Headed for last place | LePage's pitch for regulatory change threatens a bipartisan legacy of environmental stewardship
The race to the bottom is on.
Gov. Paul LePage has officially entered Maine in a competition with states like Mississippi and Louisiana to erase bipartisan efforts that have protected our quality of life and enhanced Maine’s unique brand for generations. Less than 72 hours after saying “the regulations we have are good, strong and needed,” the governor released 63 major proposals that will reduce air quality, threaten wildlife habitat, allow pollution and encourage sprawl. Gov. LePage’s proposals put at risk Maine’s attractiveness as a place to live, work and raise a family.
This is an interesting starting point for a self-proclaimed pro-business governor. Gov. LePage says he based these proposals on his recent “red tape audit,” a series of conversations with business people across Maine. Time and again businesses have stressed health care and energy costs and access to a skilled work force as their chief concerns. Their regulatory qualms are more often about improving customer service through more timely, consistent application of existing rules. Gov. LePage reiterated this in his inaugural address, stating, “We can have vigorous protections for what makes Maine so great as long as the safeguards are clear, decisions are quick and we have a cooperative relationship between regulators and the private sector.”
Why then jeopardize decades of bipartisan efforts to protect and enhance Maine’s environmental and economic future? The answer is puzzling. Gov. LePage told more than 500 attendees at a Natural Resources Council of Maine forum that, “I believe in real, strong environmental laws. And I would never challenge a strong environmental law that is based in science.”
Why the haste to gut Maine’s environmental standards by repealing laws like the Kids Safe Products Act, passed unanimously in the Maine Senate and by a vote of 129-9 in the Maine House? His proposal ignores science and has no economic basis. The compounds are not produced locally so no Maine jobs are in jeopardy. In addition, safer, affordable substitutes are readily available. Like the producers of DDT decades ago, perfluorinated compound (PFC) makers would like to continue selling their products that increase cancer risks. But the long-term costs far outweigh the benefits.
Waldoboro business owner and Republican state Rep. Dana Dow explained his motivation to sponsor the Kids Safe Products Act. He linked high PFC levels found in his blood to soil repellant used at his furniture store. “I discontinued use of those chemicals because I did not want my employees exposed to it any longer,” he said. “Also, I didn’t want my customers exposed to it.”
Similarly, the science behind laws to recoup costs associated with recycling and disposing of consumer products is sound. The economic arguments for letting manufacturers off the hook are not. Without these laws, society would shoulder responsibility for safe disposal of things like mercury thermometers and switches, lead paint, batteries and computers.
Another stunning proposal from the governor is a requirement that the Land Use Regulation Commission zone three million of Maine’s 10 million acres of unorganized townships to permit development. This strikes at the heart of Maine’s iconic image as a refuge from pollution and sprawl. Former Republican state Sen. Horace Hildreth reminded the governor at NRCM’s forum that “Maine has some tough environmental laws, most of which were passed by Republican-controlled legislatures in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s.” He added that these laws “were passed in order to strike a balance between private interest and the public interest, to guide development and protect wildlife habitat.”
Maine businesses, families and communities depend on clean air, water and land for our success and well-being. Despite the governor’s reassurances, his administration appears ready to jeopardize Maine’s competitive advantage achieved by decades of bipartisan environmental leadership. This should concern all of us. More than ever, Maine’s business community must assert leadership to protect our most prized resources. As state Rep. Bob Duchense wrote in a Feb. 4 Bangor Daily News op-ed, “The effect of Maine’s environment on our economy is critical to our brand and our bottom line. The state’s forest-based manufacturing, tourism and recreation contribute $6.5 billion annually to Maine’s economy; wildlife-related recreation contributes $1.5 billion; and Maine’s fishing industry contributes $1 billion.”
Following models like Mississippi or Louisiana will not help Maine compete in the global economy. Protecting our environment, defending our quality of life and polishing the “Maine brand” will.
Following models like Mississippi or Louisiana will not help Maine compete in the global economy. Protecting our environment, defending our quality of life and polishing the “Maine brand” will.
Christopher St. John, executive director of the Maine Center for Economic Policy, can be reached at cstjohn@mecep.org. Read more Public Engagement here.
Most Recent
Most Recent
Comments