An Argument for Environmental Utilitarianismmy.jessup.edu/publicpolicy/wp-content/uploads/... · AN...

0

An Argument for Environmental Utilitar ianism:

EPA Regulations and Their Negative Effects on Individual Liber ty and Economic Freedom

Ali Hendricksen

AN ARGUMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITARIANISM

1

Ali Hendricksen

An Argument for Environmental Utilitarianism: EPA Regulations and Their Negative Effects on Individual Liberty and Economic Freedom

William Jessup University

15 April 2016

Author Note

This paper was prepared for PPOL 498: Senior Seminar: Leadership and Service taught by Professor Phillip Escamilla, J.D


2

Table of Contents

Abstract 3

History of Environmental Policy 4

Industrial Period (1800-1900) 4

Conservation Period (1900-1970) 4

Environmental Period (1970-Present) and History of the EPA 5

The EPA Limits Individual Liberty 7

Federal Regulatory Restrictions 7

Individual Liberty Creates Good Stewards 9

The EPA Limits Economic Freedom 11

EPA Regulations Bar Economic Growth in the Energy Field 11

The Endangered Species Act Bars Economic Freedom 14

Practicing Environmental Utilitarianism 16

Following the Teachings of Gifford Pinchot 18

Christian Aspect 19

The Natural World is Cursed with Thorns and Thistles 19

Humans are More Valuable than the Environment 20

God Calls Humans to be Effective Stewards 20

Developing Earth’s Resources for our Benefit 20

Policy Recommendation 21

The American Conservation Ethic 22

Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015 23

Closing Remarks 25

References 27

Endnotes 30


3

Abstract One of the only reliable constants in human history is change. This is entirely true for the

environment. Human progress and environmental interaction has increased fourfold in the last

century. The capacity and ability to thrive as a country (and world) has much to do with

increased food production, the discovery of new energy resources, and the availability of fresh

water. This usage has come with a cost, as humans have completely changed the surface of the

environment. This environmental change has caused a division in opinions where some predict

environmental doom while others completely dismiss all fears. Within the last decade the

federal government, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has embraced this

doom and gloom perspective and created numerous new rules and regulations in an attempt to

protect, preserve and reserve the environment. The EPA’s efforts have been applauded by many,

particularly liberals. Many conservatives however, argue that the EPA has over expanded and

that its regulations threaten individual liberty by implementing federal regulatory restrictions and

also threaten economic freedom by interfering with the free market.

Economic freedom and individual liberty should not be compromised in the name of

environmental conservatism. Rather, a balance should be made where the government and its

citizens practice environmental utilitarianism. Utilitarianism will encourage and incentivize

citizens to steward land properly. It will also allow for the practice of cost/benefit analysis while

deciding how to manage the environment. Eliminating the EPA’s regulatory threats cannot be

done overnight, but with proper legislation and implementation, citizens will regain their rights

all while providing environmental sustainability.


4

History of Environmental Policy

The history of environmental policy is relatively new to the United States. The consequences

of nearly a century’s worth of ill environmental practices came to head just five decades ago and

led to a heightened awareness of the environment and its policies. Understanding the history of

environmental treatment and policy will help clarify how and why the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) has become such a prominent federal agency.

Industrial Period (1800-1900)

The Industrial Period welcomed bustling cities, tall skyscrapers, mass production, and

numerous new technologies. However, this rapid industrial expansion led to a host of

environmental consequences. Industries used an unimaginable amount of land, fossil fuel,

timber, copper, iron and tin. Carter Wilson, author of Public Policy: Continuity and Change

wrote that “by the beginning of the twentieth century, agricultural areas were overworked,

wilderness areas had shrunk, forests were dwindling and natural geological features…were

threatened” (Wilson, 2013).

During this time, it was assumed that the earth had unlimited and self- replenishable

resources. In addition, industrialists believed that it was the job of the state and local

government to take care of the environment and pollution. Despite this expectation,

environmental issues were far and few between, and almost always kept out of the public eye.

Conservation Period (1900-1970)

Following the Industrial Period, people saw the destruction made by industries and big

businesses and called for the conservation and preservation of the environment. Conservationists

advocated for “the wise management of land: limiting its use, replacing cut forests, preventing

soil erosion, and other similar measures” (Wilson, 2013). Perhaps the most influential and


5

famous preservationist that emerged from this period was John Muir. Environmental

organizations were constructed at this time, many of which are still in existence including: the

Sierra Club, National Parks and Conservation Association, Wilderness Society, National

Wildlife Federation and National Resources Defense Council. Environmentalists celebrated

when the National Park Service was founded in 1916. Despite the environmental

accomplishments, most environmental policies that were created at this time still benefited

businesses and industries.

Environmental Period (1970-Present) and History of the EPA

In 1962, naturalist and bird enthusiast, Rachel Carson wrote a book that completely catalyzed

the environmental movement. Her book Silent Spring quickly became a New York Times

Bestseller, as it explained the detrimental effects of pesticides that cause harm to the

environment, particularly birds. Carson’s book piqued public interest and concern, as most

citizens knew nothing about environmental issues prior to reading her book. In response to the

public outcry, the federal government began creating environmental policy. The environmental

laws however, were often confusing, ineffective, contradictory and sprawled across numerous

departments and agencies.

