The mythology of deregulation
Over my couple decades of work in environment and energy policy a consistent theme has emerged from those opposed to clean energy. Repeatedly and relentlessly they push a deregulatory agenda that relieves business of the burdensome regulations relating to the environment. It doesnt seem to matter whats been the policy for the previous years, its always the same less regulation is better. But better for whom? Its obviously not better for the humans and wildlife affected by pollution of air or water or loss of habitat, but thats the considered trade-off we must make, right?
This seems to be the traditional way of looking at any kind of environmental regulation, from emissions in our air or water to clean energy. We calculate the business costs of regulation and (hopefully) balance them against the benefits to human health and welfare to figure out if its worth doing. Environmentalists have gotten used to fighting the pitched battles to get externalities such as asthma rates, sick days, property losses from sea level rise or wildfires recognized in the cost-benefit analysis. But my years working in clean energy have shown me that theres a whole group of beneficiaries that get short shrift in the public debate about regulation the solution providers.
Established industry moguls have been incredibly successful in propagating the myth of the job-killing regulation. Fundamentally, this myth relies on a general misunderstanding of some basic facts about our economy.
First, the laws of supply and demand and competitive markets arent suspended just because society demands industries stop imposing costs on the rest of us as they produce products for our consumption. Restrictions on ozone-depleting aerosols and acid rain-producing smog from power plants were predicted to be doom for their industries, but the products continued to be useful so industry quickly found technological solutions that were cheaper and more effective than expected.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/425998-the-mythology-of-deregulation
SWBTATTReg
(22,222 posts)good energy policies. We need this since it seems to be so lopsided towards the favor of businesses (who seem to forgot that their consumers suffer at their shortcomings in applying good energy policies and safe environmental protections).
It takes courage to stand up to the numerous claims that things are job killing, etc. and it's funny that they never clarified how many jobs would be 'killed'. Probably because in most cases it's not true.
Perrenial Voter
(173 posts)usually the regulations that are designed by big companies within an industry to make it hard for smaller competitors. There are a lot of these in the agricultural sector that require infrastructure and procedures that are really only needed on mega-farms and are unaffordable for small farmers.
But most regulation is just getting companies to take some responsibility for the mess they leave in their wake. And I think there is a pretty strong argument to have them in order to make the free-market work in such a way that sleaziest companies with the worst practices down rise to the top and destroy the better coroporate citizens.
3Hotdogs
(12,467 posts)What regulations should be withdrawn?
To solve what problems, were those regulations implemented?
They never get to even the first question.... "Well, there's just too many regulations." They don't know of any specific regulations... just that there's too many.
SharonAnn
(13,781 posts)They are not negative. So, eliminating regulations means eliminating protections. Allowing "them" to ruin things and kill us.
It's like removing all laws. Making us all residents in a "free fire zone".