• Home
  • News
  • In-depth
  • Opinion
  • Energy
    • Wind
    • Marine
    • Solar
    • Biomass
    • Nuclear
    • CCS
    • Infrastructure
  • Policy
    • Politics
    • Legislation
    • Taxation
  • Management
    • Marketing
    • Risk
    • Skills
    • Incentives
    • Carbon Accounting
  • Technology
    • Waste
    • Recycling
    • R&D
    • Efficiency
    • IT
  • Investment
    • Carbon Trading
    • Offsets
    • Venture Capital
  • Net Zero Now
  • Events & Awards
  • SDG Hub
  • Industry Voice
  • Newsletters
  • Sign in
  •  
      • Newsletters
      • Account details
      • Contact support
      • Sign out
     
    • You are currently accessing BusinessGreen via your Enterprise account.

      If you already have an account please use the link below to sign in.

      If you have any problems with your access or would like to request an individual access account please contact our customer service team.

      Phone: +44 (0) 1858 438800

      Email: [email protected]

      • Sign in
  • Follow us
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
    • Newsletters
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • Instagram
  • Free Trial
  • Subscribe
  • Events & Awards
    • Upcoming events
      event logo
      NZF Pathway - Finance

      This exclusive half day online event will investigate how all businesses can support and accelerate the transition to low and net zero carbon buildings, while maximising the financial and productivity opportunities that will result.

      • Date: 16 Mar 2021
      • Online Event
      event logo
      Net Zero Festival 2021

      Net Zero Festival is the world's first business festival dedicated to exploring, advancing, and celebrating the global transition to a net zero emission economy. Join us at BusinessGreen's Net Zero Festival – for leaders who won't wait until 2050 to build a better business, and a better world.

      • Date: 29 Sep 2021
      • Worldwide
      View all events
  • SDG Hub
Business Green
Business Green
  • Home
  • News
  • In-depth
  • Opinion
  • Energy
  • Policy
  • Management
  • Technology
  • Investment
  • Net Zero Now
 
    • Newsletters
    • Account details
    • Contact support
    • Sign out
 
  • You are currently accessing BusinessGreen via your Enterprise account.

    If you already have an account please use the link below to sign in.

    If you have any problems with your access or would like to request an individual access account please contact our customer service team.

    Phone: +44 (0) 1858 438800

    Email: [email protected]

    • Sign in
  • Hot topics
  • Carbon offset markets
  • Green aviation
  • Deforestation
  • Net Zero Finance
Blog post ribbon image
  • Legislation

Green regulations cripple the economy? Show me the proof

  • James S Murray
  • James S Murray
  • @James_BG
  • 28 November 2014
  • Tweet  
  • Facebook  
  • LinkedIn  
  • Send to  
0 Comments

If environmental red tape is the source of so many economic woes, why is the evidence of the harm they cause so sketchy?

Serious question: Can anyone think of an environmental regulation that has crippled an economy? I don't mean shaved a few per cent off a polluting company's share price or forced the lucrative fly-tipping trade out of business. I mean properly knocked a handful of points off GDP and fatally eroded the competitiveness of a former economic power.

There are no doubt examples of poor environmental regulations. Laws that applied the precautionary principle with a bit too much, y'know, precaution. Legislation that blocks activities that would provide an economic boost without causing too much damage to the environment (supporters of GM and fracking would no doubt argue the current regulatory frameworks for these technologies fall firmly into this category). But are there any environmental regulations that unequivocally damaged the economy to such an extent that the rules were eventually axed?

Related articles

  • Shambles squared
  • Pricing the priceless
  • Brighter times ahead
  • Presidential possibilities

I know, I know. You can't prove a negative. You can no more conclude that introducing an environmental regulation dealt a three per cent blow to a country's GDP than you can 100 per cent conclusively prove what would have happened if we had managed to start cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the 1980s instead of waiting until the 2030s (hopefully). But still, is there a single piece of environmental regulation where you can construct a credible argument to show the economy is a lot worse off because of its existence? Because, I can't think of one.

The reason I ask is because this week the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the latest move in President Obama's green policy push, unveiling plans to tighten smog standards under the Clean Air Act. The result was a wearingly familiar skirmish between the EPA and green groups on one side and the Republicans and industrial groups on the other. The greens welcomed the regulations as a welcome step that still did not go far enough in tackling a serious environmental problem, and the industrial groups warned it would push up costs and harm the economy.

So far, so predictable. Except this time the industry warnings comprised of a particularly acute form of panicked hyperbole. "This new ozone regulation threatens to be the most expensive ever imposed on industry in America and could jeopardize recent progress in manufacturing by placing massive new costs on manufacturers," thundered Jay Timmons, chief executive officer of the National Association of Manufacturers. A tightening of smog rules would potentially represent "the most expensive regulation ever imposed on the American public", warned Jack Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute (API).

I'm sorry, but what? In the nation of prohibition and Jim Crow regulations, tightening ground level ozone standards from the current level of 75 parts per billion (ppb) to within a range of 65 to 70 ppb could be the "most expensive regulation ever imposed on the American public"? The recent recovery in US manufacturing driven by Silicon Valley innovation and relatively low cost natural gas and renewables is apparently so fragile that businesses can't cope with the cost of deploying proven technologies for tackling smog and keeping their workers and communities healthy? The EPA's extensive modelling showing that improving air quality will deliver net economic benefits counts for nothing, because some bought and paid for lobbyists say so? I'm not sure how US industry groups can expect anyone to buy such exaggerated claims. And then you look at the utter credulity of the modern Republican Party on environmental issues and understand fully who is buying this fatuous analysis.

Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic a similar battle is playing itself out. BusinessEurope has this week continued its tribute act to a pin-striped 1990s industry lobbyist, attacking everything from maternity rights to circular economy proposals and air quality standards, with warnings that the Commission's attempts to enhance resource security and deliver clean air will cause significant harm to the economy. In the UK, the steady drumbeat of criticism aimed at the Climate Change Act from UKIP and the Tory backbenches similarly implies the UK's position as an economic powerhouse would be assured if we just ditched our long term carbon targets.

The problem with each and everyone of these campaigns is not in their opposition to environmental regulation per se. The counter argument to green legislation put forward by responsible industry groups is extremely valuable. Some environmental regulations don't work perfectly and impose more economic cost than is necessary. When it comes to introducing and reforming policy measures, the Hegelian dialectic (there's one for all the philosophy graduates) created by those for and against a new regulation is critical. It is in constantly justifying themselves that green regulations become ever more effective.

No, the problem with these various anti-regulation campaigns is that they are so exaggerated, so lacking in nuance, that they quickly lose credibility, ensuring that what should be a productive debate descends into a slanging match. (Yes, I am aware some of the more alarmist green groups are guilty of this hyperbole too).

Is there any independent observer who really thinks a tightening of US smog regulations that, remember, will be phased in between 2020 and 2037, represents the most expensive regulation in history? Is there anyone outside the climate sceptic cabal who looks at the performance of the UK economy over the last five years and thinks, 'forget global economic crisis, an economy overly reliant on finance, and woeful productivity, the real cause of our problems is that our power costs fractionally more than some of our European neighbours'? Is there anyone who looks at the recent economic recovery and re-shoring of some manufacturing operations and thinks our GDP growth would be three per cent higher again if we didn't have legislators demanding we deal with the toxic air pollution in our cities? It takes a pretty special leap of ideologically-moulded imagination to suggest the UK economy would be basking in sunlit uplands if we simply gave up on decarbonisation, but that is essentially what some pretty respected commentators appear happy to suggest.

In a speech last year, Obama offered the perfect assessment of how tired these depressingly predictable arguments are becoming, skewering each and every complaint that would be levelled at his climate change regulations. "What you'll hear from the special interests and their allies in Congress is that this will kill jobs and crush the economy, and basically end American free enterprise as we know it," he predicted, with unerring accuracy. "And the reason I know you'll hear those things is because that's what they said every time America sets clear rules and better standards for our air and our water and our children's health. And every time, they've been wrong."

It is worth quoting Obama's riposte at length:

"For example, in 1970, when we decided through the Clean Air Act to do something about the smog that was choking our cities... some of the same doomsayers were saying new pollution standards will decimate the auto industry. Guess what - it didn't happen. Our air got cleaner. In 1990, when we decided to do something about acid rain, they said our electricity bills would go up, the lights would go off, businesses around the country would suffer - I quote - "a quiet death". None of it happened, except we cut acid rain dramatically.

"See, the problem with all these tired excuses for inaction is that it suggests a fundamental lack of faith in American business and American ingenuity. These critics seem to think that when we ask our businesses to innovate and reduce pollution and lead, they can't or they won't do it. They'll just kind of give up and quit. But in America, we know that's not true. Look at our history.

"When we restricted cancer-causing chemicals in plastics and leaded fuel in our cars, it didn't end the plastics industry or the oil industry. American chemists came up with better substitutes. When we phased out CFCs - the gases that were depleting the ozone layer - it didn't kill off refrigerators or air-conditioners or deodorant. American workers and businesses figured out how to do it better without harming the environment as much."

The recent Grantham Institute report detailing how "green tape" has consistently boosted economic growth by triggering innovation and technology deployment offers a more in-depth analysis of the phenomenon Obama so effectively elucidated.

