Good News Day

Taking a quick break from writing my new book, Liberation Biology, I just had to note the plethora of good news today. I should be back full time next month.

Pollution Down: Toxic chemicals released into the air in the United States are down by 20 percent between 1998 and 2001, according to the latest report of the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation.

Cancer Down: The National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society released a report that finds ?overall observed cancer incidence rates dropped 0.5 percent per year from 1991 to 2001, while death rates from all cancers combined dropped 1.1 percent per year from 1993 to 2001.?

The Kids Are All Right: And the Annie Casey Foundation just issued a study that shows that ?fewer American babies are dying, kids are less likely to live in poverty and fewer youngsters are dropping out of school than in the mid-1990s.? Since 1996, infant mortality fell from 7.3 to 6.8 for every 1,000 live births; teen deaths due to accident, homicide and suicide fell from 60 to 50 per 100,000; and child poverty fell to an all time low of 16 percent in 2000.

Comments

[KentInDC]

It is a pity that WJC didn't have those statistics when he took that victory walk at the 2000 Demo convention. I'm sure he would have taken credit.

[Jim Walsh]

The downside is that the health Nazis will credit government intervention (smoking bans, etc.), so we can expect them to press for more of the same.

[M1EK]

Call me a Health Nazi, because I believe most of these gains are due to regulation. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

[JDM]

"I believe most of these gains are due to regulation."

Prithee, why?

Continue to rage against the dying of the light.

[M1EK]

WRT environmental law, I've always been a believer in the tragedy of the commons - and the only thing that changed since the bad ole days was regulation.

Next: "the biggest polluters in history were the Communists! Therefore, less regulation equals less pollution. In conclusion, we should be allowed to own midgets as pets."

[KentInDC]

M1EK,
How about this one?

People tend to clean up their surroundings as they become more affluent.
As freedom of markets increases, so does affluence.
In conclusion, free markets lead to less pollution.

Tragedy of the commons is in part a result of having commons. Increasing private rights in water could lead to cleaner water with much less regulation than we presently have. Air is a little trickier, but there are still more market-based solutions than one-size-fits-all regulations.

[JDM]

Nothing's changed? Increased wealth, increased health awareness, more free time, welfare reform, fewer children being born to poor families, populations continuing to move into cleaner suburban air, more people living in walkable urban neigborhoods, people eating more sugar, more organic food, better cancer screening, better drugs, increased reliance on alternative treatments, more bottled chlorine (and floride!) -free water, fat people spending more time at the doctor because their feet hurt, resulting in sooner detection...

[Mark Fox]

Well why not simply make a regulation that every citizen shall remain in perfect health for as long each desires?

Who needs the innovations of a competitive market when the state can command heaven on earth?

And finally, since "the children" are justification for so much onerous government activity, is lower infant mortality and reduced teen deaths really good news?

[M1EK]

"People tend to clean up their surroundings" doesn't correlate to "I can get the best bang for my buck through this dirty production process, and there's no economic incentive for me to clean up".

The correlation you're ignoring is that affluent societies all end up regulating their environment as they grow affluent.

[Mo]

JDM,
I've read that bottled, floride-free water is making kids' teeth rot. One of my closest friends is a dentist, so he's thrilled about that. 🙂

[KentInDC]

M1EK,
"The correlation you're ignoring is that affluent societies all end up regulating their environment as they grow affluent."

Maybe we could do a little experiment with property rights and see if that worked - if indeed your statement about "all affluent societies" is correct. There are also an awful lot of less affluent countries regulating their environments. I think it is a product of having a State. The guys in charge are usually looking for something to regulate.

[M1EK]

Name a non-affluent society that has Western-level environmental regulations that are, in fact, actually enforced.

[JDM]

My dentist says that the ADA blames increased adult tooth decay on both bottled water, and the incredible popularity of Altoids. But I blame it on increased regulation, because I'm unable to approach new information with anything other than a closed mind and an axe to grind.

[KentInDC]

M1EK,
Are you saying it takes more than regulations to curb pollution? I thought all one had to do was regulate? Does it also take resources? Could that be the reason many poor countries are heavily polluted despite regulation? That there are more pressing issues like immediate survival? Hmmmm.

Or is your argument that if poor countries only passed and enforced Western-level environmental regulations that they would become affluent?

[WLC]

So it all boils down to: "A cleaner environment came after environmental regulation; therefore, regulation caused a cleaner environment." I went to public skool too, but damn.

[Gary Gunnels]

Cancer rates have likely dropped to decreased use of cancer sticks; this may or may not be attributable to increased sin taxes, government advertising, labels, etc., or to other factors like a more learned population, etc.

[Mo]

JDM:
Altoids? I guess "curiously strong" = corrosive. I've heard soda (even Diet) is nasty on the chompers, that probably doesn't hurt.

