicorn. Reasonable people can disagree about what is precautionary and what is dangerous," he said at a 2002 conference.
The tired old right-wing argument about regulatory policies is that regulation costs jobs, and I expect we'll be hearing that canard quite frequently as this becomes a bigger issue ... we need to be prepared for that fight, and need to marshall our evidence that this is not the case.
Government regulations often DO affect profits, but by and large they do NOT impact jobs -- since any corporation will have as many employees as required to produce the product or service the corporation sells, and for too many corporations not a single employee more. The argument that "regulations will reduce employment" implies that the corporation has more employees than it "needs", and if forced to increase compliance costs will respond by reducing employment costs... but what (large) corporation in our universe willingly employs more workers than it needs to?!?
I know there are many economists and environmentalists (and even a few environmental economists) here at dailykos ... perhaps this diary can be used to document some of the most compelling evidence that government regulations improve "quality of life" issues and do NOT (necessarily) harm employment?
Have at it!