RAEL JEAN ISAAC INTERVIEWS RICH TRZUPEK, AUTHOR OF “REGULATORS GONE WILD: HOW THE EPA IS RUINING AMERICAN INDUSTRY”
Interwoven with the discussion of the EPA’s increasingly off-the-wall and often counterproductive regulations, Trzupek provides stories of the real people and companies who are its victims. For example, he tells the story of a retired gentleman who invested his savings in a six unit apartment building in Chicago. This gentleman hired a professional management company to look after the property. Under the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, sellers and landlords of dwellings built before 1978 must provide a form disclosing the presence of lead-based paint on the premises. The management company goofed, failing to send tenants the required form. The Illinois EPA, discovering this omission, demanded over $140,000 in penalties from the owner. This staggering punishment clearly did not fit the supposed crime –and in fact, in this case, there was no crime at all, for the buildings had no lead paint. All that was involved was an inadvertent paperwork mistake. The EPA was immovable. The owner eventually succeeded in having the fine significantly reduced, but only at the cost of huge legal bills from an environmental lawyer who took on the regulatory behemoth.
Trzupek shows that both the regulations themselves and the process of implementing them are badly flawed. As the above case illustrates, penalties are unrelated to damage done, merely to paperwork, and given the mountains of paperwork the EPA requires, especially of larger companies, with the best of intentions, it is hard to avoid some failure in that area. And the EPA goes for the jugular. Moreover, companies have to deal with moving targets. No sooner is a goal achieved for a pollutant than the EPA lowers the standard–and the company finds itself suddenly out of compliance. Then there’s CERCLA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, under whose terms the EPA can pluck millions out of industry pockets. It doesn’t matter if a given company made only the most miniscule contribution, say, to a hazardous waste site, if it’s a big company, for the EPA it’s like hitting the jackpot in Vegas, because the company can be held responsible for the entire cleanup costs.
As for the regulations themselves, as time has gone by and there has been a radical reduction in pollution, they have become ever more stringent to ever less purpose. Under a current EPA proposal, to quote Trzupek, “many potentially toxic pollutants will have to be controlled so tightly that no one will be able to find them. That is one step removed from setting emissions limits at zero, and just about as unrealistic and unachievable a goal.”
Trzupek writes of the scare tactics used by what he calls the environmental industry, an apt term for the so-called environmental watch dog groups like the NRDC, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, Friends of the Earth etc., who have the media and to a large extent the EPA itself, in their pocket. They are never satisfied, never praise the achievements that have been made in cleaner air and water, foment public fear and hysteria as a way of staying relevant–and rich in donations from a public convinced of dire environmental peril. Global warming is the most recent false scare promoted by the environmental industry and if you are not already a skeptic on that subject, Trzupek’s cogent chapter “There’s Nothing Cool About Global Warming” should make you one.
Read this book. It will make you mad, And a great many people will have to be mad–so they will organize to do something, if sanity is to be restored and American industry saved from its regulator-destroyers .
It’s a pleasure to interview the author.
RT: There’s so much from which to choose! But, let’s highlight a couple. First, though cap-and-trade is indeed dead, the Obama administration’s EPA has been as successful in curtailing America’s ability to use cheap, plentiful coal as if cap-and-trade had been passed. They’ve done so by promulgating a devilish mix of regulations that redefine (again) air quality standards, make coal plants subject to unachievable emissions limits and allow the EPA to set permit limits on carbon dioxide emissions. This will have a marked effect on the cost of electricity in years to come. The other initiative I would highlight is the administration doing everything it can to curtail domestic oil exploration and production. They use the complexity of the regulatory system and the permit process to erect barrier after barrier, while they claim that it’s all the fault of the evil oil companies.
RJI: What do you see as the future of fracking –and with it the development of shale oil and gas–given current EPA involvement in “studying” it and the apparent success of scare tactics in mobilizing public protests against it?
