Environmental Regulations

I wasn't aware that we live in a dictatorship. My opponent seems to believe that the United States government is controlled by some despot hell-bent to force good, hard-working Americans to comply with his outrageous rules. Perhaps my opponent slept through fourth-grade social studies. America is a democracy. The true power still resides in the people, not in some despot. Environmental regulations are supported by the vast majority of Americans, which is the only way the government is able to enforce them. My opponent apparently believes that any sort of government edict is evidence of totalitarianism; in reality, government regulations are responses to popular demands for more regulation. My opponent says that the government has no business overriding the popular forces at work in the market. Of course, the government does have to be careful when tampering with the economy, but certain regulations are needed. This is because what is profitable and cheap and what is ecologically sound usually don't go hand in hand. There are usually substantial external costs involved in industrial processes. An external cost is a cost that accrues to a third party not involved in a transaction. For example, a company producing plastics is left with all sorts of chemical wastes, most of which are dangerous, confirmed carcinogens. The cheap way of disposing those wastes is to just flush them down the sewer, which is what manufacturers did for years. And why not: it was a cheap way of getting rid of useless wastes. But as the plastics industry grew, the nation became more densely populated, and scientists began doing more environmental research, the true costs of this were discovered. Waterways, both publically and privately owned, were severely damaged. Benzene, PCB, formaldehyde, and mercury were destroying all ecosystems they touched. Consumers, who just wanted cheap plastics, had no idea of the real cost of the plastic products they were buying. James Gustave Speth, Yale professor of economics, writes in his book, "Red Sky at Morning, America and the Crisis of the Global Environment," that the cost of many products would be at least 50% higher if the external costs were figured in. The market is often right. But it is capable of misallocations, miscalculations, and misunderstandings. After all, the market is made up of regular people. The market doesn't place much of a price on clean water, healthy biotic populations, and biodiversity, but these are some of the most important facets of a healthy environment. When science tells us that a certain action is causing serious harm to the environment, that action needs to be controlled, regardless of how the market feels about it. DDT was cheap, worked great, and brought increased productivity to American farms. But it was extremely hazardous to man and the environment. However, if the market had its way, we would still be using DDT because the use DDT wasn't causing nearly the same level of economic destruction as it caused biotic destruction. My opponent believes that corporations and individuals can regulate themselves because it is not in their self interest to pollute their own land. That is certainly true, and any responsible person or corporation knows that. Trouble is, not everyone is responsible. People and corporations make mistakes, have vendettas, and can be deluded. If everyone is responsible and thought things out, why do we have to bother with prisons and law enforcement? With the deadly and potent brew of chemicals now available to industries, it only takes one bad apple to destroy an entire area. Most corporations are responsible, and ecological awareness is much more of a force than it was 20 years ago. Those corporations have nothing to fear from basic, intelligently implemented environmental policies. These policies exist to provide ground rules in order to ensure that the environment is not seriously damaged by irresponsible individuals or corporations. Let me say again, these were not put in place by a power-hungry despot, but by a democratic government responding to the desires of the masses, who overwhelming favor basic environmental regulations. If my opponent disagrees with the desires of the masses, he may do so. But he must understand how a democratic system works. My opponent also did not address the fundamental flaw in his plan. That is, that his plan has no ability to control non-point-source pollution. We are all responsible for destroying the environment—anyone drive a car lately? My opponent says that this would be criminal. How on earth does he propose sending every car-driving, furnace-owning, computer-using American to prison for damaging property? The trouble with his plan is that is it would have worked in about 1750, but, in case anyone hasn't noticed, it isn't 1750 anymore. The libertarian environmental system applies well to a spread-out, agrarian society; much like this nation was when it was founded. At that time, the biggest sources of pollution were cooking fires and horse manure. A man could easily sue his neighbor if that neighbor's manure pile was contaminating a farm pond. That time, while nostalgic and much more environmentally sound, has passed. The nation has grown in population almost ten-fold. Cars, planes, trains, and buses have replaced horses and buggies. Apartment buildings have replaced farm fields. Electric power has replaced wax candles. Plastic and metal have replaced wood and hides. Much has changed, and a system based on a lightly-populated, agrarian nation wouldn't work. Most citizens are not biologists, and they wouldn't even recognize the signs of environmental deterioration, which is generally characterized by extreme gradualism, on their own properties, much less have the time or energy to file complex, expensive, and lengthy lawsuits against well-prepared foes. Our nation's founders included the elastic clause in the Constitution to allow our nation's government and its policies to keep up with change. Why would my opponent ignore this? We have seen that environmental regulations are important. Most people are driven to destroy the environment, but we all engage in actions that, when multiplied by the millions doing those actions, cause serious environmental harm. The libertarian system of lawsuits and prosecution my opponent advocates would not be able to limit the effects of these myriad non-point sources; these sources are the largest contributors to pollution. Environmental regulations are necessary to preserve the quality of life everyone is entitled to. Don't let a libertarian fool you with simple, nostalgic talk—it is about as sturdy as a house built in quicksand. Our nation has grown up in 250 years. Would any adult try to wear the same pair of shoes he had when he first walked? Of course not, so why would we try to use a system that was already out of date when Lincoln strode into the Oval Office?