|
|
|
 |
|
Home / Washington Business - November/December 2004 / Is State Over-Regulating the Environment? |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Is State Over-Regulating the Environment? |
|
|
|
Written On: November/December 2004 |
|
|
|
Written By: by Paul Schlienz |
|
|
|
More Flexibility and Real Science Needed to Solve Problems
This year’s best opportunity to learn about environmental issues was held in Seattle last month.
The 2004 Northwest Business Council, presented by AWB in partnership with the Northwest Environmental Business Council, was a true meeting of the minds.
Business owners; public officials, including Governor Gary Locke; regulators from federal and state environmental agencies; lobbyists representing business and environmental groups; plus a delegation from China were there. Approximately 250 people attended.
There was something for every interest. Panel discussions were divided into roundtables focused on environmental policy issues, a series on the nuts and bolts basics of environmental management, advanced sessions for management and technical personnel, and a track on market access strategies. The conference also provided environmental science firms an opportunity to make contacts with potential customers.
The conference was well attended. Environmental protection and regulations loom large on the radar screen of Washington’s business community.
In his luncheon address, Gov. Locke expressed the feelings of many at the conference when he called for regulatory reform at the state level.
“We must... continue to improve our own environmental regulatory system.” said Locke. “This means continuing to streamline processes and eliminate redundancies, while still protecting our environment and maintaining our quality of life.”
Washington’s regulations were spurred by the national emphasis on environmental protection in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The number of environmental regulations increased throughout the 1980s. Unfortunately, these rules were enacted piecemeal, and became confusing, contradictory and inconsistent.
In recent years, state government made real efforts to reform its environmental regulations. There is, however, much work that remains to be done in bringing consistency and predictability to agency rules.
“Washington needs a more flexible regulatory environment,” said Steve Mullin of Washington Roundtable, a participant in one of the conference’s panel discussions. According to Mullin, the problems with state regulations include:
• Too many decision-making bodies.
• State agencies that act outside of their jurisdictions.
• Decision making based on process instead of outcome.
• Regulations that don’t accomplish the goals for which they were intended.
For Washington’s regulated industries, toxics monitoring has become especially problematic.
“We seem to be racing toward a standard where if a substance can be detected, it will be automatically viewed as a pollutant and a problem, even if it is not actually causing harm,” stated Randy Ray, a spokesman for seafood processors. “We’re basing decisions on pop science, not real science.”
The Dept. of Ecology’s rule making process, which is well under way, is already ringing alarm bells in the business community. By December, DOE will develop chemical action plans for persistent bioaccumulative toxins — compounds thought to accumulate in plant and animal tissue and break down slowly.
“The draft CAP is recommending that all electronic products that contain deka-BDE (a flame-retardant substance) be banned from Washington,” remarked AWB’s Grant Nelson. “This is being done prior to having a firm understanding of deka, the risk it might pose to human health and the environment. We don’t even know the pathways of exposure.”
Nelson also points out that members of the environmental community are likely to recommend to DOE that businesses should be required to fund a collection/recycling program for electronic waste.
Washington state’s push to reduce greenhouse gases could also be a problem for the business community.
“Gov. Locke has set a goal of reaching 1990 levels of carbon dioxide by 2010,” AWB’s Kristen Sawin said. “The only way to do that is with some pretty onerous regulatory hammers.”
Sawin is also concerned that there may be a push to adopt California’s restrictive rules on transportation emission standards.
Such heavy-handed regulations are born from distrust of the business community’s intentions. The Northwest Environmental Conference provided ample evidence that there is much good faith in the business community.
AWB’s Environmental Excellence Awards were presented at the conference to companies that go the extra mile in environmental protection. The award winners included Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., Everett; the McGregor Company, Colfax; the NW Pipeline Corporation; Todd Pacific Shipyards, Seattle; Georgia-Pacific, Camas; Vulcan, Inc., Seattle; Cadman, Inc., North Bend; Canyon Creek Cabinet Company, Monroe; and the Nucor Steel Seattle, Inc., Seattle.
“Washington state’s businesses have consistently been leaders in finding ways to meet business and environmental objectives together,” said Ken Weiner of Preston Gates Ellis, the conference’s premiere sponsor. “It’s not just lip service. We have businesses that really are innovators and models.”
“Agriculture is a very large part of this state’s economy,” said Alex McGregor, whose family’s fertilizer and farm supply firm was honored for developing equipment that helps growers prevent soil erosion. “Agriculture is a business of farm families who have a deep and abiding love for the land. We have worked with those families for a very long time in conjunction with university scientists as well, continuing to look for ways to produce bountiful crops while making significant gains in stewardship of the land.”
Washington’s heavy industry has also made great strides to be responsible environmental stewards. Nucor Steel’s Seattle mill was awarded for reducing energy use per ton of steel shipped to a level approximately 75 percent lower than the U.S. mill average.
“If a company is proactive, you get to decide how you want to go about being the most efficient,” said Nucor’s Bart Kale, explaining why businesses like Nucor act on their own rather than waiting for state mandates. “This allows you to be innovative.”
The Environmental Excellence Awards prove that healthy corporate bottom lines and good environmental policies are far from mutually exclusive goals. Indeed, a theme heard repeatedly at the conference is that Washington can’t have one without the other.
“A healthy environment in Washington is required to attract and maintain business,” DOE’s Linda Hoffman observed in a conference discussion. “We also need a healthy economy to pay for a healthy environment.”
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
