Substandard: Why the Goalposts for Safety and Environmental Standards Keep Moving

Smoke stacks from a coal power plant, in this file photo. Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

Commentary 

When we talk about risk, we’re making an assessment of potential danger. Ideally, we’re personally qualified to make that assessment.

Most people would say, for example, that crossing in the middle of a quiet residential street after carefully looking both ways isn’t dangerous behavior, even though jaywalking is often illegal. On the other hand, most people would say that crossing a busy intersection blindfolded, with music blaring in headphones, is inherently dangerous.

In each case, most adults are perfectly capable of assessing the potential dangers using only their common sense and experience to do so. No outside expertise is required. Because no outside expertise is required, the decision maker has no need to assess the veracity, the experience, or the motivations of another person attempting to advise them. This is the ideal way to make decisions about risk. But as we previously discussed, in an increasingly complex world, it becomes more and more difficult to make decisions involving risk based on our personal experiences and knowledge alone.

There are three sorts of experts who may weigh in on a complex discussion. There are experts who have personal agendas. There are experts who have organizational agendas. And there are experts associated with regulatory bodies who are most often a hybrid of the first two.

This last sort, the public sector expert, is often the source of confusion and sometimes misinformation when issues involve risk. In part, this is because the public sector expert often isn’t really an expert at all. Some of these may admit it but retreat to the blanket protection of “I’m just following what the rules say.” Others may assume the aura of an expert because they believe their position automatically bestows it.

There are legitimate experts in the public sector. And there are people in the public sector occupying positions that require a certain level of expertise who will freely admit that they don’t possess it. We'll put these positive cases to the side for now and limit our discussion to how the faux, unapologetic public sector expert affects perceptions of risk in our society.

Moving the Goalposts

Many public sector experts base their judgments on publicly published standards, many of which are actively enforced by the appropriate regulatory authority. We have standards for the amount of contamination that may be found in our air, water, and soil. We have standards that specify minimum dietary requirements for certain vitamins and minerals. We have standards that affect the way our automobiles are designed, the way our homes are built, the way our streets are laid out, and the way myriad other factors in our everyday lives are designed and maintained.

Most of the time, maintaining standards is a positive on the whole for society. But some of the time, standards are used to support a narrowly defined cause rather than in support of sound public policy.

There was a time in many municipalities, for example, when professional plumbing interests were successful in having the use of PVC plumbing components banned. A reason commonly given was risk-based: When PVC burns, it generates hydrochloric acid, which is dangerous in relatively low concentrations. Eventually, this line of thinking was dismissed as people began to realize that the high temperatures needed to generate hydrochloric acid from plumbing components would have certainly already killed any occupant who might be there to breathe those fumes.

The real objective was likely to prevent people from undertaking do-it-yourself plumbing projects instead of hiring plumbers. The skills required to perform plumbing tasks using PVC piping are far less complex than the sophisticated skills that plumbers need to possess to work with metal components.

In this writer’s field of expertise, standards for the amount of contaminants allowed in the air, water, and soil have been continually reduced over the past 50 years. It’s a process often referred to as “moving the goalposts.” Defenders of the technique claim that doing so reduces misery, cuts down on medical problems, and saves money. While this argument may have been true in the early days of modern environmental regulation, many scientists, including this one, doubt that it’s true any longer.

Who Benefits?

Though it’s rarely talked about, the process of moving the goalposts benefits two groups both in financial terms and in the accumulation of power and influence. These two groups are environmentally focused, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and politicians who wish to be perceived as the sworn enemy of the dirty rotten polluters.

If the goalposts don’t keep moving, then an environmental NGO wouldn’t be able to publish a fundraising letter claiming that millions of Americans are breathing “dirty” air and drinking “contaminated” water. Continually making standards more stringent keeps environmental NGOs relevant and keeps the donations coming in.

Similarly, many politicians make their green credentials one of the centerpieces of their campaigns. Take away the illusion of risk that changing standards provide, and you take away talking points that are very important to many people in elected positions.

A fair-minded review of the data for the past 50 years demonstrates beyond a doubt that America is a far cleaner country than it was half a century ago. It shows that compared to most industrial centers in Asia and in parts of the old Soviet bloc, our environmental credentials are vastly superior. In that context, these ever-changing standards aren’t necessary to protect public health and the environment, but they are necessary to protect the livelihoods and reputations of people who routinely exaggerate risks and who take advantage of those frightened by that message.

Half a century ago, reasonable standards were set in order to initiate a badly needed national clean-up. That made sense. The time and expense were worth it. We have now entered an era where unreasonable standards, designed to exploit obsessive perceptions of risk, are becoming the order of the day. The knee-jerk reaction traded “Odd Couple” Oscar Madison’s devil-may-care attitude for Felix Unger’s obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Neither is healthy. We should have sympathy for our fellow citizens who suffer from the paralysis that environmental OCD induces, but we needn’t follow their lead.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.