As far as environmental regs go, I'm mostly against them, but I don't think they're all bad. Most people don't shit in their own beds, but won't hesitate to shit in someone else's. The rub is finding the balance of protecting the property rights of all involved. The rub is finding that balance.

[jc]

"and the only thing that changed since the bad ole days was regulation."

If we just regulate everyone's life span to 30 years maximum, we'll probably solve everything!

[WLC]

Given that I've seen people hawk used dinnerware with the line "from a non-smoking household!", I'd say the result of "a more learned population" still begs the question. 🙂

[M1EK]

KentInDC:

"Are you saying it takes more than regulations to curb pollution?"

Well, duh. Regulate and enforce.

The elephant in the tent that you wackoes still have to deal with is the fact that every Western nation has displayed a correlation between a cleaner environment and more regulation. This includes nations that didn't regulate much, and didn't show much environmental improvement, despite being affluent.

[Mo]

The dangers of leaving midpost and finishing later.

[M1EK]

WLC:

'So it all boils down to: "A cleaner environment came after environmental regulation; therefore, regulation caused a cleaner environment." I went to public skool too, but damn.'

No. Try again.

A strong correlation exists in affluent nations between the existence of enforced environmental regulations and a clean environment. IE, affluent nations with less regulation tend to have more pollution.

[KentInDC]

M1EK,
Sounds like an interesting study or studies on which you are basing your opinions. Where can I find them? I'd love to leave the wackoes behind and join the enlightened. By the way, I don't discount everything people say when they resort to name-calling. If they have something to back up their claims, I am glad to check it out. I'm sure you also are aware that correlation is not the same as causation. Could it be that, despite a similar level of affluence, people have different priorities that are reflected in their regulations and their actions?

[M1EK]

Kent:

Lose the smarm. I came with the "wackoes" because of insulting comments earlier in the thread which were obviously trolling.

I'm not interested in playing this game with you - if you can't see the evidence with your own eyes (or smell it with your nose) between, for instance, the air quality on a street in a US city (in a country which more heavily regulates diesel engines) and the air quality on a street in a British or an Italian city (where more lax diesel regulations exist), then you're beyond hope.

[KentInDC]

M1EK,
I am not denying that enforced environmental regulations can result in less pollution in areas affected by the regulations. My argument is that there are more efficient, market-based, methods of accomplishing the task. In addition, regulations often miss their mark and have some pretty serious unintended consequences.

As you may be aware, there have been no new refineries built in the US since 1976 largely because of environmental regulations. In 1997-98, I was working near New Orleans to rehabilitate and restart a refinery that had been shut down for years because it had problems with fires and pollution. There is no doubt that a new refinery would have been much cleaner and safer than trying to straighten out that mess (At least I can now say I have been inside a burning refinery - and it wasn't even operating!), but existing plants don't have to meet the same standards.

There are untold old plants and mills still operating because of regulations that make building newer, cleaner plants and mills prohibitively expensive. In addition, the worst polluters simply shift operations to places like China, resulting in greater pollution - just not in your back yard.

Another point: Increased regulation is sometimes a result of big players in an industry asking for them. Browning-Ferris and Waste Management don't have to worry about their business going offshore, but they do have to worry about local competition. Who can deal with increased regulation better? The giant established corporations or new companies - especially if the established companies helped write the regulations? Do you think regulations resulting from such industry pressure result in reduced pollution commensurate with the costs involved?

[M1EK]

Kent:

I agree with the idea that regulations are a blunt, often inefficient tool. Nobody has yet come up with an example of a society which has done better in more than one or two isolated cases, though. For instance: the refinery example you used could have been handled with a smarter regulation.

Are we better off than we would be with no regulations at all? Most readers of this thread would say no. I say that's just insane. Even if you believe there are better market-based solutions out there, they don't get used unless a regulation requires them to (this is not a case where the market will fix itself automatically).

[KentInDC]

M1EK:
It wouldn't take massive regulation to create property rights in now public waterways that would result in more realistic cost/benefit decisions. In addition, my understanding is that trading of emissions rights has been fairly successful.

Smarter regulations? Just gotta get the right people in there, huh? Those regulations have been around a while and plenty of people are aware of them. Many consequences of regulations aren't anticipated by anyone (Who would have guessed that CAFE requirements would lead to Japanese carmakers producing larger cars?) and it's not that easy to get them changed. Everyone has long known that the legislation mandating "water-saving" toilets has been a disaster, but it appears to be carved in stone.

[Kevin Carson]

M1EK,

First of all, the use of the term "commons" as synonymous with "unowned" is inaccurate. Historically, there is a wide range of private collective property. The commons in medieval England were one example of such property. The commons were the joint property of a village, and were subject to the village's customary regulations on how many sheep could be pastured on it per household, how much firewood could be taken, etc.

