In theory, sure, a disinterested regulator would ensure that the cost of polluting was higher than the cost of not polluting. (Another solution to this problem is via property right enforcement, by the owners of the nearby polluted properties that share airspace/water table with the polluter).
But in practice the EPA is hardly a disinterested party when it comes to publishing studies on its own cost effectiveness. It exists to increase its budget and scope, just like all other agencies, but has no check on its behavior. Its officials are not elected, cannot be fired, and are effectively invisible to the public. Moreover, opposition to EPA malfeasance/corruption is often caricatured as opposition to clean air and clean water itself.
As an example of regulatory pathology, consider that the EPA is giving grants and instruction manuals to NGOs, telling them how to sue the agency into expanding its powers.
The EPA even tacitly encourages such suits, going so
far as to pay for and promote a "Citizen's Guide" that,
among other things, explains how to sue the agency
under "citizen suit" provisions in environmental laws.
The guide's author — the Environmental Law Institute —
has received $9.9 million in EPA grants over the past
decade.
And, to top it off, critics say the EPA often ends up
paying the groups' legal fees under the Equal Access to
Justice Act.
What's going on? "The EPA isn't harmed by these suits,"
said Jeffrey Holmstead, who was an EPA official during
the Bush administration. "Often the suits involve things
the EPA wants to do anyway. By inviting a lawsuit and
then signing a consent decree, the agency gets legal
cover from political heat."
Most people have never read an expose on the EPA; they think of them as the "good guys" who protect us from the evil polluters. What's funny is that we can see through this kind of logic when the normal police invoke it to justify any action in the pursuit of common criminals, but not when the environmental police do so -- and the EPA is most certainly a branch of the police, with the power to raid, fine, and seize property.
It's to deal with the actions that have a good cost/benefit ratio for everyone, citizens and companies. If something dramatically puts companies (the offenders) at a disadvantage they will fight against that with anything they have. Hence the EPA is more like a pebble under a steamroller fueled by billions of dollars obtained by not actually caring what the EPA or people want. It's hard to move an opponent who has more money and power (of every kind) than you.
It seems to me that the EPA has been totally captured by corporate interests. It's hard to listen to stories about decisions they've made, for example approving Atrazine[0] despite the protests of the scientific advisors, and have any confidence that they'll actually make a meaningful impact.
The EPA is largely useless. Businesses, driven by consumer demand and public reputation, have incentives to adopt environmentally friendly practices. Moreover, the legal system can handle disputes and damages related to environmental harm, thus making a specialized agency like the EPA redundant.
Regulators selected and overseen by elected officials aren't a foolproof solution either. Sometimes you end up with Scott Pruitt [1] running the EPA, whose objectives are apparently a) denying that climate change exists, and b) dismantling any environmental protections that businesses find inconvenient.
The self-appointed lawyer regulators at least have an incentive to do their jobs: they get a bunch of money.
The EPA's a good example, I think, because it's the big businesses that continually lobby against it. Where are the big industrial players that sit back and laugh at how pollution restrictions are benefiting them?
Because it seems like the big businesses always complain about the EPA as an emblem of government overreach, even though getting rid of it would be good for them and bad for everyone else, especially the people in the community suffering from the pollution!
And your answer is, "let them (all the people suffering from the effects of the pollution) all file lawsuits in state/local courts"?
If that wasn't working out before we had an EPA, why would it start working out now? And how would it be better/more efficient/an improvement to move from a condition of "pollution is limited" to "pollution is limited, but only after people file and win lawsuits"?
I mean, I'm really trying to see how we'd be better off if you took away the EPA, but wanted to keep pollution restrictions in place by this other, far more elaborate and far less accessible means. Hey, if really you just don't want pollution restrictions at all, then let's talk about that, let's ask, would we be better off without pollution restrictions?
Trying to say "no, the EPA is bad, but what they do is good and let's get to the same place through a complicated and lengthy process of local lawsuits"? Again, that don't make sense.
The US is an (unevenly distributed) hellscape for anyone dependent on government regulation for basic quality of life. Regulators are wholly captured for most industries. Air quality, e.g., is not actually enforced by EPA, if the offender is a big and old chemical factory, particularly if people being gassed might be black.
They don't even need to bribe inspectors; the agency itself just rolls over on its own.
The EPA is heavily subject to the whims of the President, lobbyists, and corrupt Supreme Court judges. The EPA is not an independent agency even if they're supposed to be. Moreover, the EPA have already failed to protect the people.
