Putting environmental protection in perspective
Human beings, just by going about their daily lives, inevitably affect the environment. That's all right so long as harmful pollution is controlled.But many people act as if environmental protection is our only concern. Environmentalists have become a special interest group who insist on unreasonable and costly measures, or ones which infringe on private property rights. We certainly should protect the environment, but we need to take a careful look at the laws we've put in place to see that they are not costing us too much in money or jobs for the benefit we're getting. A strong economy is just as important as a sound environment.
What Should be Done?
Replace government regulations with what works best: the free-market system, which relies on individual responsibility and financial interests to protect the environment. Open more public lands for carefully managed mineral and oil production, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Require government to study the economic impact of proposed environmental regulations. Use incentives, not regulations,t o encourage property owners to preserve land as habitats for rareor endangered species. Re-examine environmental protection laws to eliminate unreasonable regulations. Continue research into global warming and other environmental concerns. Weve got to be sure we understand what's happening before we jump into costly reforms.
Arguments For This Approach
The goal of environmental regulation should be protection against clear threats to public health, not the reduction of pollution to an absolute minimum. Individual property owners are the best environmental stewards, because they have a keen selfinterest in protecting the value of what they own. When government restricts the use of private land, it is only fair to compensate the owners. You can't eliminate all the risk in life. High-priced environmental efforts often force us to make elaborate attempts to head off remote risks. Environmental regulations often lead to lost jobs and economic devastation for entire communities.
Arguments Against This Approach
This view is dangerously shortsighted.It represents the short-term interests of business, but not the public's long-term need for environmental protection. When it was left unchecked, the free-market system led to all kinds of dangerous environmental practices, such as ocean dumping, clear-cutting of forests and strip mining. Government had to step in precisely because the environment deteriorated under the free market system. Government has the authorityto require property owners to use their land in an environmentally sound way an authority that's been upheld by the U.S. SupremeCourt. Environmental regulations can encourage businesses to be more efficient and less wasteful. In many cases, jobs lost in some industries are made up in others. In seeking scientific certainty before acting, this choice would delay initiatives until it's too late to do anything about global warming.
Tags: 
Comments
Post new comment