Rethinking regulation's bad rap

Enlarge Image

Andrea Durbin is the Executive Director of Oregon Environmental Council, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing innovative, collaborative solutions to Oregon’s environmental challenges for today and future generations.

By now you've surely heard the rhetoric: regulation kills jobs.

It's been echoed by Romney, Gingrich — and even Colbert — in attacks on the EPA and a host of other topical issues. Here's the problem. Multiple studies and stories have demonstrated that regulations don't kill jobs or force employers to cut their work force.

What the criticism underscores is that it's time to rethink how we define and view regulations.

The fact of the matter is that regulations can help businesses by setting a level playing field and spurring innovation that enables companies to remain competitive in the global market place. Energy efficient appliances and reducing sulfur dioxide are just two examples where regulation has provided the catalyst for technological advancements and job growth. In good times or bad, forgoing protections on irreplaceable natural resources that have substantial economic value and are proven economic drivers for Oregon is absolutely the wrong approach.

The real question we need to ask ourselves is how do we make regulations work more effectively for our state? I’m not just talking about how regulations can provide certainty and consistency for business, but how can we ensure regulations achieve better outcomes more effectively and efficiently?

If the state wants to save money through realizing efficiencies and reducing risk, then regulations need to focus more upstream and prevent problems before they start. Prevention saves our government, businesses and individuals money by avoiding costs that become externalized on communities. We’ve seen Gov. John Kitzhaber emphasize this prevention model for controlling health care costs; it’s time to expand this approach to broader business regulation.

Take toxics for example. If we have regulations in place that help manufacturers avoid the use of chemicals of concern — such as known carcinogens and endocrine-disrupting chemicals — businesses save money by reducing their liability and protecting consumers and employees from hazardous chemicals. This is how Oregon companies like Nike, Adidas, YOLO Colorhouse and Neil Kelly are addressing toxics reduction. These companies are staying ahead of the curve to meet growing consumer demand for safer products while at the same time reducing their risk and improving their bottom line.

There is no question that the state can do a better job of implementing regulations more effectively — both to provide certainty for businesses, and to improve the results and outcomes of environmental regulations. But let’s not weaken these protections or create loopholes at the expense of the environment and public health. This approach merely displaces costs onto others, and leaves our government holding the bag for cleanup while consistently externalizing the impacts on less fortunate communities.

Our environment is one of Oregon’s greatest economic assets, and access to priceless natural resources, clean air and unpolluted water consistently rank as top reasons why this state is such a desirable place to live and do business. Let’s not compromise these assets because we’re experiencing historic economic hardships. In times of uncertainty, protecting our environment is exactly the kind of safe investment we should be making to ensure our long term prosperity. And smart regulations are the strategic roadmap Oregon needs to chart a successful course.