About the Authors

William Anderson is an associate professor of economics at Frostburg State University. He blogs at Krugman-in-Wonderland. ... See All Posts by This Author

epa
William L. Anderson

Is the EPA Necessary?

Hint: It's a government bureaucracy.

A repeated myth is that government intervention comes only after private markets have clearly failed and the bureaucracy must step in to stop the abuse. For example, we hear that Congress created the Food and Drug Administration in 1906 because conditions in American meatpacking plants had become progressively dangerous as corporate bosses put “profits ahead of people.”

So it is with the Environmental Protection Agency, created by Congress and President Richard Nixon in 1970. In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson painted the same gloomy picture that is given for creation of any federal agency: American life had become too intolerable without it. She writes:

Last month’s elections were not a vote for dirtier air or more pollution in our water. No one was sent to Congress with a mandate to increase health threats to our children or return us to the era before the EPA’s existence when, for example, nearly every meal in America contained elements of pesticides linked to nerve damage, cancer and sometimes death. In Los Angeles, smog-thick air was a daily fact of life, while in New York 21,000 tons of toxic waste awaited discovery beneath the small community of Love Canal. Six months before the EPA’s creation, flames erupted from pollution coating the surface of Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River, nearly reaching high enough to destroy two rail bridges.

Coverage of the Cuyahoga River fire featured a Time Magazine photo from a 1952 fire on the river with claims it was taken during the June 1969 fire. However, as Stacie Thomas pointed out in this article, the real fire was brief, no photos were taken, and damage to the bridges was minimal.

Furthermore, notes law professor Jonathan H. Adler, the “pollution-was-progressively-becoming-worse” scenario Jackson paints is not true:

Contrary to common perceptions, many measures of environmental quality were already improving prior to the advent of federal environmental laws. The Environmental Protection Agency’s first national water quality inventory, conducted in 1973, found that there had been substantial improvement in water quality in major waterways during the decade before adoption of the federal Clean Water Act, at least for the pollutants of greatest concern at the time, organic waste and bacteria.

Unfortunately, Jackson is not satisfied with rewriting environmental history. She also commits the venerable broken-window fallacy, failing to account for what did not happen because of government intervention. She writes:

We have seen GDP grow by 207% since 1970, and America remains the proud home of storied companies that continue to create opportunities. Instead of cutting productivity, we’ve cut pollution while the number of American cars, buildings and power plants has increased. Alleged “job-killing” regulations have, according to the Commerce Department, sparked a homegrown environmental protection industry that employs more than 1.5 million Americans.

She’s also guilty of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Moreover, Jackson confuses jobs with the creation of real wealth. For example, many of the new “green jobs” are created via government subsidies, which means that the government is cannibalizing profitable entities to prop up those firms that are unprofitable. Far from creating wealth, this activity is economically destructive.

One wonders how much economic growth would have taken place had the EPA not existed. Obviously, that is a calculation no one is able to perform, but I suspect that some readers of this site who have had to deal with EPA bureaucrats can tell a few horror tales.

My only contact with the EPA came more than 30 years ago when I was a news reporter covering a story about a fertilizer plant’s discharges into Chickamauga Lake. Although Tennessee state water-quality authorities were willing to work with the firm, given there was no immediate health or aquatic hazards, the EPA was utterly rigid and the plant was shuttered. It was the bureaucratic mind at work.

Jackson wants us to believe that without the EPA we’d all be dead. I doubt that seriously, but I don’t doubt that EPA is a destructive enterprise killer. While Jackson calls for “common-sense solutions,” I submit that common sense tells us to do away with the agency.

There Are 9 Responses So Far. »

  1. [...] http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/not-so-fast/is-the-epa-necessary/?fbc_channel=1#%7B%22id%22%... [...]

  2. http://Www.eliber.fanu.tz

  3. The EPA has probably hurt the alternative fuel industry more than any other group. NPR (Yes, that NPR) did a story last spring about a fellow who developed solar panels that could help produce electricity for cities. The EPA wanted him to do expensive and senseless carbon emissions studies which, of course, stifled his progress.

  4. Without the EPA, the only thing that would die is the government’s grasp on individual and private property rights. I’m all for getting rid of it, but the government will never let anything that powerful go.

  5. EPA’s like many government agencies – you don’t want them to go so overboard that they make stupid decisions that hamstring businesses like the one mentioned by Dennis, but you do want them to step in when it’s time to protect the public. Cyanide by-products from metal finishers? No thanks, I’ll pass.

  6. The EPA should be closed for the reason that it is unconstitutional. The federal government does not have the authority to regulate intra-state activities. Now if the super majority wish to create a federal agency with such powers, they should have to go through the amendment process.

    Pollution is a problem but it is best addressed as a property rights issue rather than an inherently corrupt and politicized regulatory regime.

  7. Bill, having worked with/against EPA on behalf of both other government agencies (local and federal) and especially private business for 30 years now, I can tell you it has only gotten worse. Not only is the EPA unconstitutional as Tim points out, it has created far more problems and stifled far more solutions to environmental problems than Margaret probably can imagine. Billions in projects have been killed by EPA for bureaucratic sakes, and EPA interference makes environmentally sound industrial and other operations much more expensive and difficult to do, because of that bureaucracy. Every good thing that EPA has done could have been done by private, voluntary organizations, or at worse, local and a very few state agencies. Instead, state agencies are little EPAs and so many are fearful of having their hands smashed by EPA if they do something wrong, that they cannot make rational decisions. EPA’s continuing lies show it must go.

  8. Doing away with the EPA could not come too soon, as Ms. Jackson’s gestapo is hard at work attempting to do Obama’s deed of destroying America’s prosperity. A better solution, after dismantling the EPA, would be to expand private property rights.

  9. I am just wondering, would it not be better to only make the EPA as well as the FDA advisory ONLY as opposed to eliminating it/them? (Please understand, at this point, I am for performing either one)

Post a Response

  • © Copyright 2011 Freeman - Ideas on Liberty. All rights reserved.

    77 queries. 2.576 seconds