Predicting Our Environmental Future
The 1970s were the glory days for disco and environmental legislation. More than 70% of all of the current federal statutes were passed during that decade. The passage of new laws has slowed down since then, but if a business is to be successful, it needs to at least attempt to predict the environmental future. I thought it might be interesting to speculate on what the politicians are likely to do over the next four years.
Let me start by setting out the Democratic line. Democrats believe that everyone has an obligation to be a good steward of the land and pass it on to our children in at least as good a shape as it was received; that no environmental risk is acceptable; that expense should not be a consideration; that we have done so much damage to the environment that it is now a question of survival; and that anyone who does not believe that we should do whatever it takes to protect the environment is un-American. As in all things political, there are varying degrees of conviction on these points, but you get the idea. It’s a belief that the environment must be protected at all costs (literally). It is a compelling argument.
Now, the Republicans. Republicans believe that the environment must be protected but that it is one, of many, issues to be addressed; that funds are limited and that tough choices must be made to address health, education and defense considerations; that it isn’t unreasonable to require some sort of scientific support before throwing billions of dollars at a perceived problem; and that those who refuse to consider the whole picture are un-American. It is a firm belief that given limited dollars, it is appropriate and necessary to weigh the costs against the benefits when considering environmental regulation. It, too, is a compelling argument.
What does this mean to businesses? It means that when you have a Republican Congress or legislature, environmental regulation is going to have a lot of phrases like “risk-based-corrective-action,” “cost/benefit analysis,” and “scientific validation.” There will be relatively few criminal actions and new environmental regulation will be slow. With a Democratic Congress or legislature, you’ll hear about “no acceptable risk,” “compliance at any cost,” and “stewards of the land.” Watch for increased criminal prosecution and a lot more newspaper headlines about pending legislation.
Both political parties have well staked out positions. For the past eight years, however, environmental regulations and enforcement, when discussed at all, has been about “balancing” and “risk analysis.” For the foreseeable future the rhetoric, and there will be a lot of it, is going to be about “protecting our children’s health” and “strong environmental leadership.” I don’t think business is really prepared for the change that’s coming on both the federal and state levels with regard to environmental enforcement. Like it or not, it’s probably going to look a lot like the 70s (but with better music).
.jpg)
Since 1996, Superfund has not really been a “fund.” From 1980 to 1996, the Superfund program levied taxes on petroleum and chemical companies and on corporate profits for its operational costs, but Congress failed to reauthorize it in 1995, and by 2003 the fund was fundless. It looks like that’s going to change.
I was recently asked why it is that the federal government has had such a love affair with environmental regulation over the past 40 or 50 years. I think I know the answer -- deception. 
