Political Two Cents: On Toxicity Regulation and its Role in Society/Government…On the Concept of Regulation Itself

On Toxicity Regulation and its Role in Society/Government…On the Concept of Regulation Itself

The growing argument, usually presented by the Republicans, about the EPA abolishing American jobs, needs an alternate examination.

We hear the claim that EPA's regulatory stranglehold on businesses diminishes jobs.  We also hear the counter-claim that the EPA is keeping us healthy from pollutants and saving us money in the long run because the health of the nation is not as toxic.  I offer a few more viewpoints not often mentioned.

What part of a business is harmed by regulation?

We know that many businesses work globally.  Some elements of multi-national businesses usually come from abroad: a raw material is made elsewhere, the labor is done elsewhere, the customer service is done abroad, etc.  When the EPA regulates a businesses' toxicity, it is not necessarily regulating things manufactured or serviced in the US (Lead paint on toys for example).  Therefore, the jobs that we might be killing are not necessarily here in the US.  

There are some cases where the EPA does enforce regulations on things manufactured in the US.  But one must analyze whether the things being regulated are automated, mechanized systems that do not have people working in it.  The EPA usually regulates pollutants from machines.  Most machines are automated.  Therefore, there is a large probability that the EPA regulates machines and not the people who might be working in the business.  One can argue that there are people controlling those machines and they might lose their job through regulations.  That claim is still possible.  If the company cannot find an efficient and cost effective way to control those systems that the EPA regulates, then the company may relocate elsewhere or close, laying-off workers.

Can the process of regulation be outsourced?

The EPA is a national regulatory agency.  Its purpose is to regulate toxicity in the US.  Therefore, the workers and machinery used to regulate and control toxicity are being used and operated in the US.  It is highly unlikely that Indian workers, for example, are regulating toxicity in Oklahoma City.  The jobs that the EPA manufactures seem to be definitely local, US jobs.  The EPA argues that it is a job creator, and to this extent, it is.  Anything that requires regulation or controls can only be done locally.  The engineers or managers that companies hire to keep the regulations and controls in line can only be placed and hired in the US.

The question, then, is not a question of who kills what jobs.  The question is whether the regulations and controls can be implemented efficiently and cost effectively and whether or not the government and the companies can work together to make it so.  It should not be an "us vs. them" battle, but rather a co-operation.

We understand that regulation enforcement is a benefit to society.  We understand that regulation may be an expensive element that some businesses may not handle.  We also understand that regulations and controls are fully localized, enabling jobs both in the companies that are being regulated and in the government that is doing the regulating.  The question is whether or not we can unify—government and businesses—to address the problem of toxicity, efficiency, and cost effectiveness.

My suggestion is simple: 1) Let the EPA enforce and regulate toxicity, creating jobs and keeping us safer; and if the companies being regulated demonstrate that they cannot handle the extra costs and complications in order to stay afloat, 2) provide government assistance to those companies which will create and retain existing jobs and keep us safer.  This can be done by a variety of ways including: research and development, sharing technological advances and systems to help the controls of toxicity, etc.

We should make the EPA part of the infrastructure planning and development. 

Some say that the responsibility of government is to provide the atmosphere where businesses can thrive.  We build roads, pipes, electrical grids, etc., to allow commerce to flourish.  Without piping, for example, most of the waste would be tossed haphazardly in the ground, causing a wide range of toxicity.  Without roads, we would be harming our soil and land.  Without electrical grids, business would find other ways to produce energy, most likely, through toxic means.  Many of our infrastructure works are done so that our commerce and industry work better and healthier.  When EPA enforces regulations, it should be doing so as a directive for infrastructure development and not as a punishment for businesses.

As infrastructure, the people can provide support to companies who need to keep toxicity under control.  This benefits our land, it creates jobs, stimulates the economy and keeps businesses in the US, it keeps toxicity under control and ultimately continues to let entrepreneurs and businesses strive at what they know how to do: produce novel products effectively and efficiently here in the US.

----------------------------------------------------------

The Wrench and the Rabbit Hole

Aside from my 2 cents of making the EPA part of infrastructure, I would be interested in examining how the tools that the EPA uses are manufactured and where they are manufactured. 

For example, the EPA regulates air pollution.  Where are the devices they use to regulate air pollution manufactured?  Are those industries in the US and thereby EPA regulated?  It is an interesting wrench and rabbit hole to explore. 

It would be rather hypocritical to discover that the tools we use to regulate toxicity are themselves produced toxically.  It would also be absurd to discover that the tools we use to regulate toxicity are produced abroad—creating jobs elsewhere.

One can argue that we should regulate the regulation tools and methods to make sure that they are not toxic and that they are made in the USA.  If that is the case, we need to make sure that the tools and methods of the regulators that regulate the regulators need to be toxic and made in the USA.  The rabbit hole looks deep and infinite at this point, “wrenching” the whole project.

The greater question, philosophically speaking is: What does it mean to regulate?  Can anything really be regulated?  What are the limitations of regulation—supervision?  At what point does trustworthiness simply become blind and foundational.  Is regulation a delusional act?

While we investigate and attempt to solve the role of regulations in our nation, we also need to examine how it is that we place trust on other entities to supervise or oversee.  Why is it that I can trust the EPA to protect me from harm, and not the businesses?  What credentials does the EPA have that makes them worthy of my trust.  How do I trust that the EPA’s effort is sufficient or adequate?  Do I know the supervisor—the observer who is examining the contaminates?  Does he or she have the same values of health that I have?  At what point do I just leave it up to blind faith and hope that a random entity is sufficiently prepared to keep me safe?  How does that ability in us work?

Your thoughts?