Carter Haan

Blog Post 1

10/2/2020

How Bias and Politics Makes Climate Change Regulation Ineffective

            The political process of drafting and implementing environmental regulations has too many steps with too many involved parties. The process starts with congress voting and passing a bill. The bill then passes through the system of checks and balances in which the president can approve or veto the bill. Once it is approved by the president, the bill has already been in processing for potential years. The work now falls to the Environmental Protection Agency, who is tasked with turning the bill’s words into actual regulatory actions. The EPA is required to provide a scientific and economic analysis to demonstrate the expected affect of these regulations. To complete this analysis, they participate in various information gathering endeavors that include gathering public opinions. This process can also take years to complete, given that congress has allocated enough funds to complete it at all. Once the EPA has provided its guidelines, it falls on state governments to enforce them.

            There are issues regarding the time-table and the information gathering abilities of the EPA. Over the years these regulations take to pass, new climate change information can cause the EPA to change their policies, further drawing out the process. The EPA also struggles with funding to achieve their research needs. These inefficiencies can be traced to personal biases along the chain, starting with congress.

            To pass a proposed bill, congress must reach a majority of 435 votes. Each of the 435 congress members exercises their own discretion in voting, discretion that often has external motivations. The public opinion of these officials is very important to their career building, and a bill that wastes money does not look good in the public’s eye. The great concern for fiscal efficiency leads to a sort of paradox between congress and the EPA. The EPA does not have enough funding to complete its research efficiently, and its lack of efficiency makes congress want to waste less tax dollars on environmental regulations. Political ideology can also prevent policy makers from voting in appropriate environmental regulations. The idea that scientific research on climate change is incorrect or incomplete can be very politically driven and the desire to further one’s career can influence a congressperson’s vote.

            Bias can extend into smaller players on local levels as well. The EPA’s research process relies on data and opinions provided by corporations, local officials, and involved citizens. For this reason, the EPA struggles with reporting bias. Eban Goodstein and Stephen Polasky provide an example in Economics and the Environment. They discuss pesticide regulation research, in which the EPA must rely on agrichemical companies for cost and resource information. It is in the agrichemical companies’ best interest to prevent pesticide regulations. This can lead to false reporting. While not every company will report falsely, the EPA must research many different parties to create their analysis’ and they will inevitably encounter reporting bias.

            The EPA also struggles with threats form industries and corporations that command more power than they do. Attempts to regulate large industries such as oil companies, can present significant barriers to the EPA. Instances of lawsuit threats, lobbying, and even bribery have stopped the EPA form fully implementing policies. The capacity of large companies outweighs that of governmental agencies. They have more staff, more money, more influence, and more power. Their ability to vilify the EPA and exaggerate the financial results of their regulations can sway public opinions, which in turn sway congressional opinions.

            The process of environmental regulations is too slow and too inefficient. The delays and the backlash make it difficult for the government to control climate change. We have little time to combat this issue and we must find more efficient means to implement regulations.