EPA Chief: Avatar's Success Proves There's Money in Going Green
EPA chief Lisa P. Jackson recently suggested that folks wary of greater environmental protection consider the success of eco-themed Avatar, the highest grossing movie ever made. Her point? Government regulations aimed at cleaning up the environment, including caps on greenhouse gas emissions, won't hurt the economy, but help it.
This "be not afraid" message kicks off the Obama administration's push to regain control of the political debate over whether and how to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. The crux of that argument -- which the administration has failed miserably to articulate in recent months -- is that the value of a cleaner environment outweighs the short-term cost and pain of implementing new regulations.
We've lost the messaging war and have work to do to present the alternative. It helps that history and the facts bear us out. I'm here to show you today that the choice between the environment and the economy is indeed a false choice, Jackson said in a speech Monday at the National Press Club.History is on the EPA's side, even though no one seems to be paying attention. Every time the EPA rolls out stricter rules there are protests that regulations will kill industry and ruin the economy. But, as Jackson points out, that hasn't happened.
In the last 30 years, emissions of six dangerous air pollutants that cause smog, acid rain, lead poisoning and more decreased 54 percent. At the same time, gross domestic product grew by 126 percent, Jackson said.Acid-rain regulation -- based on the feared cap-and-trade model -- was a success, for example. Problem is, the oil, gas and coal industries as well as Republican and even some Democratic politicians simply don't trust the EPA even if the agency offers proof that regulation hasn't hurt the economy. Nor does it seem to matter that Jackson has said repeatedly the EPA would prefer Congress to pass climate-change legislation that places a cap on carbon emissions. The EPA would regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act only if Congress doesn't address the issue.
The EPA has lost support, despite its effort to quell concerns. Democrats and Republicans trying to protect coal, oil and gas industries in their states have supported legislation aimed directly at blocking the EPA from taking action. And since Republican senators have the ability to filibuster, the likelihood of passing climate-change legislation has become even more remote.
At this point, any hope to limit greenhouse gas emissions rests on a compromise bill being drafted by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. And that means the trio will have to make side deals and give away a lot in concessions to convince the estimated 30 fence-sitters in the Senate to support the bill.
That's not to say public support isn't important. The messaging war will continue. The Obama administration will have to do a better job of making the carbon cap-equals-economic growth connection if it hopes to convince the public -- especially in states with large oil, gas and coal industries.
But considering the lack of trust, who should be the messenger? The administration's best bet may be to step aside and allow lawmakers who agree to support climate-change legislation in exchange for concessions to do all the talking.
Photo of Avatar poster by Flickr user Xploitme, CC 2.0