There are legitimate reasons for challenging environmental regulations and lobbying to ensure they are as effective as possible. But apocalyptic warnings suggesting cleaning up our air and water or stabilising our climate will bring economic collapse and eye-watering costs aren't just inaccurate scaremongering, they are staggeringly defeatist as well.

If a government ever tried to ban fossil fuels overnight or block all cars from entering a smog-choked city then, yes, the short term damage on the economy would be immense. But that is not how environmental regulations work. They tend to be measured, phased in over time, based on the best available science, and designed to keep short term costs to a minimum while maximising long term benefits. That is not to say policymakers always get it right, but crying wolf all the time about excessive economic impacts that never materialise helps no one, least of all those polluting businesses who have to adapt to changing environmental realities.

So, I ask again: Can anyone think of an environmental regulation that has crippled an economy? Because I can't.

  • Tweet  
  • Facebook  
  • LinkedIn  
  • Send to  
  • Topics
  • Legislation
  • Policy
  • Politics
  • EPA
  • Barack Obama
  • Climate Change Act
  • Low Carbon Economy

More on Legislation

Homes in some parts of the UK could take 30 years longer to meet energy efficiency goals, according to Kamma
    • Buildings
Report: £43.3bn of investment needed to meet 2030 greener homes goal
    • Buildings
    • 24 February 2021
The government has pledged to pursue a sustainable approach to agriculture policy following Brexit
    • Policy
Autumn pilot scheduled for Sustainable Farming Incentive scheme
    • Policy
    • 24 February 2021
    • Politics
Boris Johnson: 'Climate change is a threat to our collective security'
    • Politics
    • 24 February 2021
    • Investment
Net Zero Finance: Full speaker line-up confirmed
    • Investment
    • 24 February 2021
    • Politics
If the Green Homes Grant fiasco is any indicator of the government's climate action, we are in trouble
    • Politics
    • 24 February 2021
    • Policy
REA: Half of UK electricity generation could be produced by renewables by next year
    • Policy
    • 24 February 2021
Boris Johnson chairing the first ever UN Security Council meeting focused on climate change
    • Politics
Johnson and Attenborough warn of global security threat from climate breakdown
    • Politics
    • 23 February 2021
As much as 50% per cent of global land currently used for coffee farming may no longer be suitable by 2050, the Fairtrade Foundation finds
    • Policy
Fairtrade Foundation: UK must clean up food supply chains and stop 'dumping' emissions on poor nations
    • Policy
    • 23 February 2021

More news

Zoom in on Net Zero - with ShareAction's Catherine Howarth
  • Investment
Zoom in on Net Zero - with ShareAction's Catherine Howarth

VIDEO: Chief executive of the responsible investment charity chats to BusinessGreen's James Murray about the rise of shareholder activism in driving climate action

  • 24 February 2021
Michelin and Bridgestone accelerate green tyre innovations
  • Automotive
Michelin and Bridgestone accelerate green tyre innovations

Michelin sets goal for 100 per cent sustainable tyres by 2050, as Bridgestone unveils latest ultra-durable tyre product

  • 24 February 2021
Report: £43.3bn of investment needed to meet 2030 greener homes goal
  • Buildings
Report: £43.3bn of investment needed to meet 2030 greener homes goal

Rates of green upgrades need to double if homes are to reach average energy efficiency EPC band C by 2030, Kamma estimates

  • 24 February 2021
Etsy bids for net zero by 2030
  • Work
Etsy bids for net zero by 2030

US trading platform Etsy has pledged to reach net zero carbon emissions across its operations by 2030

  • 24 February 2021
blog comments powered by Disqus
Back to Top

Most read

Bulb co-founder steps down to focus on battery storage venture
Bulb co-founder steps down to focus on battery storage venture
Judge overturns approval for 1.8GW Norfolk Vanguard project
Judge overturns approval for 1.8GW Norfolk Vanguard project
HSBC, Barclays, NatWest join Prince of Wales' net zero banking task force
HSBC, Barclays, NatWest join Prince of Wales' net zero banking task force
BP and Chevron back geothermal pioneer Eavor Technologies in $40m funding round
BP and Chevron back geothermal pioneer Eavor Technologies in $40m funding round
HSBC hires PwC climate change lead Celine Herweijer as group chief sustainability officer
HSBC hires PwC climate change lead Celine Herweijer as group chief sustainability officer
  • Contact Us
  • Marketing solutions
  • About Incisive Media
  • Terms and conditions
  • Policies
  • Careers
  • Cookie Settings
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Newsletters
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • Instagram

Incisive Footer Logo

© Incisive Business Media (IP) Limited, Published by Incisive Business Media Limited, New London House, 172 Drury Lane, London WC2B 5QR, registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers 09177174 & 09178013

Digital publisher of the year
Digital publisher of the year 2010, 2013, 2016 & 2017
Loading