RT: I’m cautiously optimistic that the Obama administration will realize that it would be extremely stupid to attack the one part of our economy that has been such a fabulous success story and – oh yeah – is helping to keep energy prices from rising even further. At least I wouldn’t expect any action unless (heaven forbid) the President is re-elected. I’m also cautiously optimistic that more of the public is catching on to the scare tactics that environmental activists use. You can’t cry “wolf!” at the top of your lungs every day for forty years without a few people catching on to the scam. The fact is that there is nothing new about fracking (we’ve been using the technique for decades) nor is there anything especially dangerous about it. While there will always be goof-balls willing to oppose technologies they don’t understand, I hope that reason will win out in the long run. If it doesn’t, we’re in for a long stretch of very, very difficult times. Fracking is vital to our energy future, especially since we’re pulling away from coal.
RJI: You point out that the environmental industry is solidly Democratic but that Republicans are afraid of taking it on and in fact have passed some of the major legislation that has empowered it. Senator Inhofe is an exception in that he has taken on the issue of global warming. Are there any other current members of the Senate and Congress who have had the courage to oppose the environmental lobby and if so who are they? Is there any caucus of our representatives in Washington trying to do something, given the importance of energy to our economy?
RT: Sadly, I’m not politically “in tune” enough at the national level to comment very intelligently. Joe Barton certainly gets it and I’m sure that there are others, but I can’t say who is out front on the issues in Congress, or if there’s a caucus that deals with the issue. There are a number of business organizations (like the American Petroleum Institute and the National Association of Manufacturers) who try to educate our representatives, with varying degrees of success. The Heartland Institute (of which I am a member, serving as an advisor on environmental affairs) has been in the trenches for a long time, getting information out there and taking on enviro-activists.
RJI: Are there any other agencies of government doing damage approaching that of the EPA? What is the next worse agency in your view?
RT: It’s funny, but I think everyone’s perception of government agencies is skewed by the sector they work in. People in the pharmaceutical industry can tell stories about what a pain in the butt the FDA is and how their processes makes drugs so much more expensive with little gain. Health and Safety professionals complain about OSHA. Pilots will tell you that FAA can be ridiculous. I think of this as the “Howard Stern” effect. Remember when Stern got slapped by the FCC for obscenity? In Stern’s world the FCC became the worst agency on earth thereafter. He didn’t realize for a minute that we all deal with meddling, officious bureaucrats at one time or the other. (For the record, I think the FCC was right in busting Stern, by the by). So that’s kind of a long way of saying that I don’t know which agency is the worst because I earn my living immersed in the stupidity that the EPA generates. With those kind of blinkers on, I don’t get a feel for the stupidity of other agencies, but I have no doubt that it permeates through all parts of our bloated bureaucracies.
RJI: I have read that there was a migration of leaders of the NRDC and other members of the environmental industry into important posts in the EPA and other regulatory agencies. Has this been important in radicalizing the EPA? Is this migration of personnel unusual or has it occurred in previous administrations with less fanfare?
RT: Environmental activists do tend to gravitate to the Agency at all times. There are a couple of things that are really different about this EPA in my view. One is the unholy alliance between Carol Browner (until recently the head of the White House’s Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy) and USEPA Director Lisa Jackson. As head of the USEPA under President Clinton, Browner started taking the Agency down a dangerously extremist path until Clinton had the brains to reel her in. There was no such check on her over the last three years and it appears that Jackson quickly started drinking her brand of green Kool-Aid by the gallon. The other piece involves who’s writing the rules. In the past, the old technical pros at the Agency would listen to all sides and try to work out compromises. In today’s USEPA rules are often being written by attorneys who have no conception of the technical issues and realities. As a result the Agency churns out requirements that are impossible to achieve, but which makes their enviro-activist allies so very, very happy.
RJI: You provide a series of suggestions for fixing the system. Which one has priority in terms of importance? Which one do you think has the best prospect of being achieved under present circumstances?
