Jobs have, understandably, been the primary focus of politics in America for the past few years, but at what cost? Are there instances where, with our economic blinders on, we forget about the other important roles of government beyond job creation? I am very tired of hearing each side of the political spectrum accuse the other of promoting "job-killing" legislation; in particular, the Republican attack has been relentless. In fact, nearly every policy President Obama or Democratic legislators have proposed has been labeled "job-killing," if not socialist and atheist as well. I'd like to argue that the loss of some jobs is worth it, and may be even necessary to our survival in some instances.
Let's take the EPA as an example, which has become a favorite punching bag of politicians as an example of broken government. The EPA is billed as "anti-business," a "job-killer," and as a classic example of bloated national government, without taking into account the necessary purpose of the agency. The most obvious argument for the continued existence of the EPA is the mounting climate change crisis. It is unfortunate that the most obvious argument for the EPA can be derided by some as environmentalism (as if that is a dirty word), or liberal tree-hugging. Protecting the environment is not some selfless act, undertaken simply because one loves those verdant greens; rather it is an act of self-preservation. When the environment deteriorates, where the hell else are we supposed to live? It is not as though the decimation of forestland and ecosystems solely affects vegetation, we are also intimately connected to our surrounding ecosystems. For a capitalist society with a fetish for self-interest, environmentalism should be a no-brainer. Perhaps we should turn our creative energy (which is vast, and mostly wasted) to a collective goal: a real, tangible, and broad response to global climate change. Doing so would serve both collective and individual interests, and, if done properly, could create, rather than destroy, jobs. More on that later, back to the climate change for now. It is absolutely stunning to me that we can still have so many climate change deniers, who vehemently proclaim that man has no part to play in the warming process, or, conversely, that we are absolutely powerless to stop it. The evidence in support of man's effect on the global climate is staggering, while skeptics provide evidence that is insubstantial, irrelevent, or outright false. For a list of climate change deniers' claims and the scientific rebute, visit http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Apart from the selfish arguments for environmentalism as self-preservation, we have a moral obligation to lead the charge against man's decimation of Earth's natural resources. Small island nations are literally faced with a ticking time bomb, because rising ocean levels threaten their very existence. For example, the Maldives, a collection of low-lying islands in the Indian ocean, is in immenent threat of being swallowed by the sea. As CO2 emissions accelerate the melting of Arctic ice, which is melting at an exponential rate, ocean levels are predicted to rise. This would have disasterous effects globally, not only in the major coastal metropolises (think London, New York, LA, and countless others), but also for millions of people in less-developed areas. Many south-east Asian countries and island nations would be particularly devestated by a rise in ocean level, not to mention the well-documented correlation between climate change and natural disasters like hurricanes and tsunamis. As the world's leading country in CO2 emissions per capita, and with the second-highest gross CO2 emissions, it is incumbent upon us in the developed world to make great strides in reducing our carbon output. I am not suggesting that the EPA alone can accomplish this goal, rather that the EPA is an important piece of the puzzle that cannot be discarded in the name of economic exigency.
What I'm proposing is a lot more regulation and a carbon tax, which I see as the only viable measure to bring down carbon emissions in a meaningful way. I'm fully aware that this is the exact opposite of what business leaders and many politicians will fight for - I'm also not worried about the next election cycle and can entertain more honest and objective solutions. We have seen, time and time again, that self-regulation does not work in private businesses. The profit motive trumps all, especially when regulation would fly directly in the face of that profit motive. Therefore, I propose expansion of the EPA to make it into a meaningful regulatory body, with real punitive force if violations are uncovered. Currently, energy companies dominate the political landscape, and have cemented the claim that "regulations kill jobs," despite all evidence to the contrary: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/14/367539/american-electric-power-ceo-epa-regulations-will-create-new-jobs/. What they really mean is that regulations will stop the reckless and dangerous exploitation of land and natural resources taking place every day across the country. A more powerful regulatory body would create jobs in both the private and public sectors, by opening new positions in the EPA as more inspectors are needed and more research is being conducted, as well as in industries that are striving to meet the new standards. Mike Morris, the CEO of American Electric Power, put it bluntly: "We have to hire plumbers, electricians, painters, folks who do that kind of work when you retrofit a plant. Jobs are created in the process - no question about that." Furthermore, a carbon tax would redirect dollars from wealthy executive pockets toward the kind of work we can all agree on: funding police and other emergency services, providing for education, and paying for health care and social security. To say that a 1% tax on carbon emissions is not worth the additional education or public safety dollars is a moral failing, in my opinion. It represents the worst evils of the capitalist system, like blind pursuit of profit, and a wilful neglect of consequence.
Even if environmental regulations did kill jobs, they are still worth it. The food we eat, the air we breath, and the water we drink should all be central concerns to all Americans (and no, the solution is not to buy bottled water. Apart from the wasted plastic, it's more likely that chemicals leaching into the water from the plastic will harm you than drinking filtered water.) If one person dies from water poisoning that could have been prevented by stronger regulations, how many jobs is that worth? If I proposed regulation that could save ten lives, yet cost hundreds of jobs, is it worth it? In the current political climate, the answer is tragically no. We so blindly pursue job growth that we forget the real human costs of capitalist ventures. Time and time again companies act against the health concerns of residents, one need only look at the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf, hydraulic fracking in the Appalachians, drilling in native lands in Alaska, or countless other instances where energy companies act against the interests of inhabitants. And no, BP's nifty little Gulf coast tourism campaign does not make up for their past failures. The EPA was tragically ill-equipped to deal with that disaster due to its lack of well-trained regulators. Sounds like a good place to create some new jobs to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment