In the Long Run, EPA Decision May Do More Harm than Good for Environmentalism

     As budget debates continue in Washington about what and where to cut, the EPA may have just shot itself in the foot. It was announced today that the EPA had ruled to deny Shell Oil the necessary permits to drill for oil off the coast of Alaska. This ruling is set to cost Shell almost 4 billion dollars and the public “an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil”. The ruling, meant to protect a village of less than 300 people 70 miles from the drill site, is already drawing harsh criticism from conservative groups.

     Mike Brownfield of the Heritage Foundation has already taken the opportunity to condemn the decision and call for an expansion of domestic oil production. Conservatives have attacked the EPA decision for its poor justification as well as its likely impact on oil production and gas prices in the future. While it’s no surprise that conservatives tend to oppose the EPA, this new ruling is likely to give them a great deal of momentum in selling the idea to the American people.

     Even liberal groups appear to be anticipating the unpopularity of the decision. While liberals and environmentalists have long been supporters of the EPA and its mission, liberals have been largely quiet about this ruling so far. It seems likely that liberal groups are not willing to waste political capital defending a decision that is likely to draw disdain from an American public that is desperate for some way to lower gas prices soon. Considering the major budget debates still to come, democrats may have decided to be careful about picking their battles and let this issue go. This is a lesson the EPA itself may want to take to heart.

     The Republican budget plan put forth by Paul Ryan has already called for significant defunding of the EPA. If the EPA continues to block oil drilling for dubious justifications, it will only make it harder for liberals to defend the agency to the American people. If the EPA wants to survive it should consider being more open to compromise and take a more moderate stance in the future. If the EPA continues to make such controversial decisions, it likely won’t survive long enough to do any good for its cause in the years to come.  

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Steve Michaels

Twitter: SteveMichaels5