Fear and Paranoia Cut Both Ways

I had a civilized discussion recently with someone who is nearly my political opposite when it comes to energy policy. She make the assertion that radical environmentalists on the left had been using fear in order to pass policies that are destructive to business and slow the economic recovery. To me, it sounded like boilerplate language from an American Enterprise Institute or Heritage Foundation press release.

Here is the problem with that assertion (beyond the fact that it is completely wrong): It cuts both ways.

The major argument that has been used for many-a-years as a response to regulations or safeguards put through by the administration has been that it is a "job killer" and that it will stymie our recovery or even put us into a double dip. The same people who make that argument say that environmentalists and bureaucrats are using fear (climate change mostly) as a way to push through these regulations. I hope you see the obvious imbalance in their arguments. While they criticize the use of fear, they liberally use the same tactic in a more hyperbolic and fallacious way to defeat such regulation. Every regulation, whether it is used to prevent another bank bailout, create safety standards for coal miners, oversee offshore drilling rigs or safeguard the health of communities near coal ash sites, has been met with the same old adage: it will kill jobs.

When there is a blanket and generalized negative response to any regulation, it acts to destroy a lot of the common-sense policies that safeguard our environment and health from the mistakes of the most immediate past. For Example:

In 2010, 29 miners died in the Upper Big Branch (UBB) mining disaster in WV and 11 drill workers died in the BP Offshore Drilling spill, which also leaked 200 million gallons of crude into the Gulf of Mexico. Democrats in Congress tried to pass legislation that would reign in on unsafe mining conditions (like the ones at UBB) and the administration put a hold on offshore drilling until an investigation found out the source of the explosion on the BP platform. Mine safety legislation stalled and the administration is still taking political heat for putting a moratorium on offshore drilling. This result occurred after each policy was politically tainted by the paranoid thought that minimal safeguards for mine and drilling workers would lead to massive layoffs, a slowed economy and a further dependence on foreign oil. These ramblings turned public health, common sense regulations into a political poison pill.

Recently, Oklahoma Senator (flat-earther/knuckle-dragger) James Inhofe blocked the nomination of John Bryson for Secretary of Commerce. Bryson, a highly qualified businessman and former head of Edison International, is a perfect nomination for Obama. He plans to double the administrations target on exports by 2015, which is a lofty, admirable and right-minded task for a recovering economy. But, Inhofe blocked his nomination, saying that his policies will hurt the economy of Oklahoma and the country, at large. His justification? Bryson was the founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council in the 1970s, so he must be a radical environmentalists who is hell-bent on destroying the economy. But, by holding up his nomination, he stands in the way of the ratification of treaties with Brazil and South Korea, which is another sticking point that is causing some of his colleagues to hold up other Administration nominations.

This vicious cycle, fueled by paranoia and fear over a flagging economy might become self-fulfilling. And if the holding up of nominations and the lack of oversight into fossil fuel extraction causes economic and human tragedies, you can bet the only target of rhetorical attack will be the administration.