Madwriter

Those of you who follow my blog may find this editorial somewhat familiar.

(I lucked out in having this appear in the post-Election Day paper, which has sold a higher-than-usual number of copies on the stands.)

In my historical novels I tend to write a lot about nature and all varieties of humankind's interactions with it over the generations. So inevitably when I'm doing research for them I run across numerous examples of the way the world was before environmental regulations. Questions about business aside, every new book reinforces my idea that a lot of people calling for massive cuts or outright elimination of environmental regulations feel comfortable doing so because they don't realize how much they've benefited from those regulations.

If you are in favor of broad deregulation, here's an easy question to ask yourself--and answer yourself honestly, now--for you to determine just how deep that desire goes: Would you be willing to eliminate zoning in your own neighborhood to the point where you would invite heavy industry to live next door to you?

There are several shades to this question, not just the literal one.

If there's one thing that keeps making itself clear about the pre-regulatory industrial world (and other countries whose regulations are currently lax), it's that pollution has a long, long reach. Even in this regulated land of ours, living miles away from a polluter is no guarantee of protection from its effects. (Lung cancer doesn't come solely from cigarette smoke, after all, despite what the mainstream media would imply.)

So imagine the pollution multiplied enormously. (Again.) We know that water pollution, especially along rivers and atop groundwater aquifers, can affect people hundreds of miles away from the source. Air pollution can hurt people from one end of a continent to the other. The effects are both direct (like cancer) and indirect (like acid rain damaging or ruining crops and livestock).

So if you deregulate, you're figuratively inviting a factory into your neighborhood. If you're OK with that, then fine--your support for deregulation is across the board. If you're not OK with that, then ask yourself why you're willing to put others at risk but not yourself.

And then there's still the literal answer to my question. Environmental rules aren't the only big factor keeping business down; local zoning regulations are just as great an issue.

If you're for deregulation but you wouldn't be willing to eliminate local zoning, then why not? I won't argue that there would be economic benefits to deregulation, but sooner or later there would be inevitable personal negatives too. You can't have one without the other, and if you're not willing to risk the negatives for yourself and your family, then you're not really in favor of deregulation.