Trump’s regulatory rollbacks are bad for the environment and the economy 

Last week, the Trump administration announced plans to gut nearly every rule, program and office at the Environmental Protection Agency. This is just the latest step in a seismic shift of the federal government’s approach to public health and environmental quality. 

The administration has already paused funding for climate action, fast-tracked fossil-fuel energy related permits, rolled back methane emissions limits and opened public lands to unprecedented levels of drilling, mining and logging. They have fired thousands across the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Park Service, Forest Service, NOAA and the EPA, and are closing environmental justice offices dedicated to cleaning up America’s most polluted communities.   

Surely American voters do not suddenly hate clean air, clean water and spending time outside. They are not clamoring to get cancer and lung disease and to flee from burning homes. Few would think it is fair that race and income determine pollution exposure. 

So how are these actions being justified? The administration’s narrative weaves together two falsehoods to explain its attack on environmental regulation. 

The first is that markets will solve the problem when the government gets out of the way — if there is demand for clean air, clean water and parks, then markets will supply them. Second, even if markets don’t work, environmental protection stands in the way of economic growth. Indeed, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has described climate change as “a side effect of building the modern world.” 

These arguments tap into our values of economic progress, affordability and national security. They also play to our insecurities about being able to provide for our families. And, not surprisingly, they justify a massive giveaway of pollution privileges and wealth to private industry.  

Don’t be taken in. Environmental protection is both necessary and valuable — indeed, it is the foundation of a prosperous future for America and for the world.   

Markets are good at allocating many kinds of products, but they do not magically solve environmental problems. Environmental quality cannot be bottled and sold to consumers. The value of breathable air, clean drinking water and public parks is shared by many people at once. This means that firms have no incentive to produce these things. Instead they have an incentive to pollute for free to lower their production costs. Businesses that do not will lose out to those with fewer scruples.

Providing public goods and having industries properly account for their true costs requires effective government institutions. Economists agree on few things, but 45 leading economists from across the political spectrum publicly agreed in 2019 that government action was necessary to correct the global market failures driving climate change. 

Economists also agree that U.S. environmental regulations have led to meaningful decreases in major air and water pollutants and corresponding increases in public health since 1980. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy, as measured by conventional GDP, has increased by more than 200 percent. 

Research repeatedly documents that environmental protections that improve health and safeguard amenities can deliver net economic gains and that economies are resilient. For example, the economic benefits of the Clean Air Act, including de-leading gasoline, are estimated to be more than 30 times the costs. National parks and monuments have generated employment, income and small businesses. Old-growth forest protections led to job losses at first, but then to long-term economic growth driven by a new recreation economy. Moreover, the labor productivity and energy efficiency gains of climate regulation are substantial, and drive new, cost-reducing and competition-enhancing innovation. 

Still, even if environmental protection is necessary and generally affordable, no policy can be considered a success if its costs fall on those least able to pay for them. While imperfect, the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act harnessed more than $700 billion — and the heft of the federal government — to fight climate change in an economically fair way. 

These bills sought to lower energy costs and create jobs by funding local improvements like upgrading power grids, replacing polluting diesel school buses, helping U.S. farmers stay on their land and build resilience and revitalizing domestic solar, wind and battery manufacturing businesses. Much of this money was directed to clean up past legacies of disproportionate pollution. 

But, in its first weeks in office, the Trump administration has halted this positive economic and environmental transformation in its tracks. 

We need to see through the false narratives and realize that preserving a democratic government committed to sensible regulation is essential to preserving a healthy environment and a robust economy. Our elected officials are responsible for doing what markets cannot: providing clean air and water in every zip code, using public lands for real public interests, and safeguarding national ecological treasures. 

Longer lifespans free from pollution and natural disasters do not stand in the way of progress, they are the definition of progress. Americans can still come together to work for a future that is both affordable and clean. 

Katharine Sims is a professor of Economics and Environmental Studies at Amherst College. Jennifer Alix-Garcia is a professor of Applied Economics at Oregon State University. The authors are economists with over 20 years of experience evaluating the impacts of environmental policy. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Amherst or Oregon State.