In theory, sure, a disinterested regulator would ensure that the cost of polluting was higher than the cost of not polluting. (Another solution to this problem is via property right enforcement, by the owners of the nearby polluted properties that share airspace/water table with the polluter).
But in practice the EPA is hardly a disinterested party when it comes to publishing studies on its own cost effectiveness. It exists to increase its budget and scope, just like all other agencies, but has no check on its behavior. Its officials are not elected, cannot be fired, and are effectively invisible to the public. Moreover, opposition to EPA malfeasance/corruption is often caricatured as opposition to clean air and clean water itself.
As an example of regulatory pathology, consider that the EPA is giving grants and instruction manuals to NGOs, telling them how to sue the agency into expanding its powers.
The EPA even tacitly encourages such suits, going so
far as to pay for and promote a "Citizen's Guide" that,
among other things, explains how to sue the agency
under "citizen suit" provisions in environmental laws.
The guide's author — the Environmental Law Institute —
has received $9.9 million in EPA grants over the past
decade.
And, to top it off, critics say the EPA often ends up
paying the groups' legal fees under the Equal Access to
Justice Act.
What's going on? "The EPA isn't harmed by these suits,"
said Jeffrey Holmstead, who was an EPA official during
the Bush administration. "Often the suits involve things
the EPA wants to do anyway. By inviting a lawsuit and
then signing a consent decree, the agency gets legal
cover from political heat."
Most people have never read an expose on the EPA; they think of them as the "good guys" who protect us from the evil polluters. What's funny is that we can see through this kind of logic when the normal police invoke it to justify any action in the pursuit of common criminals, but not when the environmental police do so -- and the EPA is most certainly a branch of the police, with the power to raid, fine, and seize property.
This sounds bad in a soundbite, but this is the way the system works.
Consider this loose example: suppose 2 people get into a fight. One guy really beats up another guy, and the cops are called. If the recipient refuses to press charges, the cops can't do anything.
Similarly, a lot of government agencies can't proactively do something, until someone sues them. By getting sued, they get to act on the complaint, and the legal opinion can be used to justify similar action elsewhere.
There is no nefarious purpose here; it is disingenuous to claim so. Yes, government agencies have issues galore; but by conflating the necessary with the rest, we fail to identify the real problems.
Argh! Why the downvotes? This is the way the government works! A government agency often needs a legal cover to do something; so it asks the citizens to sue them in court, so that it will have the legal cover. It can't sue itself, because it can't be the plaintiff and the defendant at the same time.
But in practice the EPA is hardly a disinterested party when it comes to publishing studies on its own cost effectiveness. It exists to increase its budget and scope, just like all other agencies, but has no check on its behavior. Its officials are not elected, cannot be fired, and are effectively invisible to the public. Moreover, opposition to EPA malfeasance/corruption is often caricatured as opposition to clean air and clean water itself.
As an example of regulatory pathology, consider that the EPA is giving grants and instruction manuals to NGOs, telling them how to sue the agency into expanding its powers.
m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/epa-funds-greens-sue-221700941.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us
Most people have never read an expose on the EPA; they think of them as the "good guys" who protect us from the evil polluters. What's funny is that we can see through this kind of logic when the normal police invoke it to justify any action in the pursuit of common criminals, but not when the environmental police do so -- and the EPA is most certainly a branch of the police, with the power to raid, fine, and seize property.