ECOfreak: New Regulations Don't Mean the End of Jobs

By Desiree Parker Tuesday, January 10, 2012

New pollution regulations won’t be job killers, according to a report released recently by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

The Environmental Protection Agency recently passed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulations for Chesapeake Bay states to help restrict pollution in the troubled waterway. Since then, some folks have argued that the regulations will hurt the economy. Specific arguments I've heard center on the high cost to local governments that need to pay for the changes needed to comply.

The CBF’s report, released last week, argues that “sweeping assertions about economic ruin caused by environmental regulations are nothing new, and many economists have concluded that there is no substance to them.”

The report notes previous claims that other environmental regulations would have a similar problem have proved false. Some examples in the report include a 1976 warning by Henry Ford that new standards would “shut down” Ford Motor Company – since then, the company has continued to earn money and brought in $6.5 billion in 2010.

Critics of the 1990 federal Clean Air Act warned businesses would suffer a “quiet death,” but that hasn't happened, the report argues. In fact, it says the number of environmental industry jobs in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia over the last 20 years has increased 43 percent.

There are many jobs that could be created by the new regulations, according to the CBF, including environmental clean-up and monitoring jobs, stormwater control construction and engineering jobs, jobs associated with sewage construction plant upgrades, farm runoff and pollution control-related jobs and more.

The report also suggests companies will hire employees for more unusual jobs, from things such as pollution-credit trading and building high-tech barns to low run-off housing developments and green roofs.

Cleaner water will also help promote the fishing industry by protecting and increasing the numbers of fish and shellfish, according to the report.

You can read the report in its entirety on the CBF website.

In my mind, economies are always in flux, and need to adapt to the next new thing – whether it’s a new technology (like the internet, computers or cell phones) or regulations. Remember when everyone was in an uproar over Napster in the old days? People were asking, how will record companies and musicians stay in business? What will happen to CDs?

I feel like the great thing about people is that, though we usually complain relentlessly when we’re first confronted with change, eventually we figure out a way to not only deal with the newest thing, but also how to make it profitable or at least fit into our routines.

That said, even though the regulations could very well create lots of new jobs, I don't know that it will lighten the financial burden on local governments when it comes to paying to comply with what's expected. I'll be interested to see the actual cost once that's figured out, which should be soon.

Update

Last week, I wrote about my dilemma on what to do about a bag of alkaline batteries I had that had started to leak. I got in touch with some government officials who said in that situation, it was okay to throw the batteries in the trash. They also directed me to HRGreen.org, which says putting alkaline batteries in the trash is okay. Local chemical collections will only safely dispose of these, as I understand it, not recycle them (rechargeable batteries do get recycled, though). Problem solved! Though I can’t say I felt good about pitching these in the bin.