Jobs vs. the Environment

The environmental movement is stalled in this nation. The topic of climate change is anathema to the Republican presidential candidates, and our incumbent president is tepid on the subject at best. The US stands alone among industrialized nations who all seem to be making progress in switching to alternative energy sources and reducing their carbon emissions. Germany is on track to obtain 80% of its energy from renewable sources by 2050; Denmark plans for 100% by the same date. China, it has been much reported, now leads the world in wind turbine production. The US meanwhile continues to give generous tax breaks to coal and oil companies. Despite the rancorous debate in Washington to reduce federal spending, those tax breaks merit hardly a mention at all.

Our reticence regarding man-made Climate change is alarming—especially when the vast majority of scientists acknowledge it—but it fits with a larger trend in this country, where environmental vigilance is progressively eroded, even thwarted, largely in the name of the recession.

In a move that greatly upset the environmentalists a few months ago, Obama rejected proposed emission reduction rules from the EPA, heeding the warning from business interest groups that these rules would cost the country thousands of jobs. More recently, in rather Machiavellian fashion, the president tabled a decision on the Keystone oil pipeline from Canada until just after next year’s presidential elections. The pipeline would create thousands of construction jobs—albeit temporary ones—but environmentalists complained that it would endanger sensitive ecosystems, and keep us addicted to a dirty energy source. Some environmentalists saw the president’s indecision as a victory, though there is little to indicate he will come down on their side next year. After all, this is the same man who has consistently favored subsidies for corn-based ethanol—in the name of jobs—though it is widely viewed as an environmental and humanitarian disaster: corn ethanol involves plenty of petroleum to produce, it reduces cars’ fuel efficiency (just imagine), and drives up the price of food commodities worldwide.

The president has been a disappointment for environmentalists in many respects, but the Republicans promise far worse, including a dramatic reduction in the powers and resources of the EPA. Some of the presidential hopefuls have said they would like to dissolve the agency altogether. The Republicans habitually side with the US Chamber of Commerce, the powerful business lobby, which is critical of just about any and all environmental regulations of business. According to the ardent free marketers at the Chamber of Commerce, companies can regulate themselves in the public interest, and should be spared the inefficient, shortsighted and expensive meddling of power-hungry bureaucrats. Crippling the EPA would create more jobs and prosperity, they argue.

It would of course be disastrous to cripple or close the EPA, and a cautionary tale reported recently on NPR reminds us why. Tonawanda Coke in upstate New York is accused of being responsible for excessive levels of benzene – a known cancer-causing agent—in the area around its plant, where it bakes coal into coke for steel production. For years the plant’s self-reported pollution estimates were very low, but then cancer rates among neighboring residents spiked, and a whistle-blower revealed that the plant was so dilapidated that it regularly pumped benzene directly into the atmosphere. When the EPA finally inspected the plant in 2009, the agency confirmed the whistle-blower’s reports, and also ran its own tests of the plant’s benzene emissions: the plant had previously reported 3 to 5 tons of emissions per year; the EPA’s test showed 91 tons. Clearly, this is no clerical error on the company’s part.

When Tonawanda Coke was given the opportunity to regulate itself, it failed miserably—and intentionally—but we should not be surprised. In the age of globalization, we can’t expect companies to regulate themselves vigilantly or honestly while their competition in developing nations pollutes at will. We allow companies to regulate themselves at our own peril.

But there is a further point: Free-marketers maintain that less environmental regulation will spell greater corporate prosperity, encourage companies to hire more people, and drag us out of this lingering recession. And yet, we hear repeatedly that companies are already flush with cash but refrain from expanding their workforces anyway—thanks to productivity gains. Thus, the free-marketers’ argument doesn’t necessarily follow. Environmental laxity may leave us with increased pollution and not much else to show for it.

When I hear the familiar refrain of ‘jobs versus the environment,’ I have the sinking suspicion it’s just another excuse for negligent—nonexistent—self-regulation on the part of corporations. We can’t let the pressures of this recession tempt us away from our duty to deliver a cleaner nation to our children.

Firmin DeBrabander is chair of the Humanistic Studies department at the Maryland Institute College of Art.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
March 23, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Roberto J. González
The Mind-Benders: How to Harvest Facebook Data, Brainwash Voters, and Swing Elections
Paul Street
Deplorables II: The Dismal Dems in Stormy Times
Nick Pemberton
The Ghost of Hillary
Andrew Levine
Light at the End of the Tunnel?
Paul de Rooij
Amnesty International: Trumpeting for War… Again
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Coming in Hot
Chuck Gerhart
Sessions Exploits a Flaw to Pursue Execution of Meth Addicts
Robert Fantina
Distractions, Thought Control and Palestine
Hiroyuki Hamada
The Eyes of “Others” for Us All
Robert Hunziker
Is the EPA Hazardous to Your Health?
Stephanie Savell
15 Years After the Iraq Invasion, What Are the Costs?
Aidan O'Brien
Europe is Pregnant 
John Eskow
How Do We Live With All of This Rage?
Matthew Stevenson
Why Vietnam Still Matters: Was Khe Sanh a Win or a Loss?
Dan Corjescu
The Man Who Should Be Dead
Howard Lisnoff
The Bone Spur in Chief
Brian Cloughley
Hitler and the Poisoning of the British Public
Brett Wilkins
Trump Touts $12.5B Saudi Arms Sale as US Support for Yemen War Literally Fuels Atrocities
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Iraqi Landscapes: the Path of Martyrs
Brian Saady
The War On Drugs Is Far Deadlier Than Most People Realize
Stephen Cooper
Battling the Death Penalty With James Baldwin
CJ Hopkins
Then They Came for the Globalists
Philip Doe
In Colorado, See How They Run After the Fracking Dollars
Ali Mohsin
A Disheartening Week for American Death Penalty Opponents
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: Armed Propaganda
Binoy Kampmark
John Brennan’s Trump Problem
Nate Terani
Donald Trump’s America: Already Hell Enough for This Muslim-American
Steve Early
From Jackson to Richmond: Radical Mayors Leave Their Mark
Jill Richardson
To Believe in Science, You Have to Know How It’s Done
Ralph Nader
Ten Million Americans Could Bring H.R. 676 into Reality Land—Relief for Anxiety, Dread and Fear
Sam Pizzigati
Billionaires Won’t Save the World, Just Look at Elon Musk
Sergio Avila
Don’t Make the Border a Wasteland
Daryan Rezazad
Denial of Climate Change is Not the Problem
Ron Jacobs
Flashing for the Refugees on the Unarmed Road of Flight
Missy Comley Beattie
The Age of Absurdities and Atrocities
George Wuerthner
Isle Royale: Manage for Wilderness Not Wolves
George Payne
Pompeo Should Call the Dogs Off of WikiLeaks
Russell Mokhiber
Study Finds Single Payer Viable in 2018 Elections
Franklin Lamb
Despite Claims, Israel-Hezbollah War is Unlikely
Montana Wilderness Association Dishonors Its Past
Elizabeth “Liz” Hawkins, RN
Nurses Are Calling #TimesUp on Domestic Abuse
Paul Buhle
A Caribbean Giant Passes: Wilson Harris, RIP
Mel Gurtov
A Blank Check for Repression? A Saudi Leader Visits Washington
Seth Sandronsky
Hoop schemes: Sacramento’s corporate bid for an NBA All-Star Game
Louis Proyect
The French Malaise, Now and Then