|
|
 |
 |
| |
False Economy
Expensive solutions. Diminished competitiveness. Job loss.
 Protecting
the environment is expensive, and it's bad for business - at least
that's the standard claim from industry any time new environmental
regulation is proposed.
The reality may be just the opposite though.
Studies, such as one done by the Economic Policy Institute in Washington,
D.C., a few years ago, show that the actual costs of compliance tend
to be far lower than those predicted by program opponents. In fact,
some companies actually end up saving money as a result.
One reason for this is many companies over estimate the cost of new
technology and machinery needed to reach compliance. These same companies
then fail to consider the reduced costs of operating newer equipment,
which tends to be more efficient than the gear it replaced. Another
aspect of this is since the new equipment is a capital expenditure,
its costs need to be factored over the life of the equipment and not
just as an up front cost of compliance.
And for an additional irony, once businesses do reach compliance,
most then run PR campaigns advertising their environmental "leadership."
Then there's the other side of the coin.
Weather-related damage and destruction is expected to cost more than
$70 billion in 2002 according findings presented at the 8th Conference
of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change. This comes on top of $56 billion in such damages last year.
Many scientists cite global environmental changes from greenhouse
gases as being at least partly responsible for the increased number
and ferocity of storms and other weather-related events.
This may be small potatoes though. At least one United States based
think tank is predicting that storm-related damages will produce an
average of more than $150 billion a year in losses to banks and insurance
agencies over the next 10 years.
Yet business and government never consider such environmental "expenses"
when they talk about the cost of environmental regulation, even though
they're the same ones facing increased insurance and financing costs
as banks and insurance companies try to recover losses from weather
events.
|
|
|
|
