Environment

If government regulation were the solution to solving environmental problems then the former Soviet Union and Eastern European Block should have had the most pristine environments on earth. The Federal government is the biggest polluter in America. The best answer is to allow the free-market to help the environment. For example, when a trucking company or production facility pollutes it is also working inefficiently. This means that polluting costs companies money. Below are just a few examples of how the free market can be used to improve the environment.

The first thing we must do to help improve the environment is deal with the largest polluters. The United States Federal Government is the largest polluter in the country. Additionally, the court system in Tennessee (including Federal Courts) has shown that it is more than willing to cover up serious pollution problems. Obviously the Democrats and Republicans methods of trying to fix our environmental problems through more government regulation are a miserable failure. The best answer is to adopted an environmental policy that stresses individual responsibility over governmental regulations when seeking to solve environmental problems.

Research has indicated that a reduction in the speed of trucks increases fuel economy while decreasing the required maintenance and emission of green house gases. A long-haul truck with 90 percent highway operation that reduces its top speed from 70 to 65 miles per hour could cut its annual fuel bill by $1,450 while eliminating nearly ten metric tons of greenhouse gas reductions. The most effective speed management programs combine technology with driver training and incentive programs. Clearly a reduction in speed would be a great idea. However, the National Road Authority reports that only one in five truckers obey posted speed limits. This means that the aggression of reducing speed limits would probably not produce the desired environmental impact.

A much better solution would be for voluntary environmental groups across America to educate trucking companies about the positive economic impact that speed reduction could have on their bottom line. Most trucks are already equipped with speed regulating devices. Companies could adjust the maximum speeds on these devices at very little cost. Most companies already are using GPS to monitor the location of their trucks at any time. GPS data can easily be used to track the actual average speed of trucks. With this technology trucking companies can keep track of how fast their trucks are moving. This would make it very easy for them to provide incentive programs tot heir drivers to reduce their speed. Companies that adopted this policy would have lower operating costs and larger profit margins. This would mean they could offer to transport goods at lower costs to their customers. The free-market would eventually require that all trucking companies reduce their speeds to stay competitive. Interestingly, recent increases in fuel costs have caused the airline to reduce their speeds to increase fuel efficiency. This happened as a result of demands of the market place, not government sanctions. The problem could be solved without any government intervention.

Clearly the emissions of trucks must be considered when we look at the overall air quality of America. Simply limiting the number of hours trucks operate in America will not accomplish this task. Most trucks will idle (keep their engine running) when they are not moving. In reaction to this many states have enacted anti-idling laws. The problem with this type of regulation as with any other oppressive regulation is enforcement. With millions of trucks crossing America each year, enforcement of such restrictions on trucking would become impossible and cost prohibitive.

A better solution would be to set up a voluntary partnership similar to SmartWay Transport. Private environmentalist groups in Tennessee and Tennessee’s trucking companies could head up this partnership, without any interference from government. SmartWay is working on programs encouraging idle reduction, improved aerodynamics, improved logistics management, automatic tire inflation systems, wide-base tires, driver training, low-viscosity lubricants, reduced highway speed and/or lightweight vehicle components. All of these elements have the potential to increase profit margins for trucking companies while reducing the negative impact on the environment. Pollution, it turns out, is not profitable. Preliminary findings indicate the positive environmental steps taken by a trucking company can also be used as a marketing tool to attract new clients. Apparently, the free-market will require all trucking companies in America to adopt environmentally positive policies if they want to be able to compete with those companies that implement such pollicies. Obviously the free-market can do more to improve the environment than oppressive government regulations ever could.

Government regulations on off-road equipment would even be more impossible to enforce than regulations on trucks on America’s highways. A better answer is to establish a private voluntary partnership between producers and users of off-road equipment and environmentalists. The development of more efficient off-road equipment will reduce pollution while saving the users of such equipment money. Once the users of off-road equipment discover they can get equipment that saves them money, the demand for its production will increase almost overnight. Construction companies and framers will be able to cut costs. This will mean savings for their customers. This will mean they will get more customers. Some construction companies and farmers may want to advertise that they use the new environmentally friendly equipment. This fact will attract environmentally conscious consumers. Again this means more profits. The free-market economy could probably do a much better job at restricting the use of inefficient / highly polluting off-road than oppressive government regulations ever could. These measures would produce both a positive economic and environmental impact for America.

Open burning produces undesirable pollutants. The problem with prohibiting open burning at certain times of the year is with enforcement. The Center for Progressive Regulation reports that currently as many as twenty to forty percent of firms regulated by federal environmental statutes regularly violate the law. More environmental laws will not do the trick.

On average America produces about 236 million tons of trash a year. Each ton of garbage has the potential of producing the amount of electrical energy produced by a quarter ton of coal. Unlike coal, we will more than likely never run out of garbage. If companies and individuals could sell their trash to energy plants that use garbage as fuel, they could be making a profit from what they would otherwise just throw away. This would mean that individuals and corporations would now have an economic incentive to stop open burning of trash and sell their trash to a garbage energy plant. Each plant would want to minimize emissions from the plant because doing so will increase the efficiency of producing energy. Currently it costs more to use garbage as an energy source than coal or nuclear energy. However, in a free-market where substantial profits could be made from finding better ways of turning garbage to energy, surely a more efficient method would be developed. The current oppressive system of government environmental regulation gives companies no real economic benefits for finding a better way of making trash into energy. A waste to energy program can often also be combined with a recycling program. As recycling programs would become more common they would also become more cost effective and produce larger profit margins. With an emphasis on making trash into energy, open burning may become an obsolete practice in America.

EPA regulations are already being ignored. Congress has no Constitutional authority to regulate the environment. The EPA should be abolished. The U.S. Senate should use the free-market to encourage environmentally friendly behavior in America. America should require all polluters to clean up the messes they create. If would be polluters knew that they would have to provide restitution for environmental damage they cause they would become less likely to cause pollution. The U.S. Congress should turn all Federal owned land over to private individuals. When people have ownership of land they are more likely to take care of it. In England, people with waterfront property enjoy ownership of the fishing rights to the water touching their land. If the water adjoining their land is polluted, they may seek damages and restitution from the polluters. Private property ownership is the surest way to protect the environment. Private property ownership protects the environment much better than oppressive government regulations ever could. National parks should be turned over to land trusts.