Christie Todd Whitman: Attacks on EPA are shortsighted

Posted on  

"Christie Todd Whitman: Attacks on EPA are shortsighted"

The debate over the future of the Environmental Protection Agency is one of those debates where an ideological agenda, disguised as budget cutting, will result in a short-term political statement at a long-term cost in dollars and health.

That’s from an op-ed in The Hill by Republican Christie Todd Whitman.  She was Bush’s EPA administrator from 2001-2003 — until VP Cheney drove her out by his “insistence on easing air pollution controls” (see here).

Don’t read the comments on her piece without a head vise.  My favorite begins, “Our water and air are much cleaner now than when the EPA was founded “¦ and yet they continue to foist more and more onerous regulations on our largest employers….”   Darn you EPA for continuing to pursue your successful yet unknown efforts to clean up the air and water for our children (see “AEI scholar celebrates the success of the Clean Air Act’s acid rain cap-and-trade program “” without acknowledging its existence“).

Here’s more from the piece:

President Nixon created the EPA in recognition that Americans’ health and environment would continue to deteriorate if pollution was not curtailed. American people asked the federal government to address this area, where states and businesses had not or would not act. Concurrently, Congress worked across the aisle to pass the Clean Air Act 73-0 in the Senate and 374-1 in the House and our economy has thrived.Because of EPA regulation of a variety of areas, including automobiles and industry, the air is cleaner in America. Compared to 1970, we have three times more cars on the road, and yet we have a fraction of the pollution. Air is not the only beneficiary of EPA action “” waterways have been cleaned, providing recreational and drinking water around the country. In 1970 Lake Erie was written off completely; it now supports a multi-million dollar fishing industry.

It is this kind of long-term thinking that our Congress needs to foster. Yes, environmental protection costs money. But let us not forget that the EPA was started because people were being hospitalized in record numbers during bad air days and rivers were spontaneously combusting due to contaminants. If economic success is our goal, we must remember that the cost of remediation is far more than prevention, to say nothing of the value of human lives saved.

Despite the achievements that have been made since EPA was established, we are far from free of the environmental challenges facing our country and we are learning about new ones every day. Asthma is currently at epidemic levels in this country “” it is the single largest cause of missed school days. We know asthma is, at the very least, exacerbated by particulate matter in the air, and it is incumbent upon us as a nation to address this problem, quite literally, for the health of our children….

I have seen firsthand that many businesses act in accordance with the law and even go beyond what the law requires in terms of minimizing the environmental effects of their products and services. Unfortunately there are others that knowingly game the system, costing all Americans. I would hope even the most ardent local government advocates among us recognize the role of the federal government in regulating pollutants that respect no geo-political boundaries.There are certainly aspects of the agency that could and should be improved. Congress’s original organization of the EPA does not recognize the environmental and climate diversity throughout our country. One size often does not fit all, and the agency needs to be able to be more flexible, and include the carrot in addition to the stick when it comes to regulating the business community. Cost-benefit analysis is important as we learn more about what is in our water and air and yet don’t fully understand the impacts.

Most importantly, Congress needs to consider the long-term cost of short-term decisions. Eliminating the EPA, or vastly curtailing its ability to regulate pollutants as science develops and identifies more threats to our health, may save a few dollars now, but the long-term cost to our society can be great….

Hear!  Hear!

« »

2 Responses to Christie Todd Whitman: Attacks on EPA are shortsighted

  1. mattlant says:

    OMG.

    You sure were right about the head vise warning regarding the comments. It would actually be quite a comedy if this wasnt such a serious issue.

  2. BillD says:

    In my view, environmental regulations are also founded on important moral authority. I think that citizens have a right to reasonably clean air and clean water and that current and future generations have a right to natural environments and that our society has an obligation to avoid causing species extinction. I am willing to pay higher costs and higher taxes inorder to have clean air when I take walks and bike rides. We cannot eliminate all pollution, but we should limit pollution to levels that do not cause serious health problems.