Is the purpose of the EPA to subsidize business?

in #environment6 years ago

conclusion-of-the-contract-3100563__480.jpg

Most supporters of the Environmental Protection Agency assume it exists to, well, protect the US environment. But there's an argument to be made that environmental protection isn't the agency's purpose at all.

In fact, evidence shows us that the purpose of the federal government since its founding has primarily been to protect business. The very first act of Congress in 1789 was a tariff (the same stupid thing Trump does). This tariff favored American ships by charging them lower cargo fees (6 cents per ton) than foreign ships (50 cents per ton. Not only that, but coastal trade was limited by this Tariff Act of 1789 only to American ships.

That was the very first action taken by the US government: to protect US business. And it's been going on ever since.

Fast forward to January 2017. A website called EZGovOpps (one of many companies capitalizing on the government's habit of taking money from us to give to groveling corporations) writes the following OpEd: “Cutting the EPA would hurt small government contractors.” Because that's actually what the EPA does: it doesn't protect anything. It awards money to government contractors, just like most other government agencies do.

ezgov.PNG

EZGovOpps was trying to appeal to the Trump administration by using the argument that eliminating EPA funds would hurt small business: “A cut to the EPA’s funding would disproportionally affect these many small businesses. Though each individual business is small, the full economic effect is enormous: small businesses are awaiting future payments totaling over $2 billion from the EPA.”

Just two years earlier, one of the agency's top contractors, Missouri-based Environmental Restoration LLC, was doing contract clean-up for the EPA when 3 million gallons of toxic mining waste spilled, polluting Colorado’s Animas River with lead, arsenic, and cadmium.

Now, it's not a bad thing that a company has gone into the business of toxic cleanup. The problem arises in when the government then involves itself in that very same industry. When determining the cause of the spill, it was unclear whether negligence had occurred on the part of the company or on the part of the EPA, itself. In fact, Kate Zimmerman, the public lands policy director at the National Wildlife Foundation, placed the blame squarely on the EPA rather than its contractor.

Regardless of which entity was ultimately at fault, the EPA has paid Environmental Restoration hundreds of millions of dollars over the last several years. The business of the agency is to distribute funds, first and foremost. For what and in what manner is secondary.

The EPA, like any other government agency, is all about funneling money to friendly, well-connected corporations and EZGovOpps' argument is that industry “buckets” have developed under these EPA faucets. If that funding is cut, those industries risk collapse. That's because the EPA supports corporations, not the environment.

And with Trump in office, the EPA just as much a swamp as its ever been. Samantha Dravis, the EPA’s senior counsel until she resigned last April, met with close to 100 corporate representatives in 2017. Emails made public from a Sierra Club lawsuit show that Dravis had only one scheduled meeting with a representative of an environmental or public health organization during the same time period.

Which brings us to the crux of the regulator-as-savior problem: many of us think that regulating agencies are there to penalize corporations that fail to comply with their various regulations. The truth is, only some are penalized. Government regulations are put in place by embedded corporations (sometimes the laws defining these regulations are written by these corporations) that stand to benefit from the penalties their competitors are then forced to pay.

Here's the takeaway: these regulations aren't worded to protect the environment, but rather to create loopholes with which to punish non-government-connected companies that are competitors of government-connected companies.

And how many paid EPA contractors actually do work out in the physical environment “saving” it? Last year, the agency hired a consulting firm to help with the agency's “media affairs.” It supports several security guard, janitorial, and food service contractors, not to mention funding study after study. But how much of these billions of dollars the agency spends actually end up improving air and water quality? And how much of these expenditures actually offset environmental protection?

And, of course, now the EPA is being run by Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist. And we continue to look to the government to save our environment... why?



Governments aren't eco-friendly.

follow @eco-friendly on Steemit
for more information


Sort:  

Excellent writing. I'm glad to see new and smaller accounts prof\ducing great content. 100% upvoted and resteemed.

@save-elephants @kedjom-keku @forestfriendly @treeplanter are all doing great work on the STEEM blockchain when it comes to the environment. Check them out and also take a look at https://fundition.io

Happy Steeming!

“Cutting the EPA would hurt small government contractors.”

This is true, these are not subsidies though, these are contracts for services, the EPA doesn't really do things themselves, the EPA does not have and should not have the people and equipment to clean up this or that, having all that shit and all those government workers would cost way more than the government hiring contractors through a competitive bidding process.

The business of every agency is to distribute funds, first and foremost. For what and in what manner is secondary.

All bureaucrats have the same job, to spend their entire budget every year and to ask for more, the only way they fail in their job is if they get level funding or save money. Of course this leads to unsustainable growth of bureaucracy, I learned this in a Public Administration class on the first day. The only other person I have ever seen accurately describe this problem is Donald Trump.

Indeed many regulations serve different purposes, they provide things like safety and at the same time they are protectionist. Say that someone wants to be in the business of handling dangerous chemicals, so they will have to follow certain regulations, perhaps they need to buy gas masks for their employees. Well then not just anyone can be in that business, competition is limited to those companies who can buy gas masks for their employees and comply with all the regulations. So regulations do limit competition but also provide various benefits. What we need to do is identify regulations that don't serve any other purpose besides protecting entrenched businesses.

A lot of what the EPA does is not cleaning things up, mostly they sue corporations who have polluted. And they get sued a lot.

Many of the environmental statutes that govern EPA actions contain provisions that allow citizens to sue EPA when EPA fails to perform an act or duty required by the statute.

To the question in your title, my Magic 8-Ball says:

It is decidedly so

Hi! I'm a bot, and this answer was posted automatically. Check this post out for more information.

Uncomplicated article. I learned a lot of new things. I signed up and voted. I will be glad to mutual subscription))))

Congratulations @eco-friendly! You have completed the following achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Award for the number of upvotes

Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor.
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

To support your work, I also upvoted your post!

Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
SteemitBoard and the Veterans on Steemit - The First Community Badge.

Do you like SteemitBoard's project? Then Vote for its witness and get one more award!

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.26
TRX 0.20
JST 0.038
BTC 95614.30
ETH 3599.83
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.79