RT: Streamlining the system, to make permitting new facilities quicker and compliance practices simpler – especially in the case of relatively small sources of pollutants – is of vital importance. The complexity of environmental regulations and the “gotcha” attitude of the EPA when it comes to the small to mid-sized businesses that don’t have the resources to fight back create substantial barriers to business growth and job creation. This has been a popular idea in DC for quite a while (even President Obama at least plays lip service to the idea of pruning back the regulatory jungle a bit) but nobody has been able to accomplish it. The biggest obstacle has been environmental activist groups. The minute somebody tries to simplify the permit or compliance systems, they scream “backsliding!!!” at the top of their lungs and the media – which doesn’t understand what a monster this system has become – dutifully parrot that message. But I think that there is a chance, particularly under a Republican administration, to finally get some meaningful reform and streamlining accomplished.
At the risk of blathering on too long, I would add one other vitally important issue: Congress has to stop letting EPA define its own missions. Back when the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act were first passed, Congress gave the EPA the authority to set standards for how much pollution can be in our air and our water. We have long since met the vast majority of those goals. However, the EPA is never, ever going to say that meeting a particular goal is good enough. How could they possibly justify the same level of funding if they were merely responsible for maintaining the status quo rather than solving another vitally important environmental problem that threatens the very existence of planet earth? So they use their authority to set standards to continually move the goal posts back and back and back again. It’s obviously in their own interest to do so. Congress should take that ability away and, as our representatives, decide for themselves the difference between clean and pristine.
RJI: In general you seem deeply pessimistic concerning the prospects for real reform of the EPA. And yet in your last post script chapter Recent Developments you seem a bit more optimistic. You say the longest journey begins with a single step. What has tempered your pessimism?
RT: One consequence of our recent economic woes is that more people are taking a harder look at the many bloated bureaucracies that get in the way of economic growth. And, in the course of the re-examination, the EPA has become the poster-child for overly officious, counter-productive government interference in the private sector. I was surprised by the development at first, but upon reflection I should not have been. I have tremendous faith in the collective wisdom of the American people, when they are concerned enough to really study a problem. I believe that the “great recession” has put the EPA under the cross-hairs of public scrutiny after decades of getting a free ride. While I believe we’ll always have an EPA (and we should), I think that reform is in the agency’s future.
RJI: The environmental lobby is viewed by the general public as something up there with motherhood and apple pie. How does one change that perception?
RT: That’s a tough one, because the American psyche so loves the underdog and the environmental movement understands that. They sell themselves as the brave lone warriors fearlessly battling the corporate monsters that want to kill your babies. In fact, the environmental movement has become a multi-billion dollar industry in its own right. And the only way that the Sierra Clubs, American Lung Associations and NRDCs of the world can maintain the funding they need is by convincing the public that they are IN DANGER!!!! These organizations create crises, because the average Joe and Josephine isn’t going to cut them a check otherwise. I think we need to spend more time educating the public about all of the tremendous environmental progress we have made over the last 40 years. It has been amazing and we should all be very proud of what a clean nation America has become in such a short period of time. And, if we can get that message across, the next question to ask is: why don’t the environmental activists ever acknowledge all of that progress? Why don’t they ever congratulate the American people for the tremendous investment we have made in environmental improvement, instead of continuing to try to make every man, woman and child feel guilty about their lifestyles? If we can get them back on their heels – exposing their hypocritical, self-serving messaging – perhaps the tide will turn.
RJI: If readers want to do something because what is at stake is so important–the cutting off of abundant cheap fuel for the will o’ the wisp of sun and wind–what can they do as individuals to try to stem the anti-energy tide and bring the country back to economic health?
RT: Like most Americans, I’m very, very cynical about the processes in Washington. And, although there are bigger differences between the parties now than there were just a few years ago (thanks largely to the Tea Party movement, in my opinion) it’s still tough to trust most elected officials inside the beltway. However, I’m optimistic about getting things accomplished at the state level. The red and purple states have a lot of fresh faces in state legislatures, people who understand that we need to change the way we do things. I believe that if enough states push back, as they have started to do, it will be tough for the DC elite to resist. So I would say: make your views and concerns known to the state officials in your district. Be polite, but be persistent. Let them know what matters to you and if you have a particular expertise that can aid them in arguing the right side of these issues, lend them that piece of your brain. I have usually found that elected officials at the state level are eager to learn more about the issues from people who know what they’re talking about. It’s ultimately a matter of education of course, which is why I wrote the book in the first place!
Comments are closed.
