whisper words of wisdom, let it be [until it sucks for us]

I truly hate the people who claim that they oppose all this government regulation, simply because they do not like the idea of the government telling them what to do. That is seriously garbage. Let’s take a step back quickly, shall we. The United States has stacks upon stacks of paper dictating what the American public can and cannot do—laws. For example, every time you get into a car, the government tells you to put your seat belt on and to drive at a speed lower than or equal the denoted limit. Whether you like it or not, the government tells us what to do for most things in our day to day life.

The government absolutely has the right to regulate business in order to protect the citizens of the US from a contaminated environment. I’m somewhat hesitant to offer the government all this power as there are many tools the Federal government can use—interpretation wise—to expand their regulatory privileges. After all, that is all they are. We [the American people] want clean air, water, food, etc…and the big businesses are the major factors that could jeopardize our ideal desires. We trust the government as a neutral party, to keep us safe and reasonably keep businesses from infringing on our desires. How should they do it, in order that they are most successful and we are satisfied with the results on our well-being?

If we are truly seeking to “fix” the environment and preserve mother earth for the longest possible time, government regulation proves to be the most successful. My father—a very pro-business man—has reminded me on a number of occasions of importance of rarely reacting. This is because, as he would justify, you should be able to plan ahead and anticipate. In other words, fix the problems before they happen. This is exactly what regulation and legislation of businesses must transform into. Regulation translates seamlessly into environmental policy. By telling businesses what they can and cannot do, the government can mandate exactly how they want they want the environment to be affected—positively or negatively.

Regulation as a way to influence protection of the environment is predominately so successful because of the instituter's ability to promote market growth, without putting profit above the environmental goal. A plethora of economic benefits can stem from regulation that are not necessarily results of Market-based-instruments.MBI's

For example, if the government tells a firm that a certain business that its practice is no longer acceptable, that firm will be forced to change its ways to continue to profit. California mandated in the 90’s that by 2003 at least 10% of their vehicles produced and sold must be zero emission vehicles (Carter). This forced the influx of new technology research especially in the electric auto industry market. Furthermore the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) passed in 1976 allows the EPA to monitor industrial chemicals used or imported. It also gives the EPA the authority to ban any chemical from use or import that is found to pose significant risk to public health. SOURCE

The TSCA had tremendous effects on many industries. I would like to bring up metal working. There are certain chemicals and bases needed to produce a desired strength and quality of steel. One such chemical was banned under the TSCA and thusly made metal working a nuisance. However, new chemicals were discovered and healthier metals were constructed (SOURCE).(SOURCE)

In a sense then, the difference between Government regulations of businesses to protect the environment achieves a similar goal as Market Based Instruments—where the government offers incentives to businesses to self-regulate and protect the environment willingly. The ways and means differ slightly, but the end ought to be consistent. The Government regulations tend to produce results faster, so long as the goals are realistic. No one can mess with the government. They will strong arm that firm and, if they wanted to, end its life completely. (Despite being highly unlikely, the Government could easily take over a company if they chose to do so and simply buy them out—GM DUH!).

I think the biggest problem with regulation or starting the “healing process” of the environment is that no one will allow the solution to begin. It has become a hugely politicized issue and it makes it extremely to accomplish anything if no one will begin to talk about it.




This must sound flat ridiculous coming from the guy who just posted about little government intervention and letting a market dictate a country’s success. However, since that last post, the extremity of the problem with our environment has come to light. We really do need a solution to this problem. I am willing to suspend big business and its profits as soon as it begins to infringe on the health of the greater human population using the environment as its weapon. I’m not really sure how this is all working out from a third-person perspective, but in my head it makes complete sense to let a business function independent of the government until they screw up and damage us more than we benefit. Then that business is a profiting off of our losses. That’s not chill.