Less than a decade later, the highly visible and rampant increase in pollution pushed the

federal government to reconsider the structure of their environmental policies. In 1970, the

Nixon Administration reorganized the executive branch by consolidating fifteen pre-existing

units such as air, solid waste and water hygiene into a new agency- The Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA). The goal of the EPA is to “implement federal laws to protect the

environment. It has the job of controlling and abating pollution in the areas of air, water, solid

waste, pesticides, radiation, and toxic substances” (Nelson, 1992). With their main headquarters


6

in Washington DC, 10 regional offices, and 27 laboratories sprawled across the country, the EPA

is able to conduct research, collect data and evaluate federally mandated Environmental Impact

Statements. The EPA has the mission of creating laws and enforcing them through a series of

regulations and standards. The EPA has the power to enforce their regulations through fines,

sanctions and other measures.

The EPA’s first and most notable acts were the Clean Air Act of 1970, Federal Pesticide

Control Act of 1972, Clean Water Act of 1972 and Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, all of

which are still in existence and routinely amended. Just a few short years after its inception, the

agency proved to be a success and even reduced unburned hydrocarbons by 85% by working

with car manufacturers to install catalytic converters (EPA, 2016). However, with the arrival of

the 21st century the EPA expanded to address more environmental issues which currently

include: air, chemicals, climate change, carbon emission regulations, green house gas

regulations, emergencies, health and safety, land and clean up, pesticides, waste and water.

When Senator Barack Obama ran for President in 2008 he promised to change, amplify and

protect the environment. This was adverse to the previous administration that tried to limit the

EPA’s scope of power by eliminating some EPA policies and regulations. After becoming

President, Barack Obama said in his second inaugural address, “some may still deny the

overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires

and crippling drought and more powerful storms…the path towards sustainable energy sources

will be long and sometimes difficult…that is how we will preserve our planet…” (President

Obama’s Climate, 2013). In the last eight years, President Obama and his administration have

worked to combat climate change through a Climate Action Plan, and advance American energy

through the development of solar, wind and natural gas. In addition, he has also supported


7

overall environmental advancements through land and water conservation. While these

environmental advancements sound commendable, many conservative groups and politicians

argue that since the Obama Administration took over in 2008, the EPA has created policies and

regulations at the risk of individual liberty by increased federal regulatory restrictions, and

threaten economic freedom through bills that deteriorate the free market and raise prices.

The EPA Limits Individual Liberty

The federal government currently owns 1 of every 3 acres in the United States and

government ownership totals more than 630 million acres (McGill, 2016). This is more than the

landmass of Texas, California, Florida and New York combined. Not only does the federal

government own millions of acres of land, they are making it difficult for the land that is private

to be used as citizens wish.

Federal Regulatory Restrictions

Regulatory restrictions are rules made by the government to define what corporations,

businesses and individuals are allowed and not allowed to do. As for the EPA, these restrictions

come in the form of laws and regulations that all land owners must comply with, but are

provided with no compensation for their compliance. Some regulatory restrictions are necessary

such as the restriction that prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors. Other regulatory

restrictions, especially the ones created by the EPA seem ridiculous and un-necessary. Not only

do the EPA restrictions apply to private landowners, it greatly restricts the owners from doing

what they want with their land.

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution explicitly states that the government

shall not take private property without just compensation, and that private property rights should

be upheld by the government.i Since our country’s inception, our “Founders believed that


8

protecting private property as an extension of a man’s self was the highest public interest

because it was essential to free government” (Boccia, Spencer, Gordon, 2013).

Although the government has the ability to use eminent domain and create federal regulatory

restrictions, these are meant to act as an exception, not a rule. Some families who have

experienced unnecessary regulatory restrictions because of the EPA have brought their cases to

court. The most popular and recent case being Sackett v EPA. In 2007, Chantell and Mike

Sackett filled half an acre of land that they owned in Priest Lake, Idaho with dirt and rock in

preparation to build a home. Months later, the EPA issued the Sacketts a compliance order

stating that their land was on wetland and that filling the half acre was a violation of the Clean

Water Act. The EPA ordered the Sacketts to remove the rock and restore the land back to its

original condition and threatened the couple with a daily fine of $75,000 for non-compliance.

The Sacketts requested a hearing with the EPA, but it was denied. During this time, the EPA

continued to assert the Clean Water Act jurisdiction over the plot of land. The Sacketts brought

the case to the district court and challenged the EPA’s compliance order as being ‘arbitrary and

capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, issued without a hearing in violation of the

Sackett’s procedural due process rights; and issued on the basis of an ‘any information available’

standard that is unconstitutionally vague’ (Sackett v. EPA, 2016). The district court dismissed

the lawsuit siding with the EPA, as did the Ninth Circuit Court. In 2012 the case was brought to

the Supreme Court where the main concern and question revolving the case was whether

landowners have the right to bring the EPA to court and challenge the Clean Water Act. In a

unanimous decision, the court decided in favor of the Sacketts. The Supreme Court Justice’s

agreed that the Clean Water Act does not preclude judicial review of compliance orders. In

addition, they agreed that “the only real solution is a clarification by Congress of the ambiguities


9

in the Clean Water Act” (Sackett v. EPA, 2016). The Sacketts may have won their case, but

private landowners should not have to continually rely on the United States Supreme Court to

protect their rights against the EPA. Within the last couple years alone, numerous court cases

have been tried at the Supreme Court level regarding the EPA and their regulatory restrictions.ii

Individual Liberty Creates Good Stewards

It can be argued that private property ownership with little to no regulations creates good

stewards. Many argue that private landowners are more likely to enhance and protect their

resources. Private property forces its owners to bear the cost of their actions. If a private owner

chooses to deplete their land or misuse it, they will eventually derive the consequences of their

actions through a lower property value. Therefore, owners will be incentivized and encouraged

to steward their land properly, as they will eventually incur the land’s value. Private land owners

and companies have proved that taking care of land, without being forced by the EPA is in their

best interest, and therefore makes the best kind of environmental stewardship.

