In my columns thus far, I’ve usually have something snarky to say about politics but in light of Earth Day this past week, things are going to get real. So here we go.
All anyone can talk about is the budget, the budget, the budget and the budget. Because coming to a final agreement about what stays and what gets cut in the federal budget is priority number one for the president, it’s understandable that only the most major issues would emerge in the debate.
For example, in President Barack Obama’s most recent address, he pushed for raising taxes on wealthy Americans and changes to the Medicare system. Defense spending, the health care bill and Social Security have also been hot-ticket items in the discussion. One issue that I think has fallen through the cracks, however, is the environment.
I understand that the reality of the average American involves figuring out how they’re going to pay their bills or looking for a new job in a terrible employment market. However, it’s important to note that with the one-year anniversary of the BP oil spill on Sunday, it’s time to start looking at how the environment will be affected by the budget negotiations as well.
The big problem that has environmentalists and global warming advocates nervous is that funding for the Environmental Protection Agency stands to be cut by a third in order for Democrats and Republicans to cut a budget deal. In addition, Obama’s entire environmental policy, which he spoke so strongly about early in his administration, could be completely derailed if Republicans use the EPA as a bargaining chip in the budget discussion. The sad reality is that Democrats might have no choice but to cut subsidies for the EPA, global warming programs and green energy groups.
To avoid a government shutdown come September, the GOP plans to block one of Obama’s wilderness plans to protect millions of acres of land out West. Republicans also want to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions and propose to drop other programs that prevent water and air pollution.
If changes to the environmental policy affect everyone, why are Republicans so resolute in cutting environmental protection programs? The answer lies in the fact that the current environmental policies are in opposition to the issues that are most important to the GOP. Many Republicans are concerned that the EPA has been granted too much autonomy. Gov. Rick Scott, R-Fla., makes the case that new EPA regulations would be too costly to implement. Other arguments, like the one given by Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kans., include concerns that the work done by the EPA raises gas prices and costs Americans their jobs.
Although the loss of jobs is a legitimate concern, it’s hardly an excuse for cutting regulation programs for the environment. Yes, putting hundreds of people out of work by shutting down a major factory due to ecological risks isn’t ideal. Any job is hard to hold on to. Now, I’m no expert, but couldn’t we employ those same people by building a more energy-efficient factory? There are loads of jobs to be made in green energy technology. So many, in fact, that amplified financial support for green energy technologies could significantly improve the job market.
Though I place the blame on Republicans, they can’t be held wholly accountable. According to Politico, 15 to 20 Democrats are sided with Republicans on this issue. Another part of the problem is that representatives are hearing complaints from their constituents about jobs, the price of gas and taxes, but they’re not hearing complaints about energy policies. Because Congressmen and women fight for what their people want, the environment isn’t a major concern.
The reason lies in the fact that the public is, for the most part, ignorant to the severity of our ecological woes. That’s why environmental groups are attempting to bring attention to the reality of the problem through a series of TV ads. One ad, sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund, features an image of a fetus and a voice that says, “The House sided with corporate lobbyists to block limits on mercury pollution. Did they think America wouldn’t notice?” The ads are a last-ditch attempt at urging the public to take environmental policies seriously.
Luckily, the Senate shot down cuts to the EPA two weeks ago, even in the panic of a government shutdown. However, as long as the budget debate continues, the threat of deregulation and program elimination plagues the country.
I know it’s easy to focus on the immediacy of passing a budget bill but officials across the aisle need to remember that their actions have consequences. When it comes to cutting spending that helps a deteriorating environment, those consequences could be very real. In the words of Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., “This is serious business.”
Emily O’Donnell is a sophomore at the College of Commnication and a weekly columnist for The Daily Free Press. She can be reached at emilyod@bu.edu.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
The number of “green” jobs is misleading. I work in the coal industry, and one of the plants the company is shutting down, had 148 jobs. The new combine-cycle, that will replace it, will only employ 35 people. So, yes green power does create jobs, but kills more jobs than it creates. If you are going to tell the story, tell it right.