The Negative Impact of EPA Regulations

4/18/2011 | Scott P

[ScottP]

The Environmental Protection Agency is known throughout corporate culture for it’s over the top and expensive regulations towards big business. The EPA’s continuing need for control over gas emissions has ended up limiting job growth and crippling revenues. Business and revenue has eventually suffered from these regulations, citing the EPA’s initiatives, such as the Clean Air Act and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The American Coke and Chemicals Institute (ACCCI) believes that under the draconian rule of the EPA our Nation’s businesses may fall behind the international competition, stating:

“In recent months, EPA has undertaken an unprecedented regulatory agenda by promulgating or proposing a host of rules in the areas of air, water, solid waste, greenhouse gases, and toxic chemicals … in a nutshell, these new regulations will create permitting obstacles to expand and modernize our facilities and will impose significant additional costs that are difficult recoup in the face of intense international competition.”

With an increased number of regulations from the EPA, where exactly are the direct benefits. How are these large policies geared towards business effecting individuals? With a number of communities being plagued by environmentally caused diseases such as mesothelioma, you have to wonder why the EPA doesn’t directly address such issues. Today, many individuals are just discovering that their homes and offices are insulated with asbestos. Because the symptoms don’t surface for up to 20 years after exposure, such a discovery can be dire for the families who find asbestos in their home. With mesothelioma life expectancy being no longer than 14 months at most, many American citizens are dealing with illness while the EPA continues to take aim at gas emissions; ultimately stifling the revenue of major businesses.

Cutting the EPA’s budget down is of major importance if the country wants to see increased employment, better business revenue, and a better handle on the deficit. Obama proposed a 2012 budget cut of $1.6 billion dollars to the EPA, yet the cut is only intended to reduce projects involving public water contamination. With only this type of cut, the EPA’s cap and trade agenda will continue to oversee regulations aimed at limiting businesses and industry. Sure we all want a good environment, clean air, and healthy public water, but it’s hard to find the direct results that are coming from some of these initiatives.

Even with the move to improve our environment, these EPA regulations do too much in cutting down industry and blocking the chances for job growth. Hopefully in the near future we can find a middle ground where we’re not forced to levy out regulations in order to protect the environment.