Peabody Energy is a model example of a company that obtains private land, extracts the

required resources and then maintains proper stewardship in order to incur the proper economic

costs. Peabody Energy is the world’s largest private-sector coal company that works in more

than six continents and twenty-five countries. Not only is Peabody Energy a leader in coal, they

are also leaders in advancing clean coal solutions and environmental responsibility. When

companies are finished mining, they are mandated to reclaim land through federal and state laws.

The most popular and oldest federal laws regarding reclamation come from the 1977 Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act. Even before land restoration and environmental laws

were enacted, “Peabody was reclaiming landscapes and sustaining farms, ranches, wildlife and


10

communities” (Environmental Responsibility, 2014). Peabody Energy works to reclaim the land

they own in order to enhance the environment and make their land more aesthetically pleasing.

Before mining ensues, Peabody Energy creates, researches and approves post-mining plans.

After mining, Peabody Energy reclaims the land and brings it back to its original state, most

often making the land more beautiful and versatile than prior to mining. In the last three years

alone, Peabody Energy has planted more than 1.5 million trees and “pioneered agricultural

practices that return mined land to highly productive farmland…” (Environmental

Responsibility, 2014). Grass and trees are re-planted, deep slashes are left in the earth to form

ravines that become creeks, and ponds are created and stocked with fish that can attract

waterfowl. These reclaimed strip mines can be turned into farms, private hunting grounds, or

woods. After reclaiming the privately owned land, Peabody Energy will often sell the land to

interested farmers, hunters or economic developers. In addition, Peabody Energy does its part to

give back to the community. A couple years ago, Peabody Energy donated over 2,500 acres of

reclaimed strip mine land to be used as a training ground for the Illinois Army National Guard

near St. Louis, MO (Lyderson, 2012).

Peabody Energy has proved that despite having to follow state and federal reclamation laws,

they have always been reclaiming land and go above and beyond what is expected of them.

Peabody Energy’s Land Reclamation


11

When Peabody Energy, other companies, and individual citizens own private land, owners are

responsible and more likely to act as good stewards toward what they own. Owners understand

the time, money, investment and worth their property is. This type of stewardship can only

happen when the government and EPA allow companies and individuals to own, operate and

steward their own land without regulatory restrictions and laws.

The EPA Limits Economic Freedom

The term economic freedom has broad implications. For the purposes of this paper, economic

freedom is the idea that the government should allow the free market to function with little to no

intervention. It should also allow goods and services to be created and sold at the lowest

possible prices. Citizens never want to lose their jobs, pay more in taxes or see a downturn in

their community’s economy. Our country however, is starting to experience a threat to these

economic freedoms due to the EPA. As described in detail below, the EPA’s distaste for coal

and CO2 bills will raise electricity bills and cost jobs. In addition, the Endangered Species Act is

digging California into a deeper drought that will also cost the taxpayers a pretty penny.

EPA Regulations Bar Economic Growth in the Energy Field

The United States is lucky enough to be advancing its energy opportunities. Gone are the days

when energy was created solely by burning coal. Today, advancements in technology allow the

country to generate energy through natural gas, wind turbines and solar panels. These

advancements, and the belief that coal is a dirty form of energy have led the Obama

Administration to try and end all coal use, also known as Obama’s War on Coal. The EPA has

created a host of new restrictions and carbon dioxide regulations in an attempt to shut down coal

companies. The problem is that the country is not ready to stop using coal completely. Not only


12

is it unsafe for the country to rely on the new sources of energy, but the end of coal use can

potentially cripple the economy through huge job losses and higher energy costs.

An example of EPA regulations that aim to end coal consumption is the Stream Buffer Zone

Rule. Like other EPA regulations, the rule was created in 1983 and is routinely updated. The

original intent of the rule required coal mining operations to keep a 100-foot buffer zone around

streams. Under the George W. Bush Administration, the rule was repealed, because the physical

buffer around streams was found to have no environmental impact. However, in 2008 the

Obama Administration reinstated Stream Buffer Zone Rule and added extra mining regulations.

When asked for scientific evidence as to why mining companies had to stay 100 feet from

streams, the EPA was unable to provide evidence. Congressman Gosar (R-AZ) said that “states-

which have traditionally had primary jurisdiction on these matters…were not consulted in this

process. To make matters worse, information leaked in 2011 when the agency was crafting this

new mandate indicated the agency was trying to cover up job losses that would be associated

with this new rule” (Stream Act Passed, 2016).