Second, even stipulating that government regulations have lowered pollution somewhat, that leaves the possibility that the regulations were passed in response to a problem caused by the government in the first place.

In settler societies like America, the typical pattern was for the state to preempt ownership of "vacant" land (the Indians didn't count), restrict homesteading by ordinary people, and then give privileged access to railroads, mining and timber companies, etc. (IOW what Cheney & Co. want to do with ANWAR). Most pollution today is carried out either by the government itself on government land, or by politically connected capitalists who lease access to government land at sweetheart prices and have no rational incentive to take care of it.

More generally, most of the evils of capitalism are caused not by the free market, but by government intervention on behalf of the privileged that enables them to externalize costs on the taxpayer.

[fyodor]

In general I favor taxing or fining (however you want to look at it) incremently based on the specific level of a pollutant that produces concrete harm. Certainly if your activity is harming others, that needs to be addressed. Although if the activity is something that large numbers of people benefit from, there's an absurdity to banning it outright. But how is the government to decide what the "right" levels are?

Anyway, for this discussion to have any relevance to the original blog post, the question to address is what has caused the improvements in the time frame in question. For example, what changed between 1998 and 2001 to lower toxic chemicals released into the air by 20%? If M1EK can point to any regulations whose introduction coincided with this reduction, that would be a powerful argument for the effectiveness of that particular regulation. But general and broad statements about regulations don't address this one iota.

Gentlemen, start your engines...

[KentInDC]

Fyodor,
It could well be regulations that went into effect many years ago the consequences of which are only recently being felt. Many of the dirtiest industries have moved offshore partly as a result of regulations and partly as a result of labor costs, but it didn't happen overnight. It is virtually impossible to link changes on such a large scale to a single factor or even a handful of factors. Changes in processes, demand for products, etc., all play a role. There are just too many variables for anyone to definitively put their finger on what causes such changes.

By the way, despite my general aversion to taxes, I find your solution to pollution much more market-friendly than what we have now. I think there would need to be some mechanism to ensure that the people who actually endured the most pollution also received the bulk of benefits (Assuming, arguendo, that benefits can be derived from government spending.) paid for by those taxes.

[Roe V. Wade]

Great, sounds like legalizing abortion has finally begun to pay off!

[Walter Wallis]

I would love to see the U.N. working to give every family unit 1500 watts. This would eliminate the need for firewood for cooking, thus eliminating one of women's more onerous duties and a real pressure on forests.
1500 watts can operate an electric wok or heat crock pot, boil water for tes, and in between help educate. With a village water pump and an ozone generator, another source of illness reduced.
Power to the people.

[Kevin Carson]

Kent and fyodor,

I agree with the principle of imposing damages on polluters. It could be carried out by local juries, if they brought back the private nuisance principle. Unfortunately, private nuisance law was largely preempted by the state's administrative law in the 20th century. To a large extent, pollution regulations actually *protect* polluters from potentially harsher damages imposed by juries, made up of people who don't like seeing their neighbors screwed over.

[kevrob]

Increasing affluence can lead to a better environment, as can better enforcement, as can repeal of regulations. Consider the case of population pressure. Scholars such as Julian Simon have shown that as traditional societies that tend to have large families become modern industrial/service economies, family size decreases. People have pensions, savings, investments and insurance, and do not have to rely as much on their surviving children in their old age. Those children they do have are likelier to survive to adulthood, too. So, given control over planning the size of their families, people in these countries act so that the growth rate of population flattens, to replacement rate or, as in some European countries, even below that. Effective contraception is a technological advance that makes this control possible, but in the U.S., at least, regulations outlawing distribution of that tech had to be struck down before it could do much good. There are other ways to limit family size, many much more unpleasant, ranging from infanticide to chastity and late marriage, but modern contraception really does the trick, if people will adopt it.

Note also that agitation for a cleaner environment, since the progressive era, is a phenomenon of the well-to-do. Those still trying to assure that there is food on the family table are much more forgiving of risk from pollution. Dinner now trumps harm felt 20 years later.

Kevin

[Walter Wallis]

Of course in California we do it right!
We kept requiring MTBE in our gasoline long after we knew it was poisoning our groundwater without doing anything beneficial because bureaucrats defend their turf.
Gasoline before MTBE still soaked into the ground, but biological remediation kept it at bay, but in the urge to DO SOMETHING the government required costly remediation that required recirculating contaminated ground water through air strippers that removed gasoline from the ground and spewed it back in the air. Much of the remediation, as in the Superfund fiasco and the asbestos abatement flurry, has been, like busing, designed to harm the guilty with no other appreciable benefit to the general public.

[information asbestos]

thanks i like this site