The absurdity of environmental regulations without tariffs

By Glen Wallace


There is an out-of-sight-out-of-mind approach to environmental regulations that pervades the lawmaking world in the United States.  The approach is to enact strict regulations for manufactures to follow in the US with the stated goal of protecting the environment while at the same time having no problem with importing items manufactured in foreign lands that have little if any regulations to protect the environment.  It is as though the health of the earth doesn't matter because we don't live there we can't see that land from here.  I think environmental regulation is great, but safeguards should be in place to insure that a net reductions in pollutants reaching the earth and atmosphere is achieved by any such regulation.  Polluting manufactures should be seen as a slippery entity whereby if you clamp down on them from just a couple sides then there is a good chance they will slip out your grasp and just end up somewhere else.  Indeed there may even be a net increase in pollution if a company offshores their manufacturing facilities due to steep regulations here in the US.  That increase in pollution would not necessarily be from the manufacturing itself but also from the power plants in foreign lands with less pollution controls powering the factories.  Additionally, the products now manufactured on foreign soil has to be shipped back over here on freighters each chugging out diesel exhaust equivalent to a dozen or more diesel train engines.   That's a lot of exhaust being spewed out over a long trip over the pacific ocean.  As I understand it, those compact florescent light bulbs that are supposedly so green could never be manufactured in the US due to the environmental regulations here governing their manufacture.  However it seems everyone is encouraging their purchase and use because doing so is so environmentally responsible and shows you care about the earth.  However, nobody seems to be paying any attention to what the manufacture of those lights are doing to the land oversees where there is looser regulations on such matters.

What I propose is that we maintain our strict environmental regulations but enact a system of inverse tariffs whereby the tariffs are highest for goods manufactured in countries with the least environmental regulations such as China and tariffs would be the least for goods manufactured in countries with strict environmental regulations such as Germany.

It seems like a simple and commonsensical plan but the two recent pieces of regulation seemed to completely ignore anything resembling my idea - if anything they went in the opposite direction.  One had to do with the valuation of Chinese currency relative to the dollar and the other was some new free trade agreements that it sounds like will eliminate any existing tariffs with some countries.

But that seems like par for the course when it comes to the people who actually make the laws, when they actually do something, they choose between two non sensible choices that are in the interests of the few (and who probably pre-selected those choices) while never even bringing up for consideration any good ideas that would be in the interest of the many (while hoping that not many people use their own imagination to come up with any novel ideas and solutions and realize that what the congress people put forward is not necessarily the limit to all logical possibilities conceivable as a solution to any given problem). Ya, they want us to think that big brother knows best and that with all their official prestigious titles and respect garnered from the so-called expert talking heads on TV that surely all the solutions have been gone over and they have come up with all the selections that is best for the people. With all that pomp and ceremony showered on them, how could they possibly be wrong!?  After all, isn't that a logical form - modus pompous? /sarcasm

- Glen Wallace

On the Need for Regulations and Tariffs

By Glen Wallace

I think we tend to take for granted the regulations that protect the consumer.  As an example there was the problem with the toxic drywall from China that had it been manufactured in the US perhaps the existing regulations in this country would have prevented the problems from occurring in the first place.  Additionally there are certain food and drink manufacturing regulations that we count on to insure that those products are safe to consume.  But these are the sorts of regulations that the consumer both wants and needs.  I think both of those factors must be present before regulatory restrictions are implemented on any given product.  If the consumer wants to consume something that the government believes is unsafe for the consumer, then the consumer should still be allowed to consume the product.  The government should not be taking on a 'Big Brother knows best' approach where they exist to be our masters that protect us from ourselves.  Rather government should be the servant of the people and only takes on the role of protector when we ask it to, but quickly backs off when ordered to do so as well.

The following is a post I wrote somewhere in response to a speech/testimony by Peter Schiff:

Mr Schiff is so selective in his arguments, only pulling out the best examples that appear to support his positions while selectively ignoring the glaring refutational examples.  For instance in the case of Henry Ford the workers and the economy benefited by the wisdom and benevolence of Mr Ford.  But given human nature we can not count on all the heads of business to have such virtuous characteristics.

All too many in business suffer from a case of tunnel vision nearsightedness, where if they can get away with squeezing every last dime of productivity without killing their employees they will do it.  I'm thinking of the sort of characters as Scarlett O'hara from 'Gone with the Wind' and her treatment of the prison laborers in her husbands lumber mill.  It is for those sorts that government regulation is absolutely necessary to protect the worker from abuse by the Scarlett O'haras and pre-epiphany Ebenezer Scrooges of the world.  I also think back to the working conditions as featured accurately in Upton Sinclair's book 'The Jungle'.  There wasn't much unions or government regulation then either.  What did the free market do for those workers Mr Schiff?

But on the other hand I believe supporters of heavy regulation in the US often have an out-of-sight-out-of-mind approach in ignoring how a lack of regulations on foreign businesses with regard to workers rights and the environment, creates an incentive to offshore work to those countries with factories that abuse the environment and their workers due to lack of regulations.  But when it comes time to import those foreign made goods, the pro regulation set is silent and by their silence, imply that it is perfectly fine to buy those goods and thereby support those foreign factories that may be paying slave-like wages and polluting the environment.

It doesn't make any sense to support regulation under the pretext that it is being done to protect the workers and the environment when there is no disincentive to offshore the work to countries where workers and the environment are not being protected.  As a solution I would suggest implementing a tariff system that varies inversely with the level of regulation in the country of manufacture for a product.  For instance, a very high tariff would be levied against Chinese made goods whereas little to no tariff would be put on products made in Germany.