What seems like such a small and insignificant rule actually has huge repercussions on coal

companies and the individual. A 2012 Economic Impact Study found that “the Obama

Administration’s announced Stream Protection Rule could potentially sterilize between 30% and

43% of recoverable reserves which will have devastating effects…for coal mines” (Stream Act

Passed, 2016). In addition, reinstating this rule would cause coal companies millions of dollars

in order to comply. Many companies will have to lay off workers or shut down completely if

they cannot afford to comply. The 2012 Economic Impact Study also found that the impact on

the economy will kill between “133,441 and 273,227 mining-related jobs, and [have] and

associated economic impact of $18 to $25 billion annually” (Stream Act Passed, 2016). The


13

Stream Buffer Zone Rule is a direct attack on coal but will most definitely hurt the economy

through a multi billion dollar economic impact, and the loss of thousands of mining jobs.

Another reason why the EPA’s War on Coal is destructive is because these new, alternative

forms of energy are unreliable and quite expensive. Ending coal consumption will also add extra

costs to taxpayers and their energy bills. Coal is relatively inexpensive to recover, abundant

throughout the states and can be stored for long periods of time before being burned. Coal can

quite literally sit in a pile for months before being used. Other forms of energy such as wind and

solar, also known as non-dispatchable power is not reliable. Production of non-dispatchable

power is costly and cannot be stored for long periods of time. In addition, non-dispatchable

power cannot be counted on to immediately produce energy to meet the high consumer demands,

as it is created through un-reliable constants. For instance, the sun must shine in order for solar

energy to be created, just like wind is needed in order for turbines to create energy. The Institute

for Energy Research writes that,

“because our electrical system

must respond to consumer

demand instantaneously, non-

dispatcable power is in essence

superfluous to our needs.” (Coal,

2016).

The accompanying chart

created by the Institute for

Energy Research shows

approximately how much it will

Institute for Energy Research. (Levelized Cost of Energy, 2016)


14

cost to generate energy in the year 2018. All types of coal production (including conventional

coal, advanced coal and advanced coal with clean carbon solution) cost between $60-

$145/megawatthour. Whereas non-dispatchable technologies (wind, offshore wind and solar)

cost between $75-$260/megawatthour (Levelized Cost of Energy, 2016). This increase in cost

for electric generation will cost electric companies and essentially the taxpayer. New England

has shifted away from coal and began to use natural gas for electricity and in a few short years,

electricity costs rose. National Grid reported that, “customers paid $203 million for electricity in

March 2013, and $316 million in March 2014” (Monseau, 2015).

EPA regulations such as the Stream Buffer Zone Rule interfere with electricity production

and the free market by essentially eliminating all coal consumption. This attempt to end coal

makes electricity more expensive for companies and taxpayers. If the EPA stepped back from

the market, electricity costs would decrease and coal companies could even focus on Carbon

Capture and Storage which would produce cleaner coal and help the environment.iii

The Endangered Species Act Bars Economic Freedom

In 1973 President Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This bi-partisan bill flew

through Congress with a 390-12 vote in the House and a unanimous vote in the Senate. The bill

was praised as it aimed to “provide the kind of management tools needed to act early enough to

save vanishing species” (Alagona, 2013). The ESA has more than a dozen key provisions that

authorize the federal government to implement an Endangered Species List, purchase habitats for

listed endangered species, call for international cooperation, allocate funds, and establish

enforcement and penalties. The Endangered Species List is subsequent to the EPA’s Endangered

Species Act, which calls for the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries

Service to prepare a plan to recover the species. They can “enforce regulations against ‘taking’


15

(e.g. harming, harassing, killing) individual endangered species” (Boccia et al, 2013). The

Endangered Species List is possibly the most well known aspect of the ESA.

Prior to its enactment, numerous legislators spoke in favor of the ESA, because they assumed

it was a safe, popular and un-bias cause- the protection of iconic and special species like the bald

eagle and whale. However, no one at the time seemed to understand or foresee the bill’s broader

implications. Years after the act was passed, its consequences have now been realized and some

say that the ESA has huge, unintended consequences. By passing the ESA, the legislators

pledged to protect all plant and animal species, but at the time they failed to “grasp the number

of species…that would qualify for protection” (Alagona, 2013). Those in government could not

foresee that the grasp of the ESA would grow and that eventually over 1,000 species and 700

plants would be on the list.

Perhaps the biggest example of the negative implications of the ESA is through the protection

of the Delta Smelt in northern California. While Mother Nature is to blame for the lack of rain

and drought, many Californians are unaware that EPA regulations curbed at saving a rare fish

called the Delta Smelt is another reason the state is in such a dismal drought. The Delta Smelt

are finger sized, silvery blue fish, which are prevalent in the San Francisco Bay and San Joaquin

Valley. The EPA listed the fish on the Endangered Species List in 1993 and they are still

currently on the list and considered o be ‘threatened.’

Seventy percent of California water comes from the northern part of the state, but southern

California accounts for over 70% of the demand due to their high population, lack of water and

large agricultural areas. Water sent from northern California to southern California requires the

pumping of water. These pumps trap and kill fish like the Delta Smelt. Biologists in 2013

believed that about 65-88 Delta Smelt existed. Due to this alarmingly small number, water had to


16

be diverted into the ocean (Water Supply Cuts, 2013). In response to environmental litigation

and to comply with the Endangered Species Act, California called for huge volumes of fresh

water to be diverted into the ocean instead of being ushered to southern California’s citizens and

farmers. Biologists believe that over 237 billion gallons of water have been diverted to the ocean

(Water Supply Cuts, 2013). This redirection of water has had other severe economic impacts.

