By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President-elect Trump proposed a plan to expedite approvals and permits for any individual or company investing $1 billion or more in the U.S., including environmental approvals. This proposal, widely criticized as illegal by environmental groups and legal experts, would allow wealthy investors to circumvent existing regulations, such as the National Environmental Policy Act. Critics argue this plan prioritizes the interests of large corporations and fossil fuel donors over public health and environmental protection. The plan’s legality is questionable, and its implementation faces significant regulatory hurdles. The incoming administration’s choice for EPA head, Lee Zeldin, has minimal environmental policy experience but supports Trump’s deregulatory agenda.
Read the original article here
The proposal to essentially allow wealthy polluters to buy their way out of environmental regulations is deeply troubling. It suggests a system where the wealthy can circumvent rules designed to protect the environment and public health, all for a hefty price. This isn’t just about a few bad actors; it’s about creating a system where environmental safeguards are negotiable commodities.
This creates a scenario where the most vulnerable bear the brunt of the consequences. Communities near polluting facilities, often low-income areas, face disproportionately high risks of health problems and environmental damage. A system that allows the wealthy to pay their way out of responsibility simply exacerbates existing inequalities, making it a matter of social and economic justice as well as environmental protection.
The economic implications are equally disturbing. The costs associated with environmental damage – cleanup, health issues, and lost productivity – often fall upon taxpayers, not the polluters. Allowing wealthy individuals and corporations to bypass regulations not only diminishes accountability but shifts the financial burden to the public. This is a clear case of those with the most resources leveraging their power to avoid the costs associated with their actions.
One might argue that existing fines already allow companies to treat penalties as mere business expenses, but this proposed system fundamentally shifts the power dynamic. It changes a system of penalties into a system of legalized bribery, essentially erasing the line between complying with the law and breaking it—if the price is right. It’s a system that puts profit above the well-being of the planet and its citizens.
The assertion that this system is somehow in line with principles of free markets is deeply misleading. True free markets operate within a framework of rules and regulations that ensure fair competition and protect consumers. This proposed system eliminates competition, allowing powerful corporations to suppress any opposition, either by buying off potential obstacles or simply overpowering them through their vast wealth.
There’s a historical context to consider, harkening back to times when uncontrolled pollution led to catastrophic consequences. Bodies of water catching fire, communities suffering from severe air pollution, and a general disregard for environmental safeguards are cautionary tales. The argument that regulations hinder economic growth ignores the long-term economic damage caused by environmental degradation. A healthy environment is a prerequisite for a sustainable economy, and undermining environmental protection measures is ultimately counterproductive in terms of economic stability.
The worry isn’t just about the current administration’s actions; it’s about the lasting damage this could create. The erosion of trust in regulatory bodies, the normalization of such practices, and the chilling effect on future environmental protections are all potentially devastating outcomes. The possibility of future administrations reversing these decisions offers little comfort, as the harm caused by years of lax regulations might be irreversible. The long-term cost of environmental damage far outweighs any short-term economic gains.
The comparison to carbon credits is interesting, but it is a false equivalence. While carbon credits aim to incentivize emission reduction through a market-based mechanism, the proposed system allows continued pollution without any demonstrable environmental benefit. This system would only allow the powerful to maintain their polluting practices under the guise of a legal transaction.
There is a crucial distinction between market-based mechanisms and outright corruption. The former aims to encourage environmentally responsible practices; the latter merely provides a way to avoid responsibility for damaging actions. This is a matter of environmental policy, but it is also a matter of fundamental ethics. What kind of society do we want to live in—one where rules are enforced fairly, or one where the wealthy can pay their way out of any and all consequences? The answer is stark.