A recent study from the Pew Research Center found nonpartisan support for strengthening environmental laws.
A new nonpartisan research study found that the majority of Americans, including Republicans, believe that "stricter environmental rules and regulations are worth the cost".
Just a regular reminder that climate change and environmental protection are not nearly as controversial or partisan as some powerful folks would like us to believe. There has been similar research findings that the majority of people in every country support policies to address climate change and also that people consistently underestimate how many other people care about climate change.
The “abundance” climate agenda is little more than a progressive repackaging of trickle-down, anti-regulatory economics.
Excerpt from this story from Truthout:
One of the Trump administration’s top priorities has been its devastating, unilateral rollback of renewable energy projects and environmental regulations — and a corresponding, aggressive push for fossil fuel interests.
But to hear a growing chorus of “abundance” proponents tell it, the real obstacle to climate progress is environmental regulation itself.
In a disturbing trend, influential politicians and commentators are propagating the idea that U.S. environmental regulation is too stringent, which they blame for stalling worthwhile progress in all sorts of key realms, from housing to mass transit to renewable energy projects. Proponents of this worldview loosely refer to their agenda as “abundance,” which they say characterizes the techno-utopia we can build if we eliminate regulatory constraints.
As an illustration, organizers of the “Abundance” conference taking place this week in Washington, D.C., describe the “abundance” movement as “a cross-partisan coalition committed to accelerating economic growth, reinforcing American leadership in science and technology, dismantling bureaucratic inertia, restoring effective governance, and reducing the cost of living.”
There are many unfounded ideological assumptions in this statement. Is “bureaucratic inertia” a significant obstacle to desirable outcomes in energy, housing, transportation, or any other sector? Does “restoring effective governance” entail less regulation, necessarily? Is “reducing the cost of living” the single most important thing we can do to relieve the serious economic hardship that many people face today? The “abundance” lobby wants us to believe that the answer to each of these questions is “yes.”
This argument isn’t just being made by polluting industries and their supporters, but also by people supposedly concerned about mitigating climate change. They claim that environmental regulations are getting in the way of building renewable energy capacity quickly (although a great many of these critics are not specialists in environmental policy.) One approving reviewer of Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s book Abundance, for example, claims that the “biggest thing blocking the greening of American energy” has been “progressive environmental laws that have allowed NIMBYs to sue solar plants and transmission lines into oblivion,” asserting this as the truth without a shred of evidence.
In the recent past, this idea was referred to as “permitting reform” and primarily associated with fossil fuel backers like former Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia). Now it’s gotten a rebrand. Whatever you call it, the justification for a deregulatory “abundance” agenda is flat-out wrong. But like many bad ideas with powerful backers, it could still become conventional wisdom unless it’s aggressively dispelled.
If you ever feel like despairing because it seems like we'll never solve any of the world's problems, take a second to realize there's no acid rain in the US anymore. There used to be acid rain, did you know that? The reason there isn't anymore is the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Acid Rain program, which have only existed since the 90s.
We used to have acid rain here and now we just DON'T. We have gone from acid rain to no acid rain in the span of 30 years. Because of effective environmental regulations.
Napoleon’s decree in 1810: First regulation limiting pollution in French history
Source: Décret impérial du 15/10/1810
This comes after the creation of the Public Hygiene and Health Council of the City of Paris on 6 July 1802, and each department getting its own Health Council.
In addition, the ordinance of the Prefect of Police on 12 February 1806 concerning preliminary investigations then authorization necessary for factories, workshops and laboratories producing polluting or dangerous products.
According to Éloi Laurent (Towards Social-Ecological Well-Being):
“The first laws regulating French industrial establishments and in particular the imperial decree of October 15, 1810 was the first legislation in the world regulating pollution (it was extended by the law of December 19, 1917).”
Below is an English translation of the 1810 decree.
————-
Imperial decree of 10/15/1810 relating to factories and workshops that emit an unhealthy or inconvenient odor.
NAPOLEON, Emperor of the French, King of Italy, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine, Mediator of the Swiss Confederation;
On the report of our Minister of the Interior;
Considering the complaints brought by various individuals against factories and workshops whose operation gives rise to unhealthy or inconvenient exhalations;
The report made on these establishments by the chemistry section of the physical and mathematical sciences class of the Institute;
Our Council of State heard;
We HAVE DECREED and DECREE the following:
Article 1 of the decree of 15 October 1810
As of the publication of this decree, factories and workshops which emit an unhealthy or inconvenient odor may not be formed without permission from the administrative authority: these establishments will be divided into three classes.
The first will include those who must be located away from private homes.
The second will include factories and workshops whose distance from homes is not strictly necessary, but which should only be set up once it is certain that the operations carried out there will not inconvenience or cause damage to neighboring homeowners.
In the third class will be establishments which can remain near homes without inconvenience, but must remain subject to surveillance by the police.
Article 2 of the decree of 15 October 1810
The necessary permission for the formation of factories and workshops included in the first class will be granted, with the following formalities, by a decree issued by our Council of State.
Permission for the operation of establishments in the second class will be granted by the prefects, on the advice of the sub-prefects.
Permissions for the operation of establishments in the last class will be issued by sub-prefects, who will first obtain the opinion of the mayors.
Article 3 of the decree of 15 October 1810
Permission for first class plants and factories will only be granted subject to the following formalities:
The request for authorization will be presented to the prefect, and posted, by his order, in all communes within a five kilometer radius.
Within this period, any individual will be allowed to present grounds of opposition.
The mayors of the communes will have the same right.
Article 4 of the decree of 15 October 1810
If there is opposition, the Prefecture Council will weigh in, with the exception of a decision by the Council of State.
Article 5 of the decree of 15 October 1810
If there is no opposition, permission will be granted, if necessary, on the advice of the prefect and the report of our Minister of the Interior.
Article 6 of the decree of 15 October 1810
If it concerns a soude[*] factory, or if the factory is to be established within the customs area, our Director of Customs will be consulted.
Article 7 of the decree of 15 October 1810
Authorization to form factories and workshops in the second class will only be granted after the following formalities have been completed.
The entrepreneur will first send his request to the sub-prefect of his arrondissement, who will forward it to the mayor of the commune in which the establishment is to be formed; by instructing him to carry out a de commodo et incommodo[**] enquiry. Once this is completed, the sub-prefect will issue a decree which he will forward to the prefect. The prefect will make the decision, unless any interested parties appeal to our Council of State.
If there is opposition, it will be decided by the Prefecture Council, except for an appeal to the Council of State.
Article 8 of the decree of 15 October 1810
Factories or establishments in the third class can only be formed with the permission of the Prefect of Police, in Paris, and the mayor in other towns.
If complaints arise against the decision taken by the Prefect of Police or the mayors, on a request to form a factory or workshop included in the third class, they will be judged by the Prefecture Council.
Article 9 of the decree of 15 October 1810
The local authority will indicate the place where the factories or workshops included in the first class may be established, and will specify its distance from private dwellings. Any individual who carries out construction in the vicinity of these factories and workshops after their establishment has been authorized will no longer be allowed to request their removal.
Article 10 of the decree of 15 October 1810
Establishments that emit an unhealthy or inconvenient odor will be divided into three classes in accordance with the table appended to this imperial decree. It will serve as a rule whenever it comes to deciding on requests for the formation of these establishments.
Article 11 of the decree of 15 October 1810
The provisions of this decree will not have retroactive effect: consequently, all establishments currently in operation will continue to operate freely, with the exception of any damages to which contractors may be liable in the event of damage to the property of their neighbors; such damages will be settled by the courts.
Article 12 of the decree of 15 October 1810
However, in the event of serious inconvenience for public health, culture, or the general interest, first-class factories and workshops causing such inconvenience may be suppressed by virtue of a decree issued by our Council of State, after having heard the local police, taken the opinion of the prefects and received the defense of the manufacturers.
Article 13 of the decree of 15 October 1810
Establishments maintained under article 11 will cease to enjoy this benefit as soon as they are transferred to another location, or if there is a six-month interruption in their work. In either case, they will fall into the category of establishments to be formed, and they will not be able to resume activity until they have obtained a new permit, if necessary.
Article 14 of the decree of 15 October 1810
Our Ministers of the Interior and the General Police are each responsible for the execution of the present decree, which will be published in the Bulletin of Laws.
NAPOLEON
By the Emperor:
Minister Secretary of State,
H. B. DUKE OF BASSANO
——————
My notes:
Attached to this decree is an appendix with
“nomenclature of factories, establishments and workshops emitting an unhealthy or inconvenient odor, which may not be set up without permission from the Administrative Authority.”
Some of the substances listed can be translated and some cannot. I recommend going to the link at the top of this post to check it out if interested.
[*] Soude definition
[**] De commodo et incommodo definition
Public Hygiene and Health Council of the City of Paris is a translation of Conseil d'hygiène publique et de salubrité de la Ville de Paris
An additional source on this legislation: Fondation Napoléon
Guardian reporters map out how Trump is eviscerating efforts to protect the natural world – from ‘drill, baby, drill’ to mass firings
Donald Trump has never been mistaken for an environmentalist, having long called the climate crisis a “giant hoax” and repeatedly lauding the supposed virtues of fossil fuels.
But the US president’s onslaught upon the natural world in this administration’s first 100 days has surprised even those who closely charted his first term, in which he rolled back environmental rules and tore the US from the Paris climate agreement.
This time, the mantra “drill, baby, drill” has been used to justify a hyperactive series of actions to reverse rules designed to protect clean air and water, open up vast tracts of land, ocean and even the seabed to mining, fire federal scientists en masse and downgrade the federal response to the disasters that stem from a warming world.
Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is attempting to roll back toxic regulations that were calculated to save an estimated 200,000 Americans’ lives in the years ahead, his Department of the Interior is looking to shrink national monuments and his scientific agencies are degrading the basic data collection required for climate assessments and even weather forecasts.
This burst of activity faces a barrage of legal action, with the courts already taking a dim view of the administration’s attempts to skirt usual practice in its haste to deregulate. Even with a rightwing-dominated supreme court, many of these executive orders are expected to founder.
However, the US must accelerate efforts to cut emissions if climate goals are to be met, half of Americans still have to endure unsafe air and endangered species and public lands face pressure from a changing climate. The next few years will see little remedy to these growing problems from the White House.
“The pace of announcements may slow at some point but the pressure on our regulatory system and our democracy will not only continue, but ramp up,” said Michael Burger, a climate law expert at Columbia University. -“The result will be fewer environmental protections and more people suffering the public health consequences of more pollution. It’s that straightforward.” Oliver Milman