The California Farm Water Coalition estimated a loss of “12,800 farm jobs and $873 million in

crop production and $2.2 billion in economic impact from farm production” (Lien-Mager, 2013).

The aforementioned impact study does not even include more tangible economic losses met

by taxpayers. The cutback in water currently restricts when and how many times homeowners

can water their lawns. The city of Sacramento, California is currently in a Stage 2 Water

Shortage which requires the city to reduce their water usage by 20% (City of Sacramento, 2016).

In order to meet the 20% reduction, homeowners are only allowed to water their lawns twice per

week (City of Sacramento, 2016). The lack of water can kill front lawns, lower the ground, and

crack cement, which can ultimately decrease the value of homes.

The regulations created due to the EPA’s Endangered Species Act are negatively effecting

California in big and small ways. California’s State Water Contractor, Terry Erlewine put it best

when he said, “…we’re forced to operate under regulations that have high costs for California’s

public water agencies, farms and economy” (Lien-Mager, 2013).

Practicing Environmental Utilitarianism

As was discussed earlier, the EPA’s practices and regulations are negatively hurting the

livelihood of the individual. It seems as though the EPA is putting the needs of the environment

before the needs of humans. This has become a critique by conservatives who advocate for a

utilitarian approach to environmental policy. The practice of environmental utilitarianism is a


17

belief in which policy is created that benefits the most amount of people. Environmental

utilitarianism puts humans first with the understanding that the environment cannot survive

unless humans thrive. Those who believe in environmental utilitarianism understand that the

environment, its resources, and its species will have to be utilized, but do not have to be depleted

in order for human life to flourish.

Brian Wolff, a professor at the University of Minnesota wrote that “the majority of

environmental ethicists appear to believe that a true environmental ethic is one that makes other

organisms and/or holistic entities, like species and ecosystems, subjects of direct moral concern.

This definition has seeped to establish and define the scope of environmental ethics as an

academic discipline, but it is too narrow to serve the present and future needs of environmental

advocates and policymakers” (Wolff, 2009). Wolff continues by suggesting that

environmentalists and environmental ethicists start considering environmental utilitarianism

when conducting research and making decisions. The most popular form of utilitarianism and

the one that Wolff uses is “both a theory of the good and a theory of the right. It holds that the

greatest good is happiness and freedom from pain and suffering. Acts that promote the greatest

good are morally right. Acts that reduce overall happiness and/or promote pain are morally

wrong” (Wolff, 2009). Environmental utilitarianism follows the aforementioned description,

believing that people are most important, and they must do what they need to survive and

prosper.

When practicing environmental utilitarianism, scientists and legislators must consider the

totality of a situation and identify its positive and negative aspects. While most utilitarian

ethicists identify the positive and negative aspects through a cost/benefit analysis only using


18

monetary terms, it important to also conduct environmental cost/benefit analysis’ through

scientific, and humanitarian terms (weighing individual liberty and economic impacts).

Following the Teachings of Gifford Pinchot

Environmental utilitarianism is not a new idea. In fact, it was coined over one hundred years

ago by the first United States Forest Service Chief- Gifford Pinchot. Pinchot’s belief regarding

environmental care is quite literally the definition of utilitarianism as his environmental

philosophy was “greatest good for the greatest number…in the long run” (Gifford Pinchot,

2015).

Pinchot watched for years as land was ruined by the coal and tree industries during the

Industrial Era. He understood that there needed to be a balance between using and utilizing

natural resources and also protecting the environment. In his autobiography Breaking New

Ground, Pinchot wrote, “without natural resources life itself is impossible. From birth to death,

natural resources, transformed for human use, feed, clothe, shelter, and transport us. Upon them

we depend for every material necessity, comfort, convenience, and protection in our lives.

Without abundant resources prosperity is out of reach” (Pinchot, 1947). During his time as Chief

to the United States Forest Service, Pinchot was able to practice environmental utilitarianism by

developing a plan in which forests could be developed by private interests, for a set fee. He also

campaigned for resource management and worked with timber companies, and even advocated

for the building of the Hetch Hetchy Dam in Yosemite National Park to provide water to the San

Francisco area.

Gifford Pinchot’s environmental opinions eventually changed. He became more liberal and at

one point even advocated for the federal government to own all forests in the country. Despite

Pinchot’s change in ideology, we should not dismiss his original ideology of environmental


19

utilitarianism and attempt to amend environmental policy to reflect Pinchot’s original belief of

environmental utilitarianism.

Christian Aspect

How should Christians think about the environment and environmental policy? It is easy for

believers to list numerous Bible verses from the book of Genesis that prove God wants His

people to protect and preserve the earth. While the Bible does tell a beautiful story of God

creating the earth, a closer look shows that the Bible may actually make a strong claim in favor

of environmental utilitarianism. God proves that humans are far more important than any other

species, and He commands His people to utilize the Earth to the best of their ability. By

combining God’s intent for humans and the environment, Christians can effectively steward the

environment and develop the land all while putting human lives first.

