In the 1970’s two monumental laws were passed that increased the government’s control over businesses and the environment. The Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Water Act of 1972 pose problems to some businesses, but ultimately the benefits to the environment outweigh the minimal economic effects.
The Clean Water Act of 1972 allows the Environmental Protection Agency to decide which pollutants will be allowed in bodies of water and requires people or organizations that dispose of pollutants in this way to have a permit. While some companies oppose this act because they claim it effects the economy negatively, it is actually very costly to have water pollution on a large scale. Usnews.com states that “In Ohio last year, blooms of toxic algae caused mostly by farm runoff hurt the tourist economy on Lake Erie’s south shore. Tourism there brings in $1.8 billion per year. In Toledo, Ohio, alone, in just one weekend, $3-$4 million was lost when restaurants and other businesses had to close due to lack of clean water” (Brodwin). There will never be a time where every company, business, or plant is content with every law or regulation passed that affects them, but government intervention is necessary so that the environment is not negatively affected by the disposal of pollutants into bodies of water. Humans require clean water to live, so in turn, any business that provides drinking water to the public or uses water for activities benefits from pollutant free water supply. Without environmental government regulations like the Clean Water Act, many lakes, rivers, and streams would be overrun with pollutants and ecosystems would be destroyed.
The main purpose of the Clean Air Act is to control the pollution that is emitted mainly from cars and factories. After the act was passed Richard Nixon, who was the president at the time, told reporters he thought “that 1970 will be known as the year of the beginning, in which we really began to move on the problems of clean air and clean water and open spaces for the future generations of America” (Meyer). The number of cars and factories in America has been growing for many years, which leads to more pollution in the air that we breathe. The United States government increasing its involvement in the environmental welfare of the country will only benefit the well-being of the planet and the health of future generations of US citizens. According to ucsusa.org, the Clean Air Act has been influential in cutting “ground-level ozone, a dangerous component of smog, by more than 25 percent since 1980” and reducing “the lead content in gasoline, which has cut lead air pollution by 92 percent since 1980” (The Clean), among other improvements to the environment. In some countries, such as Pakistan, the pollution and smog is bad enough to cause thousands of deaths and traffic accidents (Ahmed). Without government intervention and laws, the United States would be much more vulnerable to out of control levels of pollution which can lead to casualties. The overall health of American citizens leads to a more productive society as a whole, which counteracts the issues that face businesses due to this act.
While most Americans support the Clean Air Act, many businesses had to dramatically change the way they operated in order to be within the new standards. Thus, this act poses a threat to the American economy because many factories cost more to operate due to the need to implement pollution controls. Opponents of the CAA feared that because of these new government regulations, factories and plants would have to be shut down, leading to the loss of jobs. But, under President Nixon’s direction a report on the status of the Clean Air Act was published and it stated that, “Of the approximately 12,000 plants in the industries studied, approximately 200–300 plants would be likely to close between 1972 and 1976 due to environmental regulations. However, the report noted that many of these plants were likely to have closed anyway because they were economically vulnerable for other reasons” (Ferris). So, many of the plants studied were able to adjust accordingly and in turn help to save the environment.
While factories still dispute these regulations with the EPA today, more benefits are being found that counteract the effects of some job and sales losses. The increase in legislature on the environment creates jobs because people are needed to enforce and regulate these laws, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency employed 15,408 people in 2017 (Benefits). Another way the regulations benefit the public is through increased health. The degradation of the environment has an effect on the mortality rate of citizens that work, which can hurt the labor force and productivity. Pollution can also damage materials and machinery “thereby increasing the depreciation rate of physical capital and causing damages to buildings and structures of cultural and historical significance…air pollution has the potential to affect agriculture and forestry” (Ferris). Therefore, unregulated pollution can have negative effects on tourism to the country and crop production. Overall the benefits of the government being involved in reducing pollution outweigh the minimal negative effects to the economy.
Government involvement in the environment has brought about new laws and innovations that help society and the environment every day. For example, electric cars were invented to reduce the amount of smog and pollutants that are released into the air by regular cars. Scientists are also always researching more environmentally safe forms of energy and power. Three years after the Clean Air Act of 1970 was signed, the Endangered Species Act was signed which protects endangered or threated species and their ecosystems. This is one of many examples of legislation put into place following the two major acts previously discussed. Today, the Environmental Protection Agency, under the federal government, continues to provide jobs, research, and regulate more areas of the environment to ensure that American citizens are keeping America a healthy and safe place to visit and live.
Despite the fears of some regarding the government’s growth to regulate major parts of the environment, this change has had overwhelmingly positive effects on public health and the quality of the environment.