What’s up with the EPA’s Poor Agenda?

Public Choice | Behavioral Economics

---

The Ruling

West Virginia won a battle against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), over the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon emissions. The 6-3 supreme court decision on West Virginia v. EPA ruled that the agency overstepped its authority with rules to cut powerplants’ pollution.

Read more about the ruling here!

Many people, especially climate change activists, are upset with the ruling and states similar to WV that are fighting back against environmental regulations. But an introspective look at the EPA and themselves they would clearly see why states and people are fighting back against these regulations.

The Pushback

The first assumption that can be made is that we all want a cleaner environment. Although this might not be true for everyone, it is safe to say that a vast majority of people would prefer a cleaner environment over a polluted one, keeping everything else constant. So then why the pushback against the EPA’s regulations?

Well, it is because the more regulations you put on these companies the more you mess with people’s businesses, their own jobs, families and friends’ jobs, and people’s lives. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, West Virginia is the second-largest coal-producing state in the country. They produce 12.6% of all coal in the country. This means a larger portion of WV GDP is from coal production than in other states.

Once you start telling WV that they need to cut back on their coal-producing pollution, this is essentially saying they need to cut back on coal production. Cutting back coal production means cutting back workers. Cutting back workers increases unemployment. Unemployment for workers who might only have knowledge or expertise in the coal mining industry.

Losing your Job

More people will eventually lose their job working at the coal industry the more the EPA regulates their field. That means friends, family, and neighbors all could potential lose their job because of the EPA.

Maybe now that your neighbor lost their job they have to move because they can’t afford their house. Now you no longer have a buddy to drink beers and watch football with on Sunday. You specifically didn’t lose your job, but your life was still affected. All because of the EPA’s regulations. These regulations affect tens or hundreds of thousands of people, directly and indirectly. That’s why there is pushback because people are self-interested and when you mess with their life they don’t like it.

West Virginia has the duty to protect its citizens. They are doing this in the Supreme Court case against the EPA. So don’t be upset that there is pushback against the EPA and their policies when the people and the state are just trying to protect their livelihood.

EPA’s Agenda

The EPA made a statement about the Supreme Court ruling and stated that “As a public health agency, EPA’s number one responsibility is to protect people’s health, especially those who are on the front lines of environmental pollution. Make no mistake: we will never waver from that responsibility”.

Read the full statement here!

Understandably the EPA’s agenda is to protect people and the environment from pollution. But they go about achieving their goals in all the wrong ways. They try to implement coercive laws and regulations on businesses to force them into expensive or impossible goals. And if their laws and regulation aren’t impossible to achieve they typically come with detrimental effects on the economy and people’s wellbeing. This is why the EPA is often met with pushback.

Proper Activism

The EPA either doesn’t understand incentives or chooses not to. I’m not entirely sure which is worse. People want to keep their jobs, and have their family, friends, and neighbors keep theirs as well. People like (although also need) to have a purpose in life. For many that is a job they enjoy, a family to take care of, and friends to create memories with.

So if the EPA wants a cleaner environment, why are they trying to uproot everyone’s lives in the process?

Instead of coercively regulating companies which leads to unemployment and other economic disasters. The EPA should be incentivizing companies and states to switch to renewable resources.

For example, the EPA could go to coal-producing companies and say the more you cut back on coal production the more money we will give you to build wind farms, solar panels, and nuclear power plants. Or even give them subsidies for just producing less pollution. To the people, say if you quit your job in the coal mining industry we will give you free training in renewable resource production and a job that pays more than your current one.

This year the EPA has $35 billion in budgetary resources according to USAspending. That is more than enough money to start proposing states and businesses with incentives.

Notice how the people and businesses would be less inclined to fight back. The people will still have a job, possibly a higher paying job. The businesses still stay in business because they are switching their product. And the EPA gets what they want, less pollution, a cleaner environment, and protect the people.

Coercion is always met with a fight, incentives are met with a choice.