Adam Snyder's Environmental Economics

Environmental Economics

Just Another though about the EPA

Leave a comment

In class on Monday we discussed the Foundations of the EPA, as well as the policies and the potential problems that seem to consistently occur with the EPA. For this blog I will be primarily discussing the common reoccurring problem of biases with the EPA and a potential solution.

During lecture, as a class, we learned about the process of Environmental Regulation and what seemed to most obvious is that with any step that in this process there seems to be room for corruption. For example, the EPA simply cannot afford to do research on the topic of environmental health, so in order to supplement this information, they might go to an independent firm who will do the research for them. If an independent firm does environmental research for the EPA, then there are ways that information can be biased. When biases occur they seemingly lead us away from potential solutions, but rather into debates of the legitimacy of claims.

Also Political influence plays a huge role the the EPA’s policies in the sense that certain politicians will latch onto a side of the polarized environmental debate simply because they can get funding from that specific side, this will most certainly lead to biases because those are the people who will decide to shut down the EPA or keep it running.

The list of these biases continues on, and one reoccurring reason why this happens, is money. If the EPA had enough money to execute power in an independent, non-biased way, then the pursuit of a clean environment would be in our reach.

So how can we get them money? As sarcastic as it sounds, why not just give them more? I mean our country is in incredible debt and continues to rollover that debt by paying off principle and interest with more loans, while at the same time does not affect any Americans consumption (or at least below a livable level of consumption). So theoretically, we can afford it because it only would add a fraction of the overall debt to the deficit and it wouldn’t affect us. The only difference is that the change in policy would eventually pay off because it is an investment in our future, (i.e. breathing easier, no flood repair costs). So, why not give the EPA as much as they want? Or any other program for that matter.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s