FW: THE LIGHTHOUSE: August 20, 2001THE RISKS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION?
from THE LIGHTHOUSE "Enlightening Ideas for Public Policy..." Vol. 3, Issue
33 August 20, 2001
Environmental regulations are often touted as necessary to counter
potential harms caused by the risky byproducts of industrial
production. However, the saga of MTBE -- a fuel additive used to
reduce air pollution -- highlights the hazards of our current
approach to environmental protection.
Most analysts considered MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) to be
relatively safe when its use in gasoline was promoted by the 1990
amendments to the Clean Air Act. Today, the risks of MTBE, now a
suspected human carcinogen, are well publicized, as communities
across the country have shut down drinking water wells that have
shown evidence of MTBE contamination.
Did the risk of harm from air pollution justify the use of risky
MTBE? Certainly not in California, which already required a
cleaner-burning gasoline mix. Here, the addition of MTBE under the
one-size-fits-all Clean Air Act amendments increased overall health
risks.
Most disturbing, we now know that industry and government knew of
MTBE's health risks even before the 1990 amendments. Given the
adversarial approach fostered by our command-and-control
environmental regulations, it is understandable, if highly
regrettable, that industry would cover-up any knowledge of MTBE's
health risks. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, however, is
directed to promote environmental protection. Yet, newly released
internal documents show that the EPA knew of MTBE's health risks as
far back as 1987.
The proponents of more government regulation often tout the
"precautionary principle," assuming that the only risks come from not
addressing a perceived problem. This episode, however, demonstrates
that environmental regulations can create risks too.
Doubtless, regulators and industry will conduct intense efforts to
spin the MTBE story in their favor. Regulators will argue that
industry withheld knowledge of MTBE toxicity and leakage; industry
will argue that MTBE was perfectly legal and encouraged under the
Clean Air Act. Each will blame the other with good cause.
Rather than waste more ink, time and -- potentially -- lives, what
they should do is look for ways to move from an adversarial
regulatory environment that rewards legal maneuvering to a system
that rewards responsibility.
Might we suggest that we start with a return to the common law?
"The Common Law Solution to Water Pollution," by Roger Meiners and Bruce
Yandle, at http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-33-3.html.
For more information, see:
CUTTING GREEN TAPE: Toxic Pollutants, Environmental Regulation and the Law,
edited by Richard Stroup and Roger Meiners, at
http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-33-4.html.
"The Environmental Propaganda Agency," by Craig S. Marxsen (THE INDEPENDENT
REVIEW, Summer 2000), at
http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-33-5.html.
"Congress Not Told of MTBE Dangers -- EPA Knew In 1987 of Drinking Water
Toxicity," (SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 8/19/01), at
http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink3-33-6.html.
THE LIGHTHOUSE
ISSN 1526-173X
Copyright © 2001 The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way
Oakland, CA 94621-1428
(510) 632-1366 phone
(510) 568-6040 fax
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:12 MDT