Have you technical geniuses figured out that lawyers can write restrictions in a way that sounds reasonable (to get them to pass) and then go on to enforce policy in quite a different way, much later ? Is it not obvious that 'environmental protection' costs money and may prevent some company from making more money ? The US EPA is a number-one target for decades, for these reasons. Many US lawyers are paid very, very well to represent the interests of their commercial employers, which likely does not include any consideration of actual long-term harm.
The executive, and specifically the DoJ, has significant discretion to abstain from trying court cases. But regulatory agencies are a different matter. More importantly, in this context it would seem the EPA would be affirmativelyapproving projects without following the legally required process. I'm not sure what kind of discretion regulatory agencies have in completely abstaining from undertaking some action, but AFAIU they definitely don't enjoy much discretion to simply ignore the rules once they take that first step; not unless there's other legislation that gives them an escape hatch.
The world's biggest polluters don't care. Studies can't compel them to do anything. Regulations can, but many countries don't have many because they are desperate for the business or are corrupt. Even the US is sluggish when it comes to regulations- since Reagan, the very concept has been demonized to the point of barely existing. There are politicians who call the EPA evil. Literally.
So don't tell me about this. Preach it at Davos or the G whatever number this year summit. or a place like Epstein's island where the movers and shakers party. Those are the assholes who need to change. Sadly, only they can save this planet, and they are way busy focusing on making more and more billions they may not even live to spend.
They do, they just need to make laws that EPA can enforce. Not let EPA to act on its own. Isn't everyone always talking about unelected burecrauts going against the will of the people?
The EPA is arguably subject to both regulatory capture and legislative/judicial boundaries that limit the scope of its mission. This is not to say your source article isn't valuable, but that it probably can't tell the whole story.
I think you're vastly overestimating the budget the EPA is given and mistaking the goals that that money is meant to accomplish. Making some vendors that give politicians money look bad isn't a desired outcome.
Very little has actually come out of that '07 case though. There were the Paris Climate Accords but those and the clean energy plan designed to actually achieve them were immediately ripped up so as much as they're legally required to there's not actually much being done at the EPA that isn't rolling back regulations.
I see some comments noting that the EPA needs "serious trimming" and "some serious cleaning" and is an agency that needs to "focus on its core mission" (the implication being that the EPA is currently NOT focusing on it's core mission).
I spent about half a decade working in the solid waste/wastewater residuals industry (2008-2014) where the EPA plays a significant oversight role on facility operations. Further, the EPA plays a significant role on new facility development and design (my focus).
I found that the EPA staff I worked with were almost invariably helpful, well informed about the potential environmental impacts of our proposed activities, and adept at navigating the variety of systems/approvals required to comply with EPA regulations borne from laws passed by our representative government.
I was not always happy with the requirements imposed, but this was almost always because of a difference between the EPA and myself concerning risk assessment - and I can't blame the EPA for being less risk tolerant concerning environmental damage, that's their job.
More recently I have had a wonderful experience with the EPA's hazardous materials program which provides guidance and some funding for the identification and remediation of hazardous materials in old buildings. In the case of buried petroleum tanks, common here in New England, they even assist monetarily to get these environmental hazards removed when discovered (many have been abandoned for decades, unmarked). This program is invaluable for small, old communities who have the legacy of poor environmental decisions made during our industrial revolution literally built into their environment (lead, PCBs, asbestos, etc.).
If you have had direct contact with the EPA and it's gone poorly - share your story. But generalized mudslinging at EPA staff seems mean spirited and likely the product of several decades of media narratives aimed at destabilizing our country's already limited focus on environmental protection.
But in practice the EPA is hardly a disinterested party when it comes to publishing studies on its own cost effectiveness. It exists to increase its budget and scope, just like all other agencies, but has no check on its behavior. Its officials are not elected, cannot be fired, and are effectively invisible to the public. Moreover, opposition to EPA malfeasance/corruption is often caricatured as opposition to clean air and clean water itself.
As an example of regulatory pathology, consider that the EPA is giving grants and instruction manuals to NGOs, telling them how to sue the agency into expanding its powers.
m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/epa-funds-greens-sue-221700941.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us
Most people have never read an expose on the EPA; they think of them as the "good guys" who protect us from the evil polluters. What's funny is that we can see through this kind of logic when the normal police invoke it to justify any action in the pursuit of common criminals, but not when the environmental police do so -- and the EPA is most certainly a branch of the police, with the power to raid, fine, and seize property.reply