Is there any foolish and destructive idea peddled by conservative ideologues and big business CEOs that President Obama won’t buy into? I’ve come to doubt it. The latest manifestation of his efforts to accommodate these worthies is his just announced suspension of new anti-smog rules promulgated by his own EPA.

His reason for suspending them? Because, says the White House, their cost, an estimated $19 to $90 billion, is too great a burden in these difficult economic times. And by extension, that Republicans ideologues and big business CEOs are correct when they opine that environmental regulations generally are bad for the economy.

I’ve been writing about environmental economics off and on since the 1970s. I’ve written literally hundreds of articles and Op Eds on the subject, and several books. And here we are, 35 years after I started writing the same sane and sensible things that so many other sane and sensible people have also been saying over the decades, and it hasn’t done a damn bit of good. American policy setters, Democrat and Republican alike, are still “making the hard choices between environmental protection and economic well-being” when there is no such choice to be made.

Will these best-and-brightest ninnies ever learn? Frankly, I’ve come to believe this won’t happen in my own life time–at least not in this country. I’ll nonetheless lay out some obvious reasons here why new anti-smog rules should NOT be suspended for economic reasons, and indeed, should be promoted for these reasons. It won’t do any good, of course. But old habits die hard.

1. Polluter savings are other people’s spending. In recent decades there have been dozens, nay scores, nay hundreds of reports and studies that link air pollution to various health ailments. If a nearby polluter’s savings from not having to comply with tougher regulations runs up my own health bills and the health bills of everyone around me, is that a net economic gain for the economy? We’ve gotten rid of smoking indoors in countless places because we know that second-hand smoke is not just a health risk for non-smokers but runs up their health bills. Doesn’t the same logic apply with outdoor air quality costs? Or is this analogy too difficult for policy setters to understand?

2. Big polluter spending on compliance causes some payoffs, true, but also creates new jobs. Such outlays aren’t burned in a furnace behind the factory. They go to buy pollution control equipment and pay the people who install it. You want to create jobs in the environmental industry? This is one good way to do it.

3, Regulations promote innovation. The reason there’s such a wide spread in estimates about the costs of the new anti-smog rules is because when businesses are obliged to stop producing pollutants they come up with all sorts of solutions to comply at the lowest cost. Take away incentives such as these long enough and you’ll end up with big businesses as brain dead as the current White House. It’s also worth noting that innovative alternatives to straight forward compliance often generate products and services that can be sold abroad as well as in this country. We’ve already lost the solar market to China and the wind market to Northern European companies because we didn’t have strong enough energy regulations that led to growth of these industries domestically. How many other stupid policies along these same lines will be made in the name of not inconveniencing polluters?

4, Policy makers who look to countries like China and India with fast growth rates but poor environmental rules and compliance and think they are models to be followed understand nothing about the relationship of environmental protection and economic evolution. Poor rules and compliance are symptomatic of economies in their adolescent fast growth stage. In more advanced economies they are a sign of economic devolution and panic decision-making. Emulating China and India when it comes to environmental regulations is like emulating Pakistan’s and Haiti’s policies toward child labor. Do we really want to go that way? Is this the kind of future we should be working toward?

5. The idea that big companies can’t afford spending an extra $19 or even $90 billion on more stringent clean air regulations is just plain nonsense. These companies have an estimated $1.5 trillion they are not using to expand and hire. These new regs would have obliged them to do a bit of both. What will much of this money go toward instead? Probably buying back company stock so share prices will rise and CEO bonuses linked to this price will soar. Did the people who advised you to do what you just did, Mr. Obama, mention this trade-off?

6. And here’s the really important thing to keep in mind here. The thing that in this warped ideology-tinged era that is hardly ever spoken about. Talking about environmental regulation as being “bad” for business or “good” for business, as being destructive or productive, is just stupid generations. These regulations can and should be structured in ways to eliminate their down sides, their real economic pain, while preserving most of their good side and economic benefits. Many smaller firms could, in fact, be hurt financially and job-wise by more stringent air pollution regulations. So temporarily exclude from compliance companies with less than 100 employees. This and kindred policy shaping isn’t rocket science. Even someone in the White House should be able to understand it,

With this anti-smog backtrack, Barack Obama has not only not helped the economy, he has hurt the economy. He has also allowed our national environment to be further damaged. Politically, he given yet another finger in the eye to his supporters, and convinced those who oppose him that he can be convinced or bullied into doing damn near anything.

The other day a friend of mine emailed and wrote he will probably vote for Obama in 2012 because as bad as he is, this well-spoken empty suit will be better than the Republican alternative. So there it is, kids, Bad or worse in 2012. Brain dead of malign brained. Cry the beloved country!

More from (and about) this writer at http://cootavengers.com/