Cost-Cutting at the Environment’s Peril

In Washington, the environment is under attack. The cost-cutting deal that the House passed on Thursday stripped the Environmental Protection Agency of $1.6 billion, which made up 16% of the agency’s budget. Funds for clean energy were cut. Republicans put in a provision that would keep the Department of the Interior from putting aside public lands for conservation and one that killed the nascent climate center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

These choices represent a deeper antipathy toward nature and environmental health than the run-of-the-mill climate denialism that’s become au courant among congressional Republicans. They show that plenty of leaders in Congress do not care about basic protections that ensure clean air and clean water or that keep even small stretches of the planet safe from mining, drilling and other human interventions.


One idea driving these decisions is that, economically, the country can’t afford to protect the environment right now. But as Monica Potts argues at The American Prospect, in a review of two new books that cover the economy and the environment, green policies are good for business. In reviewing Climate Capitalism by L. Hunter Lovins and Boyd Cohen, Potts notes that “$2.8 billion a year is wasted because employees don’t turn off their computers when they leave work; comprehensive clean-energy and climate legislation could create 1.9 million jobs; improving indoor air quality could save businesses $200 billion annually in energy costs.”

Almost 2 million jobs! The country could use that boost right now. But those jobs depend, of course, on government action. As Potts points out, businesses won’t necessarily adopt these solutions on their own. The other book she reviews, Seth Fletcher’s Bottled Lightning, explains why electric cars weren’t developed sooner.

In short, “oil has stayed so remarkably cheap,” Potts writes. And, as she says, “The market doesn’t capture all of the costs that fossil fuels and other industrial-era processes impose on society.” Environmentally friendly policies might be good for business, but sometimes business doesn’t know it. The private sector won’t learn that lesson, either, if Washington is willing to sacrifice its administrative infrastructure for handling environmental issues.

New energy, new decisions

The country’s going to want its government to have some environmental experts left around for another reason, too. As oil and gas get more expensive, alternative energy sources are going to look more appealing. But while they might have lower carbon emissions, they raise new issues about clean air and water and about their impact on ecosystems. The EPA, for example, is currently studying the water and air impacts of natural gas, which has been widely touted as a fuel source that emits less carbon than coal.

But that may not be accurate, either. In a study obtained this week by The Hill, Robert Howarth, a Cornell University scientist, found that the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions related to natural gas production may actually far outstrip the amount coal produces. Mother Jones’ Kate Sheppard explains:

While burning natural gas may emit less carbon dioxide, its extraction releases quite a bit of methane, a more potent greenhouse gas. Gas from shale — a fine-grained layer of rock below the earth’s surface — is also responsible for 30 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional natural gas. The study found that up to 7.9 percent of the methane escapes directly from the wells, leaks from pipelines, or is released in venting and flaring. While the leaks may be relatively small, methane is such a potent greenhouse gas that those leaks have a major impact, Howarth tells Mother Jones.

Fighting back against fracking

If Howarth’s study is correct, that means even worse news for communities in the gas fields that have been fighting against new natural gas drilling, only to be told that it’s for the greater good. For instance, in New York this week, Public News Service’s Mike Clifford reports that “Dozens of environmental and health groups are asking [Gov. Andrew Cuomo and state lawmakers] to put the longer-term issues of air and water quality ahead of any short-term gas profits.”

The Sierra Club’s Roger Downs tells Clifford, “We’ve seen in places like Wyoming, where the oil and gas industry has been booming, children on certain days cannot go out and play; they get nosebleeds from the air quality. It’s serious stuff, and we don’t want that in New York.”

Just over in Pennsylvania, natural gas drilling has been going ahead, and Nina Berman reports for AlterNet on its impact on families:

The Spencers’ house, once valued at $150,000, is now worth $29,000. They have a methane monitor in their basement, a methane water filtration system in a backyard shed. They leave the door open when they take showers because with no bathroom windows they are afraid the house could blow up. Their neighbors were forced to evacuate once already because of high methane levels. In the middle of their yard, a shaft resembling a shrunken flagpole vents gas from their wellhead.

Right now, the EPA is studying the effects that natural gas drilling have on public health. Their findings could, at the very least, strengthen the case for putting restrictions on drilling companies to prevent pollution. But if anti-environmentalists in Washington keep cutting into the bottom line of environmental programs, families like the Spencers will have an even harder time fighting against the conditions they’re facing now.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. 

Related Stories:

U.S. Congress Removes Wolved From Endangered Species List — A Legislative First

The EPA Can Regulate Carbon, For Now

Hydraulic Fracking Gone Wrong (Video)


Photo: from sandman via flickr
by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger


Ayaka Inu
Ayaka Inu7 years ago

These pathetic financial antics and games of attempting to reason with the unreasonable need to stop... the world will never be restored to its true beauty as long as we are so obsessed with material and money.

Shirley M.
Shirley Marsh7 years ago

President Obama, perhaps it's time you stopped trying to compromise with a bunch of lunatics and instead took a stand for the principles for which the country made you President. They loved what you stood for; don't let them down. You can't reason with insanity, and these Republicans are a scary bunch Mr President!

Ernie Miller
william Miller7 years ago

Scary isnt it?

Cheryl B.
Cheryl B7 years ago

so sad

gerlinde p.
gerlinde p7 years ago

it`s time all governments woke up to the fact, that without an intact envireonment,the human species will also face extinction..

Yolanda L.
Yolanda L7 years ago

Nancy H You do know it the congress and senate that implements the bills they vote on don't you? So yes, it is the Republicans fault. The President only signs or vetoes the bill.

Nancy H.
Nancy H7 years ago

Dang, sure am glad we've got a Democratic president now...... Isn't that supposed to make everything better? It's funny to me how now matter what the problem is, it's blamed on the Republicans. Get a life, quit blaming & do your part.

Doug G.
Doug G7 years ago

Until people really get the idea that their very lives are linked to the health of the environment, people will always put environmental concerns on the back burner. conservatives have never liked conservation nor environmental protection because the groups they represent can't get rich if they did.
Many environmental regulations since their inception have been created to give the appearance of doing something by government while accomplishing only limited amounts of success.
Bill Clinton allowed Superfund projects to no longer be bankrolled by those who created the problem, but instead turned toward taxpayers to fund the clean up. Places like the Berkley Pit remain a huge problem but no real answers are put forth.
Now the rats have caused the economy to cave in, people are even less concerned, if that is possible. Lots of lip service is paid by everybody, but the truth is if this nation cared about the environment by even a fraction of those proclaiming to do so, many issues could be well on their way to being addressed rather than in the sorry state so many ecosystems find themselves in today.

Ryan H.
Ryan Harlow7 years ago


They don't do the job they are suppose to be doing anymore.

Go watch FUEL

Linda C.
Linda C.7 years ago

In addition, these decisions are stupid for business reasons, because the Europeans and Asians are forging way ahead of us in developing the technologies and instruments of new, clean energy, while in our country, the old, dirty, extraction industries are doing everything they can to prevent us from doing the same. What does that mean? Twenty years from now, we will be even farther behind, impoverished, and dependent upon those countries smart enough to develop the new tools and sources.