Few have effectively prevented the discharge of persistent toxics. Many of those regulations have unduly harassed businesses, resulting in higher prices and fewer jobs, but not resulting in genuine environmental protection. We should develop a Republican agenda for the environment. We could set priorities dealing with the most serious problems first, not the current approach of trying to solve all problems at once and solving few. We could deal with the problems of toxics at the front end of their use, instead of all the permitting, regulating and harassing we do now at the tail end of the process.
Prevention is a conservative answer to conservative problems.
Relying on regulation presumes all things can be managed, even though we've clearly learned that some substances cannot be. I'm quite concerned about the adverse effects of persistent toxic substances on human health. And as a politician, I know I'm much more likely to get decision makers interested in environmental concerns about human health than I am about wildlife or plant health. Such concerns as decreased learning ability, immune suppression, reproductive deficiencies, neurological problems, cancer and other effects all have some science indicating adverse effects from environmental exposures to dioxins, furans, PCBs, DDT, lead, mercury, etc. It's enough to promote cooperation and honest debate between governments, industry, environmentalists and academics in the pursuit of real science relative to the potential for harm to humans.