The Natural World is Cursed with Thorns and Thistles

The current state of our world is not the way God originally intended it to be. After Adam

and Eve sinned, God punished the world. As a result of sin, the earth would no longer be the

perfect Garden of Eden that God had intended it to be. God said in Genesis 3:17 “And to Adam

he said, ‘because you listened to your wife and ate the fruit I told you not to eat, I have placed a

curse on the ground. All your life you will struggle to scratch a living from it. It will grow

thorns and thistles for you, though you will eat of its grains” (NLT Bible). At this point, the

earth and its creation completely changed and became a hard place to live and develop. The

‘thorns and thistles’ that God described in Genesis could be literal and metaphorical ideas of

what was to come on earth. These thorns and thistles include things like: floods, hurricanes,

lightening, fires and wild animals. Our current environment has changed drastically, and is more

difficult to survive in due to human sin and flaw.


20

Humans are More Valuable than the Environment

The Bible clearly emphasizes the value of human life, as it says people are to put ourselves

before the animals, natural resources and environment. While speaking to the Pharisees Jesus

said in Matthew 12:12, “and how much more valuable is a person than a sheep!” (NLT Bible).

Christians are to understand that humans and the human economy come before any of God’s

other creation. Human life is greatly valued by God, therefore humans are allowed to use the

environment and natural resources in order for human life to thrive.iv

God Calls Humans to be Effective Stewards

Many Christian theologians, philosophers, and pastors have advocated for environmentalism

and argue that believers should protect and preserve the environment instead of tamper with it.v

Instead, Christians should turn their belief toward subduing the Earth. Wayne Grudem, author,

theologian and editor of the ESV Study Bible wrote that, “…[we] are tampering with fallen

nature, making natural products better. This is what God intends us to do. Part of our God-given

task of subduing the earth and having dominion over it is inventing various measures to

overcome the war in which nature is sometimes harmful to man and sometimes less than fully

helpful” (Grudem, 2001). Both atheists and Christians alike do not understand that the earth is

fallen. This leads to the opposition of projects that could potentially harm the earth. The only

power that can make our environment perfect is God, and that day will come soon “even the

wilderness will rejoice in those days. The desert will blossom with flowers” (NLT Bible, Isaiah

35:1).

Developing Earth’s Resources for our Benefit

One of the most popular verses that is used by Christian Environmentalists is Genesis 1:28

which says, “God blessed them and told them, ‘Multiply and fill the earth and subdue it. Be


21

masters over the fish and birds and all the animals” (NLT Bible). Many say that the verse points

toward protecting the environment. Those in favor of developing the earth’s resources would

argue however, that this verse is God’s way of giving humans the responsibility to change, use

and develop the earth. Grudem wrote, “God expected Adam and Eve and their descendants to

explore and develop the earth’s resources in such a way that they would bring benefit to

themselves and other humans” (Grudem 2001). It is possible, and as Grudem alluded,

sanctioned by God for humans to use the environment and its natural resources (such as coal) to

make our lives better and easier.

Policy Recommendation

The environment and its policies are complex and no single bill will re-invent the EPA.

Going forward, policy should be created that will limit the EPA’s scope of power and authority,

encourage economic growth, allow citizens to practice individual liberty, and give power back to

the states and local governments so that they can properly implement environmental policy. In

1996 the Heritage Foundation developed and continue to update the American Conservation

Ethic, a list of eight environmental principles that are “grounded in experience, science, wisdom,

and the enduring values of a free people that help policymakers develop sound environmental

policy” (Boccia et al, 2013). The American Conservation Ethic relies on firsthand knowledge

and the practical experience of local people and scientists instead of a bureaucratic government

to identify and implement environmental solutions. It also incentivizes private property owners

to steward land correctly. From now on, when Congress considers environmental and energy

bills, they should refer to the preceding eight principles. By learning, implementing and

practicing these eight principles, more effective environmental policy will be passed that assure

individual rights and advance free market principles.


22

The American Conservation Ethic

Principle I: People are the Most Important, Unique and Precious Resource

Environmental policy should be grounded in the idea that people are inherently special and the

most important resource over any other aspect of the environment. Any and all environmental

policy should be created with the individual in mind and encourage us to use our gifts and talents

to steward the land accordingly.

Principle II: Renewable Natural Resources are Resilient and Dynamic and Respond Positively to Wise Management Humans rely on many natural resources like water, plants and trees in order to survive. Human

life depends on both the use and conservation of these resources provided by the environment.

Nature has an amazing ability to recycle and recover itself, and will continue to do so if humans

steward the resources properly.

Principle III: Private Property Protections and Free Markets Provide the Most Promising New Opportunities for Environmental Improvements The United States practices free-market principles, which are believed to create competition, low

prices and excellent products. The free market also has a direct correlation to progress. By

allowing the free market to thrive in the environment, they both should thrive.

Principle IV: Efforts to Reduce, Control and Remediate Pollution Should Achieve Real Environmental Benefits While creating pollution policy, science must be used to rationally weigh the risks of economic

well-being, liberty, health and safety.

Principle V: As we Accumulate Scientific, Technological and Artistic Knowledge, We Learn How to Get More From Less Advancements in technology and science allow us to obtain more from the environment with less

of an impact. We can see how advancements in the last decades have allowed farmers to feed


23

more people with less land, build cars that get more miles to the gallon, and generate energy

through wind turbines.

Principle VI: Management of Natural Resources Should Be Conducted on a Site-and Situation-Specific Basis

Instead of creating large, nationwide policies that are expected to meet the needs of all locations,

environmental policy should be created on a site-and-situation basis. Those who are closest to

the resource know and understand the problem better than those creating policy in DC.

Implementing policy at the most localized level separates the problem into manageable sections.

Principle VII: Science Should Be Employed as One Tool to Guide Public Policy

Science is a powerful tool for understanding the environment and its needs. Science should most

definitely be used to help analyze and create policy, but it should not be the only factor. Some

policies that only rely on science can be destructive and hurt individuals and the economy.

Instead, policymakers should rely on science, ethics and consensus to create the most sound

policy.

Principle VIII: The Most Successful Environmental Policies Emanate from Libertyvi

Policy must stay consistent with America’s most prized tradition: liberty. Liberty creates an

open stage for citizens to create, maintain, grow and improve goods and services. If liberty is

taken away, the environment will not be able to be maintained, grow and be improved upon.

Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015

Aside from following the American Conservation Ethics, in order to change EPA policy,

power needs to be given back to the state and local governments. Last year, a bill was passed in

the 114th House of Representatives (and is now in the Senate) that aim to give governors the

ability to curb potential EPA policy. With some adjustments, this piece of legislation would be a

sufficient catalyst to changing EPA policy.


24

On June 24, 2015 the House of Representatives voted and passed H.R. 2042 titled the

Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015. Sponsored by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) this bill allows state

governors to decline EPA carbon dioxide bills if the governor finds that the plan would hurt the

state’s economic system. The bill reads, “…no state or entity within a state shall become subject

to a Federal plan…if the Governor of such State makes a determination, and notifies the

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, that implementation of the State or

Federal plan would have a significant adverse effect on the state’s residential, commercial or

industrial ratepayers” (Ratepayer Protection Act, 2015).

Pursuant to the aforementioned bill, I recommend that Congress create bills like this when

regulations are created for any EPA Act such as but not limited to: the Clean Water Act, Clean

Air Act and Endangered Species Act. This new legislation would give power back to the states

and allow them to conduct their own scientific research to determine if the EPA’s regulations

would truly change their economy, citizens and environment for the better. Additionally, giving

state governors the power to speak into EPA regulation may encourage and force the EPA to

create more well-received policy that states will be more likely to adopt. My policy

recommendation is as follows:

AN ACT

To allow for gubernatorial review of any Environmental Protection Agency regulation having to

do with: the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act. And to allow States

to protect households and businesses from large adverse effects on ratepayers or reliability.

(1) No state or entity within a state shall become subject to a Federal plan if the Governor of the

state determines that the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations would:

a) Not properly comply with the American Conservation Ethic


25

b) Have a significant negative effect on the state’s residential, commercial or industrial

taxes

c) Have a significant negative effect on job growth in the state in question

d) Have a significant negative effect or nominal effect on the targeted environment

(2) To make a determination of the section above, the governor of the state will conduct

meetings and request statistics and highly qualified studies from:

a) State public health departments

b) State economic development departments

c) State Environmental Protection Agency departments

States will have 60 days prior to the Federal Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation

being added to the Federal Register to file their refusal. Failure to do so will result in the

automatic compliance with the federal regulation mandate.

END

This legislation will give state governors the power to refuse to implement EPA regulations if

they can prove that a significant negative impact will be made to the economy (via: markets and

jobs). It is believed that this will force the EPA to create policy and regulations that will better

serve the needs of the citizens and the economy.

Closing Remarks

America has unrivaled natural wealth. The country’s fifty states range with an abundant

amount of mountains, valleys, plains, forests, lakes and ocean coasts. Despite these incredible

resources, people are the most rich, and greatest resource of all. In order for humans to flourish,

their constitutional rights to private property should be acknowledged and celebrated. In

addition, the democratic process of the free market and allowing competition should continue to


26

be practiced. Unfortunately, with the EPA’s rise in influence, their regulations are encroaching

on the values of individual liberty and economic freedom.

As discussed, the EPA’s regulatory restrictions and acts such as the Clean Water Act keep

individuals from being completely free to steward private property as they see fit. It is believed

that rather than allowing the government to own, operate and regulate all land, citizens should be

able to own private land. Private land ownership can create positive stewardship that allows the

environment to thrive. In addition, it is clear that the EPA’s mission to end coal consumption,

along with the Endangered Species Act hurt job growth, energy growth, and raise bills for

taxpayers.

The only way that citizens can regain their individual liberty and economic stability is to

fundamentally change the way that environmental policy is practiced. Instead of putting the

environment at the forefront, scientists, Congress, the current Administration and the EPA must

implement environmental utilitarianism, which ultimately puts humans first. In addition,

Congress must implement legislation that allows states to create their own environmental policy

instead of having to bow to the mire of red tape and endless regulations created by the EPA. It is

completely possible for humans and the environment to flourish concurrently, and it all begins

with environmental utilitarianism and allowing citizens to be free.


27

References

Alagona, Peter S. After the Grizzly: Endangered Species and the Politics of Place in California. U of California, 2013. Print. Pg. 96, 97 "American Legislative Exchange Council." Resolution Regarding Clean Water Act Regulations of EPA's Definition of "Waters of the U.S." -. 11 Oct. 2014. Web. 25 Feb. 2016. Atkin, Emily. "Congress Is Pushing A Bill To Significantly Weaken The EPA’s Climate Rule." ThinkProgress RSS. 14 Apr. 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2016. Boccia, Romina, Jack Spencer, and Robert Gordon. "Environmental Conservation Based on Individual Liberty and Economic Freedom." The Heritage Foundation. 14 Jan. 2013. Web. 25 Feb. 2016. "City of Sacramento." 2016. Web. 14 Apr. 2016. "Clean Air Act Requirements and History." EPA. 6 Jan. 2016. Web. "Coal." Institute for Energy Research. Web. 22 Mar. 2016. “Environmental Conservation: Eight Principles of the American Conservation Ethic.” The Heritage Foundation. Print. "Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)." Encyclopedia Britannica. Web. 19 Mar. 2016. "Environmental Responsibility." Peabody Energy. 2014. Web. 20 Feb. 2016. "Executive Office of the President." President Obama's Climate Action Plan. White House. 1 June 2013. Web. Dudley, William. The Environment: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven, 2001. Print. "Gifford Pinchot." U.S. Forest Service History. 1 May 2015. Web. Grudem, Wayne A. Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010. Print. Pg. 322, 325 Haugen, David M., Susan Musser, and Vickey Kalambakal. Energy Alternatives: Opposing Viewpoints. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven, 2010. Print. "H.R.1644 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Supporting Transparent Regulatory and Environmental Actions in Mining Act." H.R.1644. Web. 20 Feb. 2016.


28

Katz, Diane. "Coming Clean on Regulatory Costs and Benefits." The Heritage Foundation. Web. 22 Feb. 2016. Kay, Jane. "Delta Smelt, Icon of California Water Wars, Is Almost Extinct." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 3 Apr. 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2016. "Kelo v. New London." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, Feb 17, 2016. Langer, Andrew. "Consequences Of The Clean Air Act." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, Web. 22 Feb. 2016. "Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies." Institute or Energy Research. Web. 22 Mar. 2016. Lien-Mager, Lisa. "Water Supplies Curtailed Once Again to Protect Delta Smelt." Water Supplies Curtailed Once Again to Protect Delta Smelt. 12 Feb. 2013. Web. 13 Apr. 2016. Lydersen, Kari. "Recovered Coal Mine Land Creates Bargain Rural Retreats-But at What Cost?" Midwest Energy. 05 Sept. 2012. Web. Merchant, Carolyn. The Columbia Guide to American Environmental History. New York: Columbia UP, 2002. Print. McGill, Andrew. "The Massive, Empty Federal Lands of the American West." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 5 Jan. 2016. Web. 13 Apr. 2016. Monseu, Betsy. Coal’s Place in the Energy and Electricity Space. American Coal Council Magazine. Issue 2, 2015. Pg. 25. Murphy, Michael Patrick. The Government. Lincoln, NE: IUniverse, 2004. Print. Nelson, Michael. The Presidency A-Z: A Ready Reference Encyclopedia. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1998. Print. Pg. 159 "NLT Bible." New Living Translation (NLT). Web. 13 Apr. 2016. Pinchot, Gifford. Breaking New Ground. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1947. Print. "Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015." GovTrack.us. 25 June 2015. Web. 24 Mar. 2016. "Sackett v. EPA." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, Feb 18, 2016. "Species Profile for Delta Smelt (Hypomesus Transpacificus)." Species Profile for Delta Smelt (Hypomesus Transpacificus). Web. 13 Apr. 2016.


29

"Stream Act Passed to Block ‘Stream Buffer Zone Rule’." Arizona Daily Independent. 14 Jan. 2016. Web. 21 Feb. 2016. "Tragedy Of The Commons Definition | Investopedia." Investopedia. 22 Nov. 2009. Web. 23 Mar. 2016. Warner, Keith. "Using Ethical Principles in Moral Reasoning About the Environment." Santa Clara University. 1 May 2009. Web. Wilson, Carter A. Public Policy: Continuity and Change. 2nd ed. Long Grove: Waveland, 2013. Kindle. Pg. 211, 212, 212 Wolff, Brian. Environmental Studies and Utilitarian Ethics. 2008. E-Book. Pg. 45, 42


30

Endnotes i Amendment V of the Constitution states: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment ii An example of this is: Rapanos v. the United States, National Cotton Council v. EPA, and Croplife America v. Baykeeper. iii Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a developing technology that can essentially capture 90% of the CO2 emissions that are produced when mining for coal. The captured CO2 is stored in depleted oil or gas fields several kilometers underground. CCS has excellent health and safety records and can continue to help the coal industry create cleaner coal. For more information visit https://www.ccsassociation.org/what-is-ccs/ iv Matthew 6:26. “Look at the birds. They don’t plant or harvest or store food in barns, for your heavenly Father feeds them. And aren’t you far more valuable to him than they are?” Matthew 10:31. “So don’t be afraid; you are more valuable to God than a whole flock of sparrows.” Matthew 12:12. “And how much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Yes, the law permits a person to do good on Sabbath.” v See Pollution and the Death of Man by Francis Schaeffer and Green Like God by Jonathan Merritt. vi To read the Heritage Foundation’s entire American Conservation Ethic, visit http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/environmental-conservation-based-on-individual-liberty-and-economic-freedom or obtain their index: Environmental Conservation: Eight Principles of the American Conservation Ethic.

Date post:	16-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

An Argument for Environmental Utilitarianismmy.jessup.edu/publicpolicy/wp-content/uploads/... · AN...

Documents