[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: The Limits To Growth



David Whitt wrote:
> 
> In article <32AEF309.698@bionomics.org>,
> Max Jacobs  <mjacobs@bionomics.org> wrote:
> >Thomas Hopkins recently studied regulatory compliance costs in
> >"Regulatory Costs in Profile" done for the Center for the Study of
> >American Business.  In 1995 regulatory compliance costs were $668
> >billion.  Of that $218 billion was just paperwork, $223 billion was due
> >to environmental regulations and $227 billion was for price and entry
> >controls.  Even if you assume that environmental regulations create no
> >paperwork (which would be like assuming that the world is flat)
> >environmental regulations still cost on average $1905 per employee in a
> >business with less than 20 persons.  $1824 per employee in a business
> >with 20-499 employees and $1025 per employee in large businesses with
> >over 500 workers.  So imagine if you ran a business with 10 employees.
> >By these figures, you would be paying $18240 just to comply with
> >regulations.  That is enough money to hire another person.

I doubt it!  The money has already been spent employing someone to comply with the 
regulations.

 So, its hard
> >for me to believe you when you tell me regulation doesnt effect the
> >general employement level.
>(snip)
> 
> Seeing as how this study was done by a pro-business think tank I wonder
> how accurate the figures are but giving the benefit of the doubt, are you
> recommended that all regulatory compliances be disregarded?  That would
> fit in line with what many businesses would like.  Imagine, they could
> pollute all they like, higher children and legally own sweatshops, offer
> no medical or retirement plan to workers, pay nothing to the government.
> Boy wouldn't that really get the economic "ecosystem" going! 
> (snip)

First, 	I'll state my vested interest - I am employed by a business organisation as 
an environmental adviser.  If this is negative, then on the positive side, the 
majority of my 20+ year career has been as a regulator and an environmental 
consultant.

Very few companies really seek a return to the old days. Many of those who do are 
stuck with out-of-date technology which they are having difficulty upgrading.  This 
is a normal part of the business cycle (and the rest of society) where new ideas and 
methods need to fight for their place.

Two connected points - firstly new technology which is less polluting is also likely 
to mean less employment at least at the production stage.  

Secondly, EPAs around the world need to get better at achieving maximum 
environmental return for the cost of their regulations.  One of the most obvious and 
most quoted high cost - low return expenditures is the Superfund process in the US. 
 Lots of expenditure assigning blame, not many sites cleaned up.

Regards, Martin


References: