Outcry against tighter US ozone stds by TX energy & chemical companies highlights structural obstacles of overhauling the environment in the US
While reading this coverage by the NY Times about how certain powerful Texan constituencies are objecting to Obama’s tightening of the US’ ozone standard, I was struck by a few lines in the article which point to the challenges of overhauling the US’ environmental regime. Are these obstacles insurmountable as long as pork barrel democracy rules the day?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/science/earth/03smog.html?src=twt&twt=nytimesbusiness
ENVIRONMENTAL NAYSAYERS INSIST THAT THE CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN AIR POLLUTION AND HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS IS SPECULATIVE (EVOKING THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENTS OF TOBACCO CONTROL OPPONENTS WHO INSISTED THAT THERE WAS NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT SMOKING CAUSES LUNG CANCER.)
“The members of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, appointed by [Texas Governor] Perry, have made it plain they will fight the stricter standards… Michael Honeycutt, the director of toxicology for the Texas commission, questioned the evidence that a higher level of ozone is linked to more hospital admissions for lung problems.”
CONSUMPTION SACRIFICE IS, BY DEFINITION, FOR THESE VESTED INTERESTS, NOT AN OPTION. THE NOTION OF LESS DRIVING, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY INTOLERABLE A PRIORI TO THE AVERAGE AMERICAN. (AMERICANS PAY TAXES AND AGREE TO REFRAIN FROM ALL SORTS OF SELFISH BEHAVIOR INIMICAL TO CIVIL SOCIETY, SO THIS INSISTENCE ON THE GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO POLLUTE IS QUITE ABSURD. IT’S SIMILAR TO INSISTING ON THE UNQUALIFIED RIGHT TO PEE OR DUMP GARBAGE IN THE NEIGHBOR’S SWIMMING POOL.)
“Mr. Honeycutt also declared that no ruling would fly in Texas if it required people to drive less or change their daily habits…’Programs that require lifestyle changes are unacceptable to the public,’ he said.
RETAINING JOBS IS WORTH THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION: ONE HAS TO WONDER, IS THIS TENDENCY TO PROTECT JOBS AT ANY COST THE FAULT OF THE POLITICIAN OR THE CONSEQUENCE OF A SYSTEM WHICH IS BASED ON PANDERING TO CONSTITUENCIES? THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF FLAWED DEMOCRACY SEEMS STRUCTURALLY INCAPABLE OF INDUCING SHORT-TERM SACRIFIC FOR VALUABLE PUBLIC GOODS, SUCH AS THE ENVIRONMENT.
“Gov. Rick Perry, a conservative Republican, has been generally unwilling to crack down on polluters if it means sacrificing jobs.”
Do any of these observations actually apply to Hong Kong? Science and jobs are not really in question in Hong Kong. Rather, sacrifice is. It is the Government’s perception that the consumer is resolutely opposed to bearing ANY of the burden of clean-up. But numerous polls have shown that the public IS willing to shoulder some of the cost, provided all stakeholders share in the sacrifice. The Hong Kong public (and, indeed, business) is actually much less selfish than customarily assumed by the Government. If the Government communicated more and better with the community, it would learn that, in fact, the interests of all stakeholders are actually pointing in the same direction — that environmentalists and big business are NOT locked into a zero-sum game. Unfortunately, the Government is still using arguments similar to those adduced by toadies of the Texan oil & gas industry.
