[Re: “Quit piling on regulations – there is a better way” by Don Brunell, published in the June 6 Tacoma Weekly]
Mr. Brunell’s arguments against regulation of coal emissions ring hollow with a strong undercurrent favoring corporate welfare.
First, data he cites claiming new regulations placed on coal-fueled energy will kill jobs with little CO2 reduction comes from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to Sourcewatch.org, this organization is quite different from local chambers of commerce that provide references to local businesses and maps for tourists. Sourcewatch describes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as a highly conservative, partisan lobby organization that works to manipulate public opinion in favor of their big donors and, most often, Republican politicians and candidates.
The New York Times reported in October 2010 that half of the Chamber's $140 million in contributions in 2008 came from just 45 big-money donors, many of whom enlisted the Chamber's help to fight political and public opinion battles on their behalf (such as opposing financial or healthcare reforms, or other regulations). The Chamber is "dominated by oil companies, pharmaceutical giants, automakers and other polluting industries," according to James Carter, executive director of the Green Chamber of Commerce.
Others view these new carbon rules that Mr. Brunell criticizes as an “employment renaissance for clean energy.” Multiple studies over the last 10 years from the Economic Policy Institute to the University of California at Berkeley show that the renewable energy sector generates more jobs per megawatt of power installed, per unit of energy produced, and per dollar of investment than the fossil fuel-based energy sector.
Second, in discussing the merits of biorefining, a promising new technology that converts biomass into useful products such as fuel, Mr. Brunell (past president of the Association of Washington Business) argues that CO2 emissions are a good thing because they provide a necessary ingredient for this new process. He fails to mention that municipal waste treatment facilities can provide ample amounts of this necessary ingredient for biorefining. His circular reasoning translates to this: let us continue to pollute without regulation so we can develop a greener industry. I hope your readers are not manipulated into accepting this false choice.
Next, Mr Brunell goes on to argue the 40-year-old Reaganesque/GOP mantra that deregulation will grow our economy through our free market system. He writes: “If allowed to flourish, the creative Americans thriving in our free market system will find better ways to satisfy customers with better products at lower prices.” I have 23 years of experience working for a Fortune 50 company, hold a Masters Degree in Business Administration and have learned the notion of a “free market” laughable in today’s corrupt political climate. As most readers already know, a “free market” is not a “fair market.” It usually favors mega-corporations and wealthy investors. Readers should ask who are the “creative thriving Americans” Mr. Brunell references.
Lastly, Mr. Brunell claims less regulation will allow for lower prices. This argument is deceptive because of loopholes in our accounting methods. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) fail to include the indirect costs of environmental degradation and the financial burden of negative effects on human health. When the “free market” determines the price of a product these costs are absent. Instead, these costs are externalized to the taxpaying public in the form of medical costs, loss of natural resources, and environmental clean-up. This is one more example of how wealth continues to concentrate toward those who already have it. Huge profits are shared only with wealthy investors while accounting practices and our corporate legal system allow these indirect costs to be passed on to the public veiled in the mirage that deregulation will help to grow our economy. Whose economy?
I encourage readers to be cautious of arguments against regulation by “following the money.” Rarely will they find these arguments favoring the taxpaying, hard-working public.
Tom E. Brooks is